The Gloucester fishing crisis: environmental regulation versus fishermen's livelihoods

Political / Environmental Economics

The Gloucester Crisis: Environmentalists VS Fishermen?

Or: Depletion of Fisheries VS Fishermen Postponing Reality?

When the spectacularly dramatic movie, "The Perfect Storm," became a box office smash a few years ago, it focused a tremendous amount of national and international attention on the hazards fishermen face far out to sea. By riveting so many moviegoers on the colossal waves that can rise up from the sea to smash down a fragile fishing boat, the film - and book - also brought attention to the New England fishing town from which the story was drawn, Gloucester, Massachusetts.

Indeed, much of "The Perfect Storm" was filmed along - and offshore from - Gloucester's windswept coastline, which is the nation's oldest seaport (established in 1623), just an hour's drive from Boston. And the film has attracted wave after wave of camera-toting tourists, who roll into town to visit the places they saw in the movie, and to spend dollars.

What many tourists, moviegoers, and others who just read the book probably don't know, is that a gigantic storm of another kind has engulfed the entire fishing industry itself along the New England coast - and particularly in Gloucester. It's a storm of controversy. And while it has pitted environmental-minded groups against fishermen and commercial fishing interests, it has also united a community of fishermen against rigid new regulations they rage about as unfair and arbitrary. And like a menacing wave hurtling towards a small boat in a hurricane, the preliminary, court-ordered results of the controversy have crushed the wage-earning futures of numerous men who fish the sea for their bread and butter - just as their forefathers did decades and centuries before them.

The most recent manifestation of the "storm" of which we speak came to a head in May 2002. That was when U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler ordered some prime fishing grounds off New England closed, and severely restricted the number of days Gloucester fishermen may go to sea to do their work. That judicial clap of thunder occurred because of a May 2000 lawsuit brought by the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), an environmental / conservation organization headquartered in Boston, and the Massachusetts Audubon Society. The CLF's own research - and data from other sources such as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) - convinced the court that the fisheries offshore of Gloucester had become so severely depleted, so seriously over-harvested, that it was time for drastic measures. Judge Kessler mandated those drastic measures, even though she said at the time, (UPI 2002),"[this is] one of the hardest [decisions] this court has ever undertaken. The livelihood, indeed the way of life, of many thousands of individuals, families, small businesses and maritime communities will be affected."

But, she added, "The future of a natural resource - the once-rich, vibrant and healthy, and now severely depleted New England Northeast fishery - is at stake."

Meantime, it will perhaps be instructive to view the whole story, and understand its genesis. Leading up through the 1960s and into the mid-1970s, huge, technologically well equipped distant-water foreign fleets of fishermen (some with canning facilities on board) gorged on the world's richest fishing grounds offshore of New England and Gloucester. Those "richest fishing grounds" were the Georges Banks, about 75 miles east of Cape Cod. With so many fleets from the Soviet Union and Japan feasting on Georges' haddock, cod, flounder and other species, the annual Commonwealth catch slipped by 50%, from 500 million pounds of fish in 1960, to 250 million pounds in 1972 (Benchmarks 1999). Haddock landings (one of the huge moneymakers for Gloucester-area fishermen) fell off by more than 90%.

With this as a backdrop, the U.S. Congress passed the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act in 1976. The legislation established a 200-mile territorial limit off U.S. shores. Meanwhile, the new law also established the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC), to regulate fish stocks; and the law contained millions of dollars to vigorously promote American fishing interests. In a seeming frenzy of industry growth, federal money (loans) rolled in like a downpour in "The Perfect Storm." The healthy flow of cash helped individuals buy more technologically furnished fishing boats, and jobs were suddenly open for myriad welders, electricians, and other marine service-related positions. Also, regulatory authorities abandoned fish quotas, for the most part, and allowed the fleets to grow to enormous size. The number of fishing boats working off New England by the end of the 1970s had swelled to 1,423 from 825 at the outset of the decade (Georgianna, 1999).

