from historical low levels in the mid-90s, and according to the National Marine Fisheries Service, landings for Gulf of Maine cod are near target levels and there is evidence of a decent year class coming on.
      According to NMFS Chief of Research Communications, Teri Frady, both the NMFS and Massachusetts trawl surveys for the Gulf of Maine last fall showed indications of a 1998 year class. "We'll be able to quantify it better after this year's spring and fall surveys," said Frady. "We're not looking at a giant year class, but at least it's something."
      Frady pointed out that the fish showing up in the Gulf of Maine surveys are mostly one year olds, and that they will not be sexually mature for another year and a half. "If these fish survive another year, that will really help."
      But many fishermen in the Gulf of Maine say the cod are already there and the scientists won't admit it. "I have a hard time with these people who deal with numbers," said David Goethel, a New Hampshire draggerman. "You can make numbers say anything you want. They're happy with getting landings down below target levels, but all they've done is convert landings to discards. Our catch hasn't declined from last year. We landed 798 metric tons of cod and left the other 3,300 tons out there dead."

Hard Choices
      The trigger that set the daily trip limit for Gulf of Maine cod last May led to massive discards of cod. Rick Bubar, a gillnetter out of Stonington, Maine, brought his gear ashore and sold it rather than throw good fish overboard. "We kept our multispecies permit and we'll get back into it if the situation changes," said Bubar's wife Jen. "But now we're wondering what's coming down the road with latent permits. It's tough to stay on top of everything that goes on. Things are so complicated."
      The Bubars are among the many fishing families who have shifted to other fisheries rather than contend with the increasingly complex multispecies management regime.
      Goethel, on the other hand, is hanging in there in spite of the stresses involved. "We're very active, trying to call attention to the problems and still live on 50% less income. My marriage has suffered," said Goethel. "Our kids have gone without the attention they deserve. People are exhausted. We've seen a 30% reduction in the small boat fleet here."
      Those who have stayed active are at least getting used to a difficult situation that may still get worse before it gets better. Last October, the "State of the Stocks Report" identified 13 stocks under the multispecies fisheries management plan (FMP) as overfished, which will mean further measures to control fishing mortality.
      But recent adjustments to the multi-species FMP, recommended by the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC), met with less contention than the measures adopted in 1999. Goethel is at least satisfied with the latest proposal from the council, which set the daily/trip limit for Gulf of Maine cod at 400 pounds a day, 4,000 pounds per trip. Given the amount of cod out there, 400 pounds is still too low, said Goethel. "But at least we won't be throwing as many fish overboard."

Latent Effort
      Still to come however, will be new measures stemming from the NEFMC's next amendment to the FMP. Among other items on the table for Amendment 13 will be latent permits and essential fish habitat (EFH).
      Fishermen who have left the multi-species fishery, like Rick Bubar, and are sitting on the sidelines waiting for the situation to improve, are considered "latent effort," and seen by some as a threat to existing management measures. Regulations geared for existing effort could become totally inappropriate if a large portion of latent effort entered the fishery.
      "We saw a 25 percent increase in days being used last year," said council member, Barbara Stevenson. "There are a large number of latent days at sea out there. The question is, as the fish come back, will the increases be caught by those boats now in the fishery, or dissipated among new boats entering the fishery?"
      According to Stevenson there are no right or wrong actions for dealing with the latent effort issues. "It depends on what your objectives are," she said. "Some people say, 'use it or lose it.'" Advocates of "use it or lose it" recommend taking days-at-sea away from fishermen who do not use them. "That would give the people currently in the fishery the benefit," said Stevenson. "The other argument is that the people who are sitting it out should get the benefits, because they are giving the fishery a break."
      Proctor Wells believes the objective should be to allow fishermen to fish and stay flexible. "Eliminating latent effort will penalize the guys who made the biggest sacrifice by not fishing."

