Adding that many of these targets are required by law, Howard predicted that cuts would be made through reductions in days at sea, closed areas, and increased mesh size. He noted that some of these regulations would simultaneously address issues of habitat protection and reducing discards. The upcoming amendment could also include different regulations for different areas, and sector allocations. "We may apportion the available resources according to permit category, vessel size, gear type or a combination of the above," said Howard.
Howard pointed out that as stocks grow, lower levels of fishing mortality would eventually result in higher landings. "The biomasses are increasing," said Howard. "As you reduce fishing mortality, you might see a slight decrease in a year and then an increase." Howard noted Georges Bank haddock as case in point. "Last year we harvested 11 thousand tons. If we take a 37 percent reduction, that harvest goes down in 2002, to about 9 thousand tons , in 2003 back up to 10 thousand tons." From there, Howard claimed the stock would be rebuilt and fishing mortality could gradually increase. "And that number of 10 thousand tons goes up to 47 thousand tons, forever."
But promises of a bright future do not always make the immediate cost easier to pay. "These are deep cuts," said Maggie Raymond. "There's no question they're going to have an impact." Raymond added however, that "people knew a big hit was coming."
Raymond supports rebuilding, but took issue with mandatory cuts on Georges Bank haddock. "Georges Bank haddock is only a couple of thousand tons under the overfished threshold," she said. "The stock is projected to be rebuilt by 2002, and would reach that target if the Council did nothing." But because the stock is still in the overfished category according to the law, the Council must reduce fishing mortality. "That's making some of these cuts hard for the industry to swallow," she said.

Habitat
According to Howard, Amendment 13 will also address Habitat Areas of Particular Concern, an issue that has not had much attention in the years since SFA was enacted. Many around the industry acknowledge the multiple benefits of closed areas, including habitat protection, but most resist the idea of turning regulatory closures into Marine Protected Areas. Raymond recalls that although the boats she represents supported the closed areas established by Amendment 5, many in the industry did not. "Most of the industry supports them now," she said. Raymond claims that everyone knows that the closed areas allowed stocks to rebuild, and most are in no hurry to reopen them. "We've learned to live without them, and they're helping," she said, but she does not favor permanent closure. "At some point we would like access again," she said.
Raymond added that some areas deserved protection, but wondered how much. "There have been areas recommended within the closed areas. When and if those closed areas were opened, you would keep the [areas of particular concern] closed. That's good, it's mostly hard bottom and that's doing good for cod."
But, Raymond notes, the problem arises when habitat has to be protected for every species. "People get nervous," she said. "What about dab? What's it going to mean when they start talking about mud bottom? We can't end up in the extreme," she said, "and it's the industry's job to make sure we don't go there."
Paul Parker, of the Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's Association took a dim view of the entire approach toward protecting some areas while leaving others vulnerable to what he considers destructive fishing practices. "My perspective is that all habitat is of particular concern," said Parker. "I don't like the idea of quadranting off some areas as special. I think it's a bit presumptuous , protect this area, and open season on the rest." Rather than drawing lines on the ocean, Parker favors developing low impact gear that would reduce fishing impacts on a wide range of habitats.

Latent Effort
While habitat protection, reductions in fishing mortality, and other issues such as observer coverage, social impacts of regulations, and discards present major challenges for the future, fishermen at the Forum seemed most interested in discussing latent effort. At the Fishermen's Forum, Lew Flagg, of Maine's Department of Marine Resources, and chair of the Council's Ad-hoc Capacity Committee, presented a report on excess capacity. According to Flagg, of the 154,000 days allocated to the multispecies fishery in 1998 only 51,881 were used. "There's too much latent effort that could be activated prematurely, and jeopardize or reverse rebuilding," said Flagg.
As a result, the committee suggested four possible methods to reduce latent effort; the first would encourage the transfer of permits. "All a vessel's permits are sold and the vessel would be out of fishing period," said Flagg. Under this plan a vessel could split its permits and sell to different buyers.
The second option is permit consolidation, where one vessel would buy the all the permits of another as a bundle, and any duplicate permits would be retired.
The third option allows for the transfer of days at sea (DAS). A vessel could buy another vessel's DAS with possible restrictions such as transfer only between equal vessels, a cap on days, a gradual activation of purchased days, or elimination of days in a, buy two - get one, scenario. The fourth option looks at various ways to freeze permits and possibly take unused days away from permit holders , Flagg suggested a 5 percent reduction of unused days.
"You mean to tell me that if I didn't go fishing and gave you 100 percent conservation, you're going to reward me by taking 5 percent of my days?" asked Proctor Wells, president of the Maine Fishermen's Cooperative Association. "Is that the general flavor?"
