September 28, 2020 — A quick recap: The council has been working on the measure — Amendment 23 — for more than two years. It seems like 50.
The amendment will set future monitoring levels for sector-based groundfish vessels. The council faces four alternatives: Monitors aboard 25%, 50%, 75% or 100% of groundfish trips. The council has chosen 100% coverage as its preferred alternative.
That’s not good for the groundfishermen. Once the federal government stops harvesting spare change from between the sofa cushions to keep reimbursing the fleet for at-sea monitoring, the onus for paying falls on the fishermen at a current tune of about $700 per day per vessel.
If 100% monitoring carries the day, it will add an estimated $6.4 million of additional costs across the fishery. The fishermen aren’t even patting their pockets. They are serious when they say it could easily spell the end of the fleet.
So this is a big deal.
Environmental groups have poured in resources and comment in support of the preferred alternative. If they set a betting line on fisheries management, conservationists would probably be heavy favorites.
The industry is in Hail Mary mode. The long pass, not the prayer. Though at this point, it’s a difference without a distinction.
In a letter, the Northeast Seafood Coalition reached out to Gov. Charlie Baker for support and leadership on the issue — Massachusetts stands the most to lose within the fishery — and was rewarded with a palpable silence.
Sixteen members of the Massachusetts Legislature, at the urging of Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr and others from fishing communities, signed a letter asking the council to reject Amendment 23 as currently constituted. They cited the measure’s inconsistency with a number of standards within the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and executive orders.