To the editor:

For those who could not attend, this is what I got out of the presentation at The Gloucester House sponsored by the Environmental Defense Fund last week.

I did not think the presentations by the fishermen from Alaska were flawed. They were very clear about the situation being very different in the various Alaska fisheries and certainly they made no attempt to say what they experienced was applicable to our situation. In particular, they emphasized that the moves to catch shares in Alaska were motivated by crashes in stocks and consequent financial disasters and lives lost in making 12-hour halibut openings in storms.

The crab stocks in particular plummeted in the span of one year to a state where the fishermen simply could not continue. The crab boats went from 266 to 80 as the catch shares were implemented. I got the impression that they might have gone from 266 to zero if the catch shares were not done and if a massive boat buyback program were not initiated.

Each of the plans was crafted for the particular fishery and the particular community social structure affected. They were initiated by the fishermen, not by the government, and were planned over long time periods. They had no experience whatsoever with multi-species plans and made no attempt to suggest what ought to be done here.

Our situation here is totally different. We do not have a collapse of fish stocks. They are, in fact, recovering nicely.

Our crisis here is government bureaucrat induced and not caused by a crisis in the fisheries. The catch share ultimatum is not crafted by fishermen, but is being forced upon the fishing community for reasons that are not clear to me.

The Alaska representatives made clear that many boats would leave the fleet, something that was inevitable in the Alaska fisheries because of their state of collapse, no matter what plan was adopted — but not necessarily the case here.

They made clear that the costs of record keeping and observers was huge, and acceptable only in a big boat industrial fishery context. It was inconceivable in a small boat fleet and in fact their inshore boats (under 60 feet) are not observed causing much disgruntlement among others.

In their various fleets all sorts of measures were taken to prevent consolidation of shares in outside corporations and to protect fishing communities. (limiting stacking, controlling ownership, community ownership, boat buybacks, rules about where boats could take out....)

I do not sense that any of the mitigating planning that protected their communities and fisher folk has taken or is taking place here.

Dr. Damon Cummings

Gloucester