"How did we get to this point where the facts o the ground — widespread frustration and fury on the part of fishermen who feel cheated and abused by (the National Marine Fisheries Service) — contradict the optimistic bureaucrats who say the system is working because values and revenues are up."

Sackton's rhetorical question brought his answer — the New England Fishery Management Council, the arm of NOAA that interprets research and formulates policy somewhat like a legislature had created the fatal flaw in the catch share system by its vote to allocate shares in the catch based on landing histories on permits.

The flaw in the approach is that, until the vote by the council in June 2009, permits — the currency of the industry — were written in days at sea, regulating fishermen's effort, rather than output and catch allowed. People who had acceded to informal policy and avoided the prized groundfish were left holding permits with little groundfish history.

"There was a change in the currency," Sackton told the Times. "In the council process, no one looked at this and said what the consequences of this are. There wasn't a good understanding of the ramifications."

The shift in currency made a few winners and many losers — fishermen who held permits with little landings history.

In the meantime, the creation of a commodities market meant that deeper pockets could buy out the weaker operators and, as Lubchenco had planned, consolidate the industry into a smaller number of wealthier hands.

Read the complete story from the Gloucester Daily Times.