From the failed promise of the Magnuson Act of 1976 through the fishing grounds closures and catch restrictions of the 1990s, it has been a confusing and agonizing quarter-century for the American marine fishing industry. New proposals being considered by federal regulators to let foreign trawlers work U.S. territorial waters add to the confusion and are almost certain to prolong the agony.

The proposals by the Mid-Atlantic and New England fisheries management councils under review by the National Marine Fisheries Service would allow foreign factory trawlers – the same trawlers banned by Magnuson – back into American waters.

They won’t come just to buy herring and mackerel from American boats, as they can do now under certain joint-venture agreements, but to actually fish for those species. The justification for this suggested turnabout is that herring and mackerel are in abundance and thus are an underutilized resource.

The objections being raised by Eastern Seaboard fishermen are numerous and valid. The persistent shortage of herring for lobster bait casts doubt upon the stock assessment suggesting abundance. Allowing foreign factory trawlers to fish where American vessels of the same size are prohibited is unfair. The use of catch allotments as an incentive to encourage new joint ventures worth, at best, $1 million industry-wide is essentially a U.S taxpayer subsidy for foreign corporations, given the enormous amounts of money spent on boat buybacks and retraining and other support programs for displaced fishermen.

But the fundamental objection is that these proposals are further evidence that American fishing policy, though ostensibly a master plan guided by a basic principle, is as haphazard as ever. The basic principle is long-term ecosystem management; these proposals are the same old short-term exploitation of specific species. By extending territorial waters to 200 miles and driving foreign vessels out, Magnuson was supposed to spark a revival of the U.S. fishing industry. It might have, too, had not Congress tied it to a subsidized loan program that made owning fishing vessels very attractive to syndicates of investors with no investment in the continued health of the ocean. The resulting overfishing, combined with climate change and environmental degradation, put the natural balance so out of kilter that widespread closures and severe catch restrictions were seen as urgently needed to prevent total collapse.

Through all the pain and suffering these steps caused, federal regulators promised fishermen the ultimate goal was to bring all species back to sustainable levels, to restore balance, to give big, high-value fish plenty of little low-value fish to eat.

If herring and mackerel are, in fact, in abundance, that’s good. The resurgence of species in the middle of the food chain suggests the marine ecosystem may be on the mend. But their value as food for bigger fish is far greater than the value of a few cut-rate joint ventures. It’s almost as great as the value of keeping a promise.