All that furious build-up had a cost. By 1991, the commercial catch in the Commonwealth dipped to a point below what it had been before the Magnuson Act and the 200-mile limit. Clearly, fisheries had limits, but there had been no limit to the push for more harvesting. In an attempt to restore fading fish stocks, the NEFMC (in the 1990s) began reducing the number of days fishermen could work the sea ("days at sea," DAS). The actual result of these curtailments is a subject for debate. There is no debate however, that between the years 1992 to 1997, the number of fish processing plants in Massachusetts dipped from 130 to 75.

And with that background, we return to 2003, and present-day realities for Gloucester. A very restrictive new set of fishing restrictions, Amendment 13, that was to go into effect later this year, has been postponed until May, 2004. The postponement was due to errors in methodology that the NMFS utilized in researching fish populations in the Atlantic Ocean off the Gloucester coast.

What follows is a series of interviews conducted with local officials, environmentalists, and business people.

FIRST INTERVIEW: Mayor John Bell, Gloucester. By speakerphone 5/12/03.

Prior to the interview, Mayor Bell asked: "Now, who are you writing this for? What publication is this for?" And after an explanation that it was for a research article, and possibly for publication at a later date, he said, "We receive a number of calls from different individuals, and sometimes they don't represent the organizations that they purport to. We have to be aware, especially with this issue; it's such a volatile issue." And thus, the interview began.)

QUESTION: Is it possible the Magnuson Act is the genesis of today's problem? The government chased the Japanese and Soviets out of our waters, but they removed all quotas from fishing, and poured money into boats and equipment.

ANSWER: The Magnuson Act was supposed to be a partnership between the government and the fishing community. That partnership went split, went awry. It has taken time for the Magnuson Act to be corrected, and a partnership to be worked on. There are miles to go.

QUESTION: The $5.4 million in federal dollars coming in; what will that do to your community?

ANSWER: Very little. Very little. It's a band-aid.

QUESTION: To keep fishermen alive?

ANSWER: That doesn't keep fishermen alive. All that does is - we're grateful to have the money - but that five point five million is disbursed... there were 900 vessels qualified to apply for the money. I don't know how many did, but it's a drop in the bucket, in terms of keeping the infrastructure and the fleet alive. But you know, any port in a storm.

QUESTION: I just spoke with a woman whose husband can fish for 60 days this season, and that's all. Is that what most of the 160 fishing boats are facing?

ANSWER: Most have seen substantial reductions in days that they can fish. Overall the Gloucester fleet has been reduced by 75% since 1975.

QUESTION: Why was that? The reduction in the amount of fish out there?

ANSWER: No, it's just, you know, how much torture does an individual want to take, in trying to earn a living? The reduction in days at sea, the fact that its become so unsafe because when there's a reduction in days at sea, and a reduction in the area that you can fish, and those areas are pushed further out to sea, you then go out with fewer crew members, which means the whole profession becomes even more dangerous. It becomes more dangerous than described, which is already one of the most dangerous professions in the world.

QUESTION: Which "The Perfect Storm" illustrated quite vividly.

ANSWER: Well, the [famous statue of a fisherman] in Gloucester shows 6,000 names of men lost at sea; that tells you how dangerous it is.

QUESTION: Mayor, can you tell me what the economic realities of your town are today?

ANSWER: Well, four or five decades ago, almost 75% of our community earned their living at sea. Or with shore supporting facilities. Today, it's somewhere in the ten to fifteen percent category.

QUESTION: One of your city councilmen mentioned that there are powerful development interests from the New York area, determined to buy up ocean view land and build communities of condos. How do you prevent their intrusion?

ANSWER: Well, we're a marine industrial harbor, and we're continuing to promote many kinds of activities in our marine industrial harbor. We have a groundfishing industry, and shellfish, lobster

QUESTION: And you won't have to sell out to developers?

ANSWER: Gloucester has a 380-year history of being closely joined at the hip to the sea. And I don't see that tradition being interrupted.

QUESTION: I take it the delay on Amendment 13 was due to the flawed methodology used in surveying the fish population by the NMFS?

ANSWER: Had the court had its way, and had the environmentalists had their way, there would have been no delay. Their goal was essentially to put the fishing communities of New England, out of business.

