The fishing industry must be placed into more proper context, with a smarter, more realistic perspective. Since the 1980s, too many domestic fishermen and too many boats have pursued a declining fishery resource. The overcapitalized, technically advanced boom went bust. Human nature once again fell on its face.

Federal law in 1976, finally preventing big foreign factory ships from fishing off our coasts, and advanced science and technology propelled seemingly ideal investments in the domestic fleet for big banks and big government. Although it proved a panacea for politicians and domestic fishermen, the government had acted too slowly in stopping the damage that foreign ships had done to fisheries. Severely declining stocks necessitated domestic fishing restrictions, which now have hit in full force.

Who is to blame? Everyone, yet also no one. There was no malicious intent, just a whole lot of ignorance all around. If those factory ships had been ejected earlier, and if advanced technology and overcapitalization of the domestic fleet had not taken place, there would not have been such fishery depletion.

That is where naive bureaucracy and unbridled progress often lead us; however, only our fishermen and associated waterfront businesses now unfairly suffer as scapegoats.

Today, there are about 1,600 boats in this region, which might be cut to about 400 in the next decade under present fishing regulations. Only the most financially stable owners with sound, advanced boats may survive.

In a broader context, what has happened to fish stocks is what is happening to most finite natural resources, such as timber, where advanced technology and money expedite exploitation. In an even broader context, our fishing industry continues to be outsourced, similar to jobs that college graduates, after borrowing thousands, cannot find due to outsourcing to foreign labor markets. Small farms cannot compete with government-subsidized giants, and Wal-Marts have replaced small stores. Fishermen are in a lot of company.

The human nature of big government manifests a Darwinian proclivity for supporting mostly big business. When the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 was adopted, the powerful tanker and barge lobby made sure it would be given 25 years before all tank vessels would be required to have double hulls. They made sure that every single-hulled vessel would last an economic lifetime, deemed more important than the risk of a Bouchard oil spill. In similar context, the fishing industry must now fight for an economic lifetime under such comparable precedent.

Fishermen should seek long-term flexibility through an extension of the transition period for reaching maximum sustainable yield on all species. This extension should last an economic lifetime, a generation. Coastal governors should seek to offset short-term regulatory rigidity through creation of a federal fishermen's impact assistance fund similar to the energy impact assistance fund successfully lobbied by governors of western states that are harmed by big energy companies.

There should not be a rush to judgment based on a crisis mentality. The government's new "precautionary management" approach, necessitated by its prior lack of responsible vigilance, must now responsibly provide for compensation to the fishermen who are affected. Such compensation logically should include the government paying for vessel monitoring systems.

Monica Allen, Opinion Page editor for The Standard-Times, maintains that the paper stands for sustainable fisheries through good science and fair, effective regulations, smarter management, less over capitalization, and more viable fishing businesses. It also is tired of the tragedy of the commons, meaning overuse of a common good that destroys the good. Such perspective is right on target, but perhaps expects too much from human nature and its imperfections.

Today, commercial fishermen are an endangered species. However, appealing to the courts is the wrong venue. Seeking judicial change would necessitate new scientific baseline information, such as that obtained by the UMass School for Marine Science and Technology on scallop resources.

The Port of New Bedford Business Alliance is seeking at least three legislative actions. First, creation of a fishermen's impact assistance fund to offset the economic burden especially generated by Amendment 13, the groundfishing regulations, including federal provision of vessel monitoring systems. Secondly, we seek expedited development of better scientific methodologies to monitor fishery resources. Third, we seek a slowing of the regulatory process to accommodate a generation of economic change in fishing demographics in tandem with resource recovery.

We strongly urge Gov. Romney to continue to seek funding for a marine products and training center in SouthCoast as a cornerstone facility for a potential marine technology corridor. Scores of companies in the marine sector would be able to ocean-test their product technology with the assistance of retrained marine personnel, and with the prospect of using idle fishing vessels.

Fishermen must be positioned as an integral and viable part of the marine sector, and acknowledged as such by the powerful environmental lobby. The fishing industry, likewise, should break the ice by supporting those institutions in areas where they make sense.

Court is the wrong forum, and one major goal of the Port of New Bedford Business Alliance is development of an offshore conflict mediation center as part of a multi-use marine facility right here on our waterfront.

Gene Soccolich

Mr. Soccolich of Beverly and Mattapoisett is a spokesman for the Port of New Bedford Business Alliance.

This story appeared on Page A13 of The Standard-Times on May 26, 2004.