Flagg reiterated that the intent was to get a handle on latent effort. On that same thread, Pat Kurkul of the National Marine Fisheries Service, outlined a $10 million buyback program that, unlike previous programs, would seek to buy permits rather than vessels.
"The intent is to target latent effort," said Kurkul. "To me the whole thing starts off on a flawed basis," said Wells. "You're treating each day equally. That's wrong; fishing power is what needs to be addressed." Wells pointed out that it would take a 40-foot vessel 16 days to catch what an 80-footer catches in a day.
Howard claimed that most of the latent effort currently threatening the rebuilding plan was in the small boat sector. Big boats are using 85 percent of their days, he pointed out, while small boats are using only 40 percent. "So there's about 60 percent effort available from smaller boats, and 15 percent from larger." Howard suggested that sector allocation might be the answer to the problem Wells raised.
But regulators and fishermen at the meeting appeared to be on different wavelengths, and Wells insisted that fishing power needed to be defined before any discussion of latent effort took place. Pat Kurkul said that fishing power was being looked at in the permit buyback program, but that information left Wells with little satisfaction.
On a different tack, Ted Ames, a long time groundfisherman from Stonington, speculated that the permit buyback would wipe out the future of groundfishing in coastal Maine. Kurkul responded that the buyback was voluntary, but her answer did not appear to speak realistically to Ames' concerns.
"If you're 64, like my brother is," he said, "and you're sitting on a permit and it's worth x number of dollars, the 18-year-old kid, or the 35-year-old man trying to raise a family, is not likely going to be able to come up with the kind of cash to buy that permit." Ames wondered how people with limited resources could compete with the federal government in the bidding for permits.
Ames advised Kurkul to come up with some way to allow rural communities along the coast to have continued access to permits. "The buyback plan, as it's set up now, without any constraints, means that coastal Maine communities lose access to that groundfish fishery, period."
The fishermen who have had no choice but to keep groundfishing throughout the hard times, such as Marshall Alexander of Biddeford Pool, claim they don't want to take anybody's permit away, but they are not anxious to see anyone re-enter the fishery as soon as things improve.
"I had individual days at sea. I've been cut right in half. All I'm asking isÉ where do I get some of my days back? I can't survive on 88 days. I understand Ted's problem, but I think there's a group of boats that don't need 88 days. But leave them someplace in this fishery. I'm asking you to do something for those of us who've been choked."
According to Maggie Raymond, there are essentially two sides to the argument, "one says, ÔI hold a permit and don't want to lose it,' the other says, Ôhow come we took all the cuts so that other people can come in and take the benefits.'" Raymond does not advocate taking anyone's permit. "But somehow we have to find a solution that works for everybody," she said. Various versions of a permit freeze may work, according to Raymond. She suggested that if a vessel had unused days, those days would be cut and put into a pool of days that could be reactivated once the stock is completely rebuilt.
Paul Parker considers the current efforts to reduce latency as shortsighted and poorly researched. "I'd like to see somebody do an systematic analysis on how much effort we'd be buying back," he said. Parker favors taking permits away from speculators who never fished or intended to fish groundfish , "as long as they're out there, the fleet will always be under attack." But like many others, Parker recognizes that all fishing days are not the same, and he believes that if NMFS bought back permits primarily from small boats they might spend the entire $10 million and not really address the latency issue. "Maybe buying out a 165-footer would do a lot more," he wondered.
Parker also suggested that regulators and the industry look down the road. "If you look at the graphs they show us, there's going to be a lot of fish around. What's the optimum fleet for harvesting this resource? A systematic analysis might show that we won't have need for a lot of big boats." Big boat or small, the fishermen who harvest the hoped-for abundant resources will also need a place to sell their catch. Above average landings and a tight market already lowered prices at the Portland Fish Exchange this past winter; if a reactivated latent effort is not matched by expanding infrastructure and marketing, the industry will have an additional problem. "We may be out there fishing for 40 cents a pound," said Parker. As regulators and fishermen work to repair the damage of the past, and protect their efforts, questions about the future may need consideration. In addition to fine-tuning sustainable fisheries through reduction of discards and habitat protection, the thorny issue of who will harvest the fish still needs to be settled.
The survivors who stayed groundfishing through the hard times want to be the first to benefit from healthy stocks. But for the fishermen who shifted effort away from groundfish, with the assurance that regulators would not introduce a "use it or lose it" provision on permits, efforts to reduce latent effort come as a slap in the face. "You told me to get off the fish," said one fisherman at the Forum. "I did what I was told. Now I want back in the game."