QUESTION: You really think that was their goal?

ANSWER: Oh absolutely.

QUESTION: Indirectly, you mean, right? You don't mean that they would deliberately try to put your town out of business?

ANSWER: They knew exactly what they were doing. These are very sophisticated organizations. Their idea of conservation is, ah, eliminate the harvesters.

QUESTION: Okay, and can you give me a thumbnail on why the judge granted a delay to Amendment 13?

ANSWER: The reason that the judge gave everyone a stay [until May, 2004], is because, a group called the Northeast Seafood Coalition [for which Bell is chair]...put a great deal of pressure on the court, to rethink its judgement. That, coupled with strong public support, and political support; it at least prevented a complete collapse of the groundfishing industry in New England.

SECOND INTERVIEW: Dr. Priscilla Brooks, Senior Economist & Marine Resources Project Director, Conservation Law Foundation, by speakerphone, 5/12/03.

QUESTION: During my conversation with Mayor John Bell of Gloucester this afternoon, he said your group's goal was "...essentially to put the fishing communities of New England, out of business." He said the CLF's "...idea of conservation is to eliminate the harvesters." How to your respond?

ANSWER: Well, we don't quite expect to hear that tone out of politicians.

QUESTION: But could you specifically respond to the mayor's charge that your group is trying to shut down New England fishing communities?

ANSWER: First of all, the delay in Amendment 13 was thanks to the conservation groups. We went back to the judge and said, we need an 8-month delay on that. We have to make sure we have the best available science to base these restrictions on. We got the delay. The second thing is, we have no such goal, to put fishermen out of business - or to eliminate the harvesters. That's absolutely preposterous. If anything, our goal is to help make the fishing industry a healthy, thriving industry. And in order to do that, we need to have healthy fish populations.

QUESTION: Where is the empirical evidence of the depletion of the fish resources offshore from Gloucester?

ANSWER: Where is the empirical evidence? It's plain as day. The scientists have been conducting research for about a hundred years, on the groundfish stocks. You can clearly see the pattern of the decline of the biomass. It was right around the middle 1990s, after regulations went into place, that we started to see some increases in fish populations. Before that, the fish population was at the lowest level ever observed.

QUESTION: Your group sued the federal government in 1991, claiming they were failing to correctly manage marine resources, right?

ANSWER: That's right. And, new management regulations went into place in 1994, and that was a direct result of our lawsuit. The settlement agreement said that the New England Management Council had to come up with a rebuilding plan. Unfortunately, by the time those regulations went into effect, that year, cod, haddock and Yellowtail were declared collapsed. They put into place year-long closures on Georges Bank, 6,000 square miles, responding to biomass declines.

QUESTION: And then your group sued the NMFS in May 2000, which was upheld in December, 2000. What did that result in?

ANSWER: Every fishing town and group signed onto that settlement except Gloucester. From Maine to Cape Cod to Rhode Island. The settlement allowed for interim management measures to govern while the NMFS developed a new plan for managing marine resources.

QUESTION: And so, when did you retire from fishing?

ANSWER: I went into the Marine Corps for four years, in the Korean War, and came back and fished with my dad until 1963, I think. I was on a boat that caught fire down off Newfoundland, so that ended my fishing career. So I ran for city council, and I've been on the council now almost thirty years.

QUESTION: When that boat caught fire, how did you get out of the situation?

ANSWER: Believe it or not, when she caught fire, believe it or not, it was around midnight, and we were in a storm. This was a steel vessel. I was the engineer. The captain, the late Captain Willis Powers...he ordered the shutting and locking of all the doors and portholes on the boat, and we waited. The fire gradually went out. The deck itself bubbled up a little bit, but I guess God was with us

FIFTH INTERVIEW: Angela Sanfilippo, president of the "oldest fishing organization in the country," the Gloucester Fishermen's Wives Association. Interview by speakerphone, 5/12/03

QUESTION: How many fishermen out of the Gloucester harbor have been lost at sea over the years?

ANSWER: It is an estimated 10,000 men.

