The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires regulators to make efforts to "minimize adverse economic impacts" when imposing conservation measures.
That is No. 8 of the so-called 10 National Standards, or goals, of the Act. And there is little to no evidence that the economic health of cities like Gloucester is of any concern to NOAA or the management councils.
Standard No. 8 also requires regulators to "take into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities. …"
Really? Anyone who observes the fishing industry from Gloucester knows that, as far as the feds are concerned, the focus has all been on reducing the size of the fleet.
Fishermen are expected to abide by the regulations set by the federal government — even many that just don't add up.
So shouldn't the government committees and agencies that set those regulations be expected to abide by the laws that govern their authority?
The economic devastation wreaked by the punitive regulation on ports like Gloucester is proof that regulators are ignoring sections of the law they apparently don't like. And it's no longer just fishermen and others close to the industry questioning that conduct.