Fishermen and fishing-dependent business owners staged protest rallies in every major port, hundreds of letters and phone calls were made to Congress, elected representatives stood on their soapboxes, Congress held hearings – the complaints went on and on for more than two years.

From New Jersey to Down East Maine, the outcry was loud and it was clear: “Enough is enough.” “Amendment 13 is not necessary.” “Fish stocks have tripled.” “Leave the current plan in place, otherwise fishermen will go out of businesses – the infrastructure will crumble.”

Amendment 13 is the product of a narrow and rigid interpretation, by a judge in a D.C. courthouse, of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Despite repeated claims by congressional leaders, that the court’s interpretation actually contradicts their “intent,” lawmakers have not followed up with action necessary to clarify that intent.

It has become common practice for the environmental industry and the press to suggest that groundfish stocks in New England are on the “verge of collapse” and that fishermen resist all regulations, even those that are necessary, even though a careful examination of the record would prove otherwise.

The government’s analysis of Amendment 13’s impacts is stunning. Up to $200 million in revenue ripped from the economy in just the first year of the plan and as many as 3,000 fishing and fishing-dependent jobs lost.

But perhaps most shocking of all: Fish stocks have tripled in less than 10 years and will continue to grow even if no further restrictions are put in place. In some cases fishing effort can actually increase without jeopardy to stock recovery.

And what is the response of the public agency responsible for fisheries management to its own biological and economic projections? Not what one might expect. Instead of defending the existing conservation plan, the National Marine Fisheries Service has repeatedly stated: “We are committed to meeting the court-ordered deadline for implementation of Amendment 13.” And because of that refusal to defend the existing plan and prevent unnecessary economic harm to fishing families, the New England Fishery Management Council was compelled to recommended additional restrictions on the groundfish industry.

Before the ink was dry on the New England council’s decision, environmental litigants were already threatening another lawsuit. Despite the forecast that Amendment 13 would put every fishing business below break even, the environmental industry claimed that Amendment 13 would not go far enough. In response, lawmakers once again bemoaned the waste of hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars in order to respond to more litigation.

Finally, one U.S. senator has responded with something other than promises. While legislation to “provide flexibility to fisheries managers” languishes in Congress, Sen. Susan Collins has stepped firmly on the brakes – at least for a short while – of what so many have called the Amendment 13 “train wreck.”

Surprisingly, there is now a new outcry from lawmakers, environmental litigants and even some in the fishing industry in opposition to Sen. Collins’ action. Some congressional representatives who, for months, spoke against Amendment 13, now say Amendment 13 must go forward. Environmental litigants, who force fisheries management decisions behind courtroom doors in a place out of reach of New England fishing communities, now deride the senator for “short-circuiting the public process.” Most shocking of all, some in the fishing industry, likely those who eked out an advantage in Amendment 13, now speak against the very action they asked for.

In the days following the New England council’s decision on Amendment 13, Sen. Collins spoke out on the floor of the Senate, pointing to the minor biological and economic gains that the crippling new restrictions will yield, the major disadvantages to Maine fishermen, and the cost to taxpayers by uncompromising and unrelenting fisheries litigation.

Does Sen. Collins’ bold action provide a lasting solution to these terrible problems? The answer is no. The only long-term fix that will allow healthy fish stocks and stable fishing communities is meaningful clarification of the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. That could not happen too soon.

Sen. Collins’ efforts may ultimately fall to the will of others, but her willingness to stand alone in defense of Maine fishermen will long be remembered and admired.

Lendall Alexander of Harpswell is the president of Associated Fisheries of Maine.