QUESTION: What is the role of your organization?

ANSWER: Our role is to promote the fishing industry, and to make life better for retired fishermen and their families. We have small funds for really true emergencies, mostly when people get lost at sea. We do education programs for children of fishermen. We have also done environmental work, like, stopping the oil drilling on Georges Bank, and we worked to help stop ocean dumping, I believe it was 1987, and declaring a marine sanctuary.

QUESTION: Do you think the current judge's order restricting fishing is fair?

ANSWER: No, no, no. And we've been leading some of the protests. We work very closely with our political people.

QUESTION: I would imagine that most people on both sides of the issue are happy with the postponement of Amendment 13, right?

ANSWER: Well, I don't know that people are happy. My husband is a fisherman; my brother is a fisherman. I come from seven generations of fishing people. We aren't happy with the restrictions as they are now.

QUESTION: But what if addition research shows there are indeed ample fish stocks out there?

ANSWER: Well, if that was the case. But it's not really the case that they're doing new research. Now they say the codfish is coming back, but we have a shortage of yellow bill flounder, which is gonna cause just as much hardship as the cod did.

QUESTION: But is there any hard, solid, objective evidence that the fishing resources have been depleted to the point where many fishermen will be out of work?

ANSWER: No, no. Actually, fishing in the last year has been better than it's ever been. In 1993, the average catch may have been two, three, four hundred pounds of fish. Today, even with the new limits they impose, is a thousand, fifteen hundred pounds. You're only allowed to bring home five hundred pounds of codfish.

QUESTION: Is it possible the reason there is better fishing now is because there have been restrictions in recent years?

ANSWER: Oh, there's no question about it. Conservation doesn't hurt anybody, but too many restrictions are not good. For example, my husband only has sixty days to fish this season. Over the past few years, the days he's been allowed to fish have gone from 199, to 150, to 88, and now down to sixty.

QUESTION: Can he make a living fishing just sixty days?

ANSWER: It's been very tough since Thanksgiving, but last summer was pretty good because the price of codfish went up. What you don't get in pounds, you get in price. You get less fish, but a better price.

Specific questions to be addressed in this term paper:

2. Benefits: The major producers of economic activity in the past in Gloucester are fishermen and their families. But over-fishing has put them in a rough spot today, as they try to make it through a time of restrictions, until the fish population regenerates. For some lobster fishermen, and some of the groundfish harvesters, the price paid to them for their products has gone up, even though their harvest has gone down. Dollar figures are not available. But there are many associated activities in the harbor area of Gloucester that are not directly fishing related, which supports part of the community. One of those activities is tourism, particularly in the warm seasons, and "The Perfect Storm" movie has brought a large number of tourists into town, helping support the community.

3. Costs: The individuals bearing the costs of the environmental problem (i.e., over-fishing results in depleted stocks) are mainly the fishermen and their families. But $5.4 million in federal dollars has come into the town to sustain those fishermen who can't earn enough to support their families or make their mortgages.

4. Political Economy: This is a question that doesn't technically apply to the research in this paper. Although, the "beneficiaries" (fishermen) are imposing environmental costs on others, in the fact that taxpayers are picking up the tab when the government "buys back" fishing boats from fishermen out of business, and the taxpayers pay for the $5.4 million in sustaining funds. The government is obliged to help fishermen, not in the same way that the government bails out the airline industry. In the Gloucester case, the government mismanaged the ocean's resources so badly (allowing over-fishing, even encouraging it) that our government is obligated to provide help for those who suffer because of the mismanagement on the part of the National Marine Fisheries Service.

5. What is to be done? What should be done is what is being done. And that is, severe restrictions on harvesting fish are being implemented. Even though this presents fishermen with a temporary burden, if the fishing industry were allowed to just continue fishing until all stock was exhausted, what would we have then? Oceans with few fish at all. In the future, a much better system of conservation must be developed and strictly enforced. Also, it seems incredible that the government buys back boats from out-of-work fishermen, then the government, in its infinite wisdom, sinks those boats out to sea. That's wasteful well beyond usual government wastefulness.