Essential Fish Habitat
      Fishermen will also be facing pressure to address the issue of essential fish habitat. The Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) calls for protection of essential fish habitat, and in the past two years a variety of environmental groups including the Marine Conservation Biology Institute, a scientific and conservation organization headquartered in Redmond, Washington, and the Rockland, Maine-based Coast Watch, have launched vigorous campaigns against trawling. While some fishermen admit there are problems with mobile gear, and are working to limit its use in critical areas, they are leery of painting all fishermen with one brush, as U.S. Congressman Joel Hefley is attempting to do.
      Hefley, a Republican from Colorado introduced a bill before Congress last October calling for a moratorium on the use of mobile gear on various fishing grounds around the U.S. coasts, including Nantucket Shoals, Stellwagon Bank and Cashes Ledge.
      "Congressman Hefley introduced the bill because he is an active fishermen and has been since he was a kid," said Sarah Sheldon, Hefley's press secretary.
      "Congressman Hefley is calling for a moratorium on the use of mobile gear in certain areas until the National Marine Fisheries Service can study the feasibility of harvesting in ways that have less impact," said Sheldon. "He hates to see seabeds destroyed. Once those machines come through an area, it could take years to come back."
      Hefley has not considered taking on shore-based activities that damage the marine environment. "He's only looking at trawling," said Sheldon.
      So far Hefley's bill has seven co-sponsors, only one from a coastal state, Rep. Robert Andrews of New Jersey. The bill is in committee and may be acted on some time this year. Sheldon believes the bill will have a tough time in committee though, because chairman Don Young of Alaska opposes it.

Sharing Responsibility
      New Hampshire draggerman, David Goethel originally thought the SFA habitat requirements would give fishermen a tool to deal with land based activities that damage critical habitat. "The habitat issue has been circumvented," he said. "They took a good idea and twisted it so that all we're looking at is creating 'no fishing' zones." According to Goethel, blackback flounder are particularly susceptible to nearshore pollution.
      "They come inshore to spawn and it has been demonstrated that heavy metals and PCBs found in estuaries can damage egg and larval development."
      Goethel also points out that powerplant cooling systems are having a major impact on the marine ecosystem. "At Brayton Point Power Plant in Somerset, Massachusetts, their entrainment [cooling system] sucks in over 6 million blackbacks a year. That's more than the commercial harvest. You suck in fish from water that's 40 degrees and spit them back out again at 100, it doesn't do them much good."
      NMFS and the Council are trying to address issues that they can get a handle on, according to Mike Pentony, chair of the council's EFH technical committee. "In our EFH amendment we've identified almost the entire ecosystem as essential fish habitat for one species or another and we're working on analyzing the benefits to EFH within existing regulations. Closing areas, limits on streetsweeper and rock hopper gear all provide some benefit to habitat.
      "The National Marine Fisheries Service also has a consultative review process for projects that effect EFH, and we've requested increased reviews. The Council makes recommendations to state agencies, suggesting ways to minimize impacts, such as closed cooling systems for power plants."
      Pentony points out that there is no way for the Council to track its recommendations in the non-fishing sector. But, he claims, agencies are pulling the Council in earlier on projects, which he considers a positive sign. Pentony sees the EFH requirements as a way to achieve sustainable resources, not create allocation issues by gear type.
      Paul Parker, director of the Cape Cod Hook Fishermen's Association, originally took an aggressive stance toward the use of mobile gear in sensitive areas, but has since changed tactics in an effort to avoid a fisherman against fisherman confrontation. "We don't want to ban anything," said Parker. "We want to provide incentives for fishermen to keep mobile gear on soft bottom." Parker suggests that many draggermen are already being proactive and avoiding the hard bottom areas which provide refuge to juvenile cod. He claims others could be convinced through the use of incentives such as increased days-at-sea for using low impact gear.
      Parker is also advocating for a more stringent review process of coastal development projects. "We're hearing that there is a lot of activity in Washington aimed at weakening the consultative process," said Parker. "Just because it's politically difficult to deal with people who have a lot of money doesn't mean we can't hold them to the same standard we hold commercial fisherman to. This is something all fishermen can get behind. EFH was put into the Sustainable Fisheries Act to protect fishermen's interests, but it being prejudicially used against us."

