Different Angle

The New England Fishery Management Council has taken a lot of well-deserved heat lately. Just last week, there was outrage from all sides about the council’s proposed rules for reducing overfishing. Such criticism is frequently directed at the eight such councils nationwide. Fishermen complain that the commission’s rules are too harsh, while conservationists criticize them for being too weak.

So, it was no surprise that a report released Wednesday by the Pew Charitable Trusts found that the fishery management council system is “fundamentally flawed.” The biggest problem, according to three scientists from Stanford University who wrote the report, is that the councils are heavily weighted toward fishing interests, at the expense of conservation. This is compounded by the fact that the councils are responsible for both conserving fish and allocating fishing effort among fishermen.

To fix this situation, Pew suggests including more conservation representatives on the council and passing the conservation work on to another entity, perhaps the National Marine Fisheries Service, which now reviews, but rarely rejects, council rules.

The Pew study identifies the right problems, but offers the wrong solutions.

The regional council system, which was put in place in the 1970s, does not work because the groups are trying to do too much. Regulating fishing from the Bay of Fundy to Narragansett Bay with the same set of rules does not make sense. Rather, as proposed by Maine fishermen and scientists, a more localized approach may work better. Such a system could be modeled on the state’s lobster zone management concept, which has been touted nationwide.

Under this approach, rules would be tailored to meet local conditions, both ecological and economic. In addition, local fishermen would do well to follow the rules because they would be held responsible if the economic health of their community fluctuated with the health of local fish stocks. Under the current system, it is easy for Maine fishermen to blame their troubles on decisions made by counterparts in Rhode Island or elsewhere.

Major changes to the New England regulatory scheme can’t be made now because new rules, which must meet a federal judge’s requirements, need be put in place by May 1. However, discussion of changes – and their implications – would fit well with the long overdue reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, also known as the Fishery Conservation and Management Act. That review will be led by Sen. Olympia Snowe, chair of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans, Fisheries and Coast Guard, who has let NMFS know that she is not pleased with the current regulatory system.

All sides agree there should be changes to the system. It makes sense to take time to ensure the right changes are made.