Massachusetts marine fisheries management policy report draft

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Massachusetts

Marine Fisheries Management
Policy Report

The Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries
Advisory Commission and
The Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries
ed by: Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program
May, 1981

SH
327.7
M57
1981

Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Af.
Edward J. King, Governor John A. Bawick, Secretary

PHILIP (3. COATr&5 Ine)
DIRECTOR

May 11, 1981

The Division of Marine Fisheries, supported by a Coastal Zone
Management Grant, has developed a Marine Fisheries Management Policy
to guide Massachusetts in the management, promotion, and development
of its living marine,resources. The need for a fisheries policy is
based on the economic and social value of Massachusetts' living marine
resources and the problems confronting the fisheries as evidenced by
the following:

- Massachusetts commercial fishermen landed over $175 million
worth of fish and shellfish in 1979.

- Massachusetts ranked fourth in the nation, after Alaska,
California, and Louisiana, in value of fish landings.

- The 1979 value of fish landings exceeded the value of
crops or livestock in Massachusetts.

- Massachusetts fish landing values have been increasing at
an annual rate of 21% since 1975.

- Over 16,000 people in Massachusetts are employed in fishery
related jobs.

- The fisheries are worth almost $900 million to Massachusetts
in economic activity generated from commercial landings,
recreational shellfish landings, and saltwater angling
expenditures.

- Many fishing boats are facing bankruptcy because of in-
creasing fuel, insurance and other costs while ex-vessel
fish prices remain low.

- Sixty percent of the fish consumed in the U.S. is imported.

- Forty-two percent of the fish Processing plants, and fifty-
six percent of the fish processing employees in New England
were located in Massachusetts in 1979.

- Massachusetts firms processed 68% of the total value of New
England processed fish in 1976.

- Ninety percent of the frozen fish processed in Massachusetts
is imported.

- Massachusetts has 2,081 commercial fish and lobster boats at
51 fishing ports along the coast.

- Five port3, Gloucester, New Bedford, Boston, Provincetown,
and Sandwich, landed in excess of $1 million worth of fish
in 1979.

- Most ports need redevelopment. Piers are old and overcrowded,
many ports lack ice, cold- storage, and offloading facilities,
many harbors need dredging.

- In 1979, 824,000 people partic ipated in marine recreational
saltwater angling, shellfishing, and lobstering.

- Seven hundred and seventy-S4X thousand saltwater anglers,
35% from out-of-state, made 2.7 milli-on trips and-spent
$30 million.

Salt water anglers caught over 20 million fish in 1979,
56% of the total New England recreational catch.

tes are over-
Boat ramps, fishing piers, and beach fishing si '
crowded, inadequate, and increasingly restricted from public
usage. Some important sportfish stocks, such as striped
bass are declining.

Of the ten states with the highest fish landing value,
Massachusetts sDends the lea st for fisheries management and
protection.

Since the value of living marine resources to Massachusetts
is so great, the problems faced by the fisheries so complex,
and the funds to manage and develop the fisheries, so limited,
Massachusetts needs a -'fisheries policy to set a course for
preserving and protecting these important resources and
industries. In general, the oolicies recommend:

- modernization of port facilities
- imporvement of Fish quality
- duction of f.
re ishing costs

- increasing public access to recreational fisheries
- improving management of commercial and recreational
fisheries
- informing and educating the public on fishery issues,
fish products, and recreational opportunities
- improving law enforcemen capabilities

The fishery policies will affect all recreational fishermen, commercial
fishermen, fish processors, retailers and wholesalers. They will influence
all marine related State programs and many intergovermental programs, but will
primarily impact upon the Division of Marine Fisheries' management, promotion,
and development of the fisheries. Policies on limited entry, enforcement,
regulations, mariculture, research, fisheries enhancement, marketing, fish-
eries assistance, statistics, and licensing have been prepared. The public is
encouraged to comment both in writing and at the following meetings:

June 15, 1981 - Gardner Auditorium, State House, Boston at 2:00 P.M.

June 15, 1981 - Memorial Hall, Court St. (Rte. 3A), Plymouth at 7:00 P.M.

June 17, 1981 - Lecture Hall C, Science Building, Cape Cod Community College
at 7:00 P.M. Use parking Lots 7 and 8.

June 22, 1981 - City Hall, Gloucester at 7:00 P.M.

June 25, 1981 - Main Library, 613 Pleasant St., New Bedford at 7:00 P.M.