The Big Picture
      On the other side of the Gulf of Maine, Shelburne, Nova Scotia, fisherman, Evan Walters considers warming seas and biological problems such as pfiesteria - a dinoflagellate responsible for major fish kills in Chesapeake Bay - as the biggest threat to fish stocks. "We're scared spitless," said Walters, who chairs the Scotia Fundy Inshore Fishermen's Association. "We're living on one-sixth of the catch we used too, and now we've got these environmental problems coming at us." Walters blames rising water temperatures in the Gulf for major changes in fish movement. "In 1998 we had a lot of small haddock around, this year we had none," said Walters. "It's the environment that determines recruitment, not biomass." Like many others on both sides of the border, Walters wants to see better science.

New Science
      "I think they ought to revamp the whole system," said Proctor Wells. Wells pointed out that an industry-financed assessment of bluefin tuna stocks forced NMFS to retool its estimate of bluefin stock abundance. Wells believes fishermen can prove to regulators that there are more cod in the Gulf of Maine than the assessment estimates.
      "It's easy to criticize the system that's already in place," said Phil Haring of the NEFMC. "The science definitely has its shortcomings, but the record shows their predictions are pretty good. If the scientists at the Center [Northeast Fisheries Science Center in Wood's Hole, Mass.] say biomass is x and fishing mortality is z, they may look at the following year's information and change that some, but the trends they identify are pretty accurate." Haring notes that even NMFS scientists admit they need more information. "They need more port sampling, more sea sampling, the trawl survey is maxed out," he said.
      Although money and the lack of qualified people in the scientific community have held up the development of more accurate assessments, that situation is changing, and as money becomes available, so do new ideas. New Hampshire fisherman David Goethel is currently working with University of New Hampshire biologist Hunt Howell, to develop locally based research projects.
      "Although I believe the people doing the current assessment are doing an honest job, we're concerned that science is being done on a large scale and then used to manage fisheries on a small scale," said Howell, noting the rolling closures which affect relatively narrow areas of the Gulf of Maine during most months of the year.
      Howell wants to look at fish abundances and behavior in specific blocks, in the western Gulf of Maine. "We want to find out how important these areas are for spawning, how many fish show up, how long they stay, and where they go when they leave."
      Goethel is also working on developing "sentinel surveys" similar to those used to help assess cod stocks in Newfoundland. "We're proposing to have fishermen conduct regular surveys using their usual gear in their usual fishing grounds and see if we can identify any trends."
      Haring believes industry involvement in research will benefit everyone. "We have a research steering committee that is working on developing cooperative research projects with money that is becoming available. If we can get the industry involved, there will be less room for criticism."
      Although there will probably always be plenty of room for criticism in the fishing industry, the number of critics is diminishing. "I can't afford to go to meetings anymore," said Proctor Wells. "My wife used to stay home and take care of the kids, now she has to go out and work. I've had to sell my dragger and downsize to a boat I could lobsterfish with, as well as do a little dragging, and tuna fishing. I've got a family to feed and I've got to work. I'll just take what regulations they come up with and make the best of them."
      As Barbara Stevenson suggested, the good or bad of regulations, "depends on your objectives." For Proctor Wells, David Goethel and many other fishermen, the objective right now is to stay on the water until the fish come back. For the National Marine Fisheries Service the stated objective is to end overfishing and rebuild fish stocks, first and foremost.
      Trying to balance those objectives has, so far, been an difficult and often frustrating experience for almost everyone involved. A growing number of stakeholders however, recognize a common goal, survival; and they are advocating cooperation rather than contention as a means to that end.