The congressmen, both D-Mass., filed their amicus (friend of the court) brief in the lawsuit to block Amendment 16, brought by New Bedford and Gloucester and a host of fishing industry interests.

They say regulators "failed to achieve the balanced regulation required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, constraining the operation of the groundfish fishery at the unnecessary expense of participants and dependent communities."

The brief spells out Frank's central role in writing the 2006 Magnuson Reauthorization Act, pitting his interpretation of that act against that of the Commerce Department and the Conservation Law Foundation, which intervened as a co-defendant.

The brief suggests regulators were more concerned about the fish than the fishermen. "The goal of the Magnuson-Stevens Act is not to 'protect' fishery resources from use but rather to maximize food production — to achieve the 'full utilization' of fishery resources — as long as that is done within acceptable biological limits," they wrote.

Amendment 16 violates National Standard No. 1 of the Magnuson Act, wrote the congressmen, because it disregards the problems fishermen are having with catching their allowable amounts.

"Management measures are condemned under National Standard No. 1 if they are 'too restrictive' as well as 'not rigorous enough,'" said their memo. "The allocation of 'choke stocks,' e.g. pollock, yellowtail flounder, winter flounder, is so conservative that it will impede fishermen's ability to harvest the species for which they have a substantial allocation."

Read the complete story from The South Coast Today.