The reaction from the fishing industry to proposed new regulations announced this week was swift and predictable. “It’s a bullet, poison, a knife or a rope… Any of these options is death for the industry,” said a Massachusetts fisherman after the New England Fisheries Management Council proposed strict quotas and area closures to meet a court order to reduce fish mortality. Although they will do grave harm to the state’s fishing industry – at least in the short term – tougher laws are needed for two reasons.

The first is because a federal judge ruled in 2000 that federal fisheries officials were not abiding by a congressional mandate to conserve dwindling groundfish species, including cod, haddock and flounder. The ruling was the result of a lawsuit filed earlier that year in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the National Marine Fisheries Service by five conservation groups. Judge Gladys Kessler has shown that she is serious about getting NMFS back into compliance with its mandate, but also that she is reasonable by accepting a compromise agreement crafted by fishermen, state officials and one conservation group rather than developing her own solution. However, she has made it clear that if the new rules she ordered don’t live up to her requirements, she will not accept them.

The second reason tougher regulations are needed is because the fisheries management council has a long history of developing weak regulations that do little to protect fish. It is good news that they have gotten the message and come up with four tough alternatives, including reducing fishing days by 65 percent or implementing hard catch quotas for specific species.

The rules, which will be the subject of public hearing this summer before being finalized by the council and put into effect next season, will have drastic consequences on fishermen, likely putting many of them out of businesses. Estimates are that 2,100 to 3,000 fishermen could lose their jobs in the first year. Alternative one, which would reduce days at sea by up to 65 percent, would have the least impact. Still more than 300 jobs in Maine would be lost.

Although tougher rules are needed to allow fish stocks to rebuild, which is happening with some species, it is not clear that this version of Amendment 13 is the only possible answer. The fisheries management council should continue to consider the viability of a proposal from fishermen to achieve the same goals by different means, including gear modifications, a ban on night fishing and more limited quotas. Just as there are conflicting reports on the vibrancy of the ocean’s ecosystems – recent scientific studies have found that 90 percent of the seas’ large species have disappeared in recent decades, while government reports show that 70 commercial species are growing in number – there can be competing plans to improve the situation.

No matter what happens, Maine and New England’s fishermen are going to suffer. It is imperative that the final rules minimize the suffering while also protecting fish.