BOSTON – September 9, 2010 – Saving Seafood spoke with Gloucester Mayor Carolyn Kirk after the scheduling hearing held today in the Moakley federal courthouse in Boston. SAVING SEAFOOD: What are your thoughts on the hearing?
MAYOR KIRK: One question the judge asked was very interesting, she said, “Are the regulations in effect now?”, and indeed they are, and they have been in effect since May 1st, but it helped drive the point home about the urgency of getting this case through the court with reasonable time frames. Our counsel for the cities and the plaintiffs did a great job of making that point and emphasizing that need. Every day that goes by is a day another fisherman goes out of business. We just had yesterday, in the city of Gloucester, a packing company that lost 70 jobs in the city because they have no fish to pack.
SAVING SEAFOOD: The representatives of the cities and the industry seemed pleased with the judges actions today. What specific parts of the judge’s ruling today do you feel were most advantageous for your city.
MAYOR KIRK: I think the judge asked a lot of probing questions. As with most fisheries issues, it’s very complicated and gets very technical very fast. What she had in front of her were three distinct categories of people objecting in one way or another, to what was before her. You had the government defending its action, you had an environmental group saying the regulations are not strict enough, and you had the industry representatives and the coastal communities saying the regulations are overly aggressive and detrimental to coastal communities.
For her to be able to tear some of that apart, and get this litigation on a track with a schedule that is a reasonable timeframe I thought was a big accomplishment on the part of the judge and I commend her for it.
SAVING SEAFOOD: The hearing is set for February, which seems a long way off, but you feel that, given the constraints and the complexities, the judge has set a reasonable timeframe?
MAYOR KIRK: Yes, there was an objection to the government asking for 60 days to file its response in one step of the process. The timeframes we are working under are 2-3 weeks at a time, so the government might have been getting an advantage. The judge did say, ‘look, we are arguing over a matter of days, and just work it out’ and that was a clear message the judge was sending that we need to all work towards solutions as much as possible before we just put everything in her lap, and rightly so.
SAVING SEAFOOD: There is a whole list of items of concern delineated in the lawsuit, which ones are most important to the city of Gloucester?
MAYOR KIRK: The allocations are hugely important, because that is bread and butter for our fishing families. How much fish they are allowed to catch, and using the history that was chosen to calculate those allocations was really just so unfair to Gloucester fishermen, New Bedford fishermen, and fishermen up and down the coast. So that’s one piece that’s very important.
Another is the lack of honor and respect for Magnuson. Magnuson is a piece of legislation that includes protection for coastal communities, and Amendment 16 has basically disregarded communities. We can see that in terms of the emphasis on consolidation, which puts our small fleet of fishing boats out of business. That’s our main street in a lot of different ways, and a way of life, and a devotion our country has to small businesses ans the jobs that they create. Amendment 16 is absolutely contrary to those principles and values.
SAVING SEAFOOD: : The judge left the door open to discovery which would mean potentially deposing the administrator of NOAA and the regional administrator, how important do you think that is?
MAYOR KIRK: Well, heading into the courtroom today, I wasn’t that familiar with the administrative record and what can be added to that record through discovery. I think the lawyers made a compelling argument that the administrative record as it exists today is insufficient. There have been statements made in other settings, and there have been conclusions drawn that are not supported by the administrative record. And so, rightfully, the case is asking for those conversations, and a thorough process, and other factors that might have come into play that aren’t reflected by the record.
There is a huge disconnect, and that’s where that discovery process is trying to reconcile what’s on the record versus the conclusions and decisions that were made and drawn.
SAVING SEAFOOD: Thank you