For further information contact either Don MacIsaac or Tom Hotz at
(617) 888-1155 or write to Division of Marine Fisheries, 449 Rte, 6A, East
Sandwich, MA 02537.

DRAFT
MASSACHUSETTS MARINE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT
POLICY REPORT
May, 1981

Prepared for the
Massachusetts Marine Fisheries Advisory Commission
by the
Division of Marine Fisheries
Donald B. Maclsaac, Senior Marine Fisheries Biologist
W. Thomas Hotz, Marine Fisheries Biologist

Funded under the
Coastal Zone Management Act
Through the
Massachusetts Coastal'Zone Management,
Coastal Fisheries Assistance Program (Sec. 306)

PUBLICATION #12403-139450-5-81-CR

APPROVED by JOHN J. MANTON, State Pvrchasing Agent.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Policy program personnel wish to thank the public, Division staff
members, and various State agencies who contributed their comments and
advice in policy development. In particular, we extend our gratitude
to those involved in drafting, reviewing, and revising the policies;
Director Philip G. Coates, the Division's Assistant Directors, and the
Massachusetts Marine Fisheries Advisory Commission.

We also thank Assistant Director W. Leigh Bridges for his adminis-
trative support and program guidance, and Eleanor Bois and Marie
Callahan for typing the manuscript.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. Introduction ........ 1
Il. Massachusetts Fisheries ....................................... 5
A. Fisheries ................................................. 11
1. Finfish .................................................. 11
2. Shellfish ................................................ 12
3. Crustaceans ................. :..... ...................... 13
4. Recreational Angling ........ ..... : ...................... 1`5
5. Other Marine Resources ................................... 24
B. Fishing Ports ............................................. 24
1. Gloucester ............................................... 25
2. New Bedford .............................................. 25
3. Boston ................................................... 25
4. Provincetown ............................................. 26
5. Sandwich .................................................. 26
6. Other Ports .............................................. 26
C. Resource Management Zones ................................. 31
1. Fisheries Conservation Zone (FCZ) ........................ 31
2. Massachusetts territorial waters ......................... 32
3. Contaminated areas ....................................... 34
4. Sanctuaries .............................................. 36
5. Coastal Zone ............................................. 36,
D. Processors ................................................ 43
E. Imports ................................................... 44
F. Mariculture and Fisheries Enhancement ..................... 45
III. Division of Marine Fisheries.. 50
IV. Fishery Related Agencies and Organiza ions .................... 55
A. International ............................................. 55
B. National .................................................. 55
C. Interstate ................................................ 58
D. State ..................................................... 58
E. Educational Institutions .................................. 50
F. Local ..................................................... 61
G. Private organizations ..................................... 62
V. Public Concerns ...... ........... 64
A. Port and Harbor Fac ilities ................................ 64
B. Gear Conflict ............................................. 6s
C. Law Enforcemeht ........................................... 66
D. Licensing ................................................. 67
E. Underutilized Species, Marketing, Fish Quality, and Joint
Ventures ......... 68
F. Information and Educa;ion, Gear Technology ................ 69
G. Vessel Safety, Insurance, Financing and Loans ............. 70
H. Shellfish ................................................. 70
I. Public Access ............................................. 72
J. Recreational Saltwater License ............................ 72

Page

VI. Principles, Policies, and Proposed Actions .................... 74
A. Statement of Principles ................................... 74
B. Statement of Policies and Proposed Actions ................ 75
1.0 Fisheries Management .................................... 75
1.1 Resource Management .................................... 75
1.2 Restrictions and Allocations ........................... 78
1.3 Regulations and Enforcement ............................ 79
1.4 Fisheries and Habitat Enhancement ...................... 81
1.5 Mariculture ............................................ 83
1.6 Environmental Concerns ................................. 84
1.7 Coordination of Marine Management, Research, and
Academic Programs .................................... 86
2.0 Research and Development ................................ 88
2.1 Fisheries Development ................ ................. s8
2.2 Marketing and Promotion ................................ 91
2.3 Fisheries Assistance ................................... 93
2.4 Research .......... ........ 95
3.0 Information and Educa ion ............................... 97
3.1 Statistics ............................................. 97
3.2 Information/Education .................................. 98
3.3 Licensing .............................................. 99
VII. Program Recommendations ....................................... 100
A. Division of Marine Fisheries.Programs ..................... 100
B. State Programs ............................................ 101
C. Recommended Legislation ................................... 101
Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations ................................ 103
A. Terms ..................................................... 103
B. Abbreviations ............................................. 104
Literature Cited ................................................... lo5
Appendices ......................................................... 108
I. Commercial and Recreational Questionnaire Results ........ 108
II. Sportfishing Clubs and Associations ...................... 124
III.Commercial Fishing Associations, Commissions, Unions....-126
IV. Scientific and Common Names of Important Finfish, Shell-
fish, Seaworms ......................................... 128
V. Policy public meetings ................................... 131
VI. Agency Policy Meetings ................................... 132

LIST OF TABLES

Number Title Page

1. Comparison of the ten top-ranked states according to
commercial fish landing value in 1979 with fiscal year
1981 exDenditure for state marine resource programs ........ @8

2. Estimates of the number of vessels and people employed in
various sectors of the Massachusetts Fisheries, 1977-1979.. 9

3. Estimated number of participants in Massachusetts Marine
Recreational Fisheries for 1977 to 1979 .................... 10

4. Estimated value of Massachusetts agriculture and fisheries
for 1970-1979 ............................................... 10

5. Massachusetts commercial landings and value of selected
species and total landings and value for all species,
1977-1979 .................................................. 17

6. Combined commercial and recreational shellfish harvest and
estimated value for Massachusetts in 1977 and 1978 ......... 18

7. Number of shellfish permits issued by the local cities and
towns of Massachusetts in 1977 and 1978 .................... 18

8. Massachusetts coastal and offshore lobster landings and
values for 1977 and 1978 ................................... 19

9. Number of lobster licenses issued by the Division of Marine
Fisheries from 1976 to 1979 ................................ 19

10. Estimated number of marine recreational fishing trips and
participants in Massachusetts, 1979 ........................ 20

11. Estimated marine recreational fishery cost, effort, and
catch statistics for New England region in 1979 ............ 20

12. Percentage of type fish sought and estimate number of fish
caught by New England recreational anglers in 1979 ......... 21

13. Estimated Massachusetts marine recreational fishery catch
in numbers and percent for 1979 ............................ 22

14. Estimated number of people and vessels involved in
recreational fishing support businesses in Massachusetts... 23

15. Massachusetts fishery (finfish) by port .................... 28

Number Title Page

16. Estimated numbers of vessels for selected ports, 1979 ...... 29

17. Commercial landings at certain Massachusetts ports and
total Massachusetts landings for 1977 to 1979 .............. 30

18. Number of processing and wholesale plants and average
employment in Massachusetts from 1970 to 1978 .............. 48

19. Estimated imports of fresh, whole, or headed Canadian
groundfish by Massachusetts in 1978 ........................ 49

20. Organizational chart, Division of Marine Fisheries ......... 54

Number Title LIST OF FIGURES Page

1. Massachusetts Commercially Important Ports and Harbors ..... 27

2. Massachusetts Territorial Waters ........................... 37

3. Restricted areas along the Massachusetts coast for bottom
pair, otter, and beam trawling ............................. 38

4. Restricted areas along the Massachusetts coast for Scottish,
Danish, and pair seining, and mid-water trawling ........... 39

5. Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Contamination Areas of
New Bedford Harbor ......................................... 40

6. Ocean Sanctuaries of Massachusetts ......................... 41

7. Area of the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program ... 42

MEMBERS OF THE MARINE FISHERIES ADVISORY COMMISSION

(may, 1981)

Thomas Bartlett

Joseph Brancaleone

Jack F. Conroy

Angelo Faro

Charles L. Fields (Clerk)

Morris I. Johnson

Francis Mirarchi (Vice-Chariman)

Elizabeth Stromeyer (Chairman)

Harry Swain

vii

1. Introduction

In recent years there has been renewed interest in the seas. Ex-
ploitation of offshore oil and minerals; utilization of fishery resources;
competition for commercial, residential, and recreational uses of the
coastal zone, and threats of environmental degradation have increased pub-
lic concern for, and appreciation of, the marine environment. This con-
cern has spawned state and federal regulations to protect the marine
environment and resources. The federal Coastal Zone Management Act;
Endangered Species Act; Marine Mammals Protection Act; Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act; National Environmental Policy Act; Marine Protection
Research and Sanctuaries Act; and the Magnuson Fisheries Conservation and
Management Act of 1976 (200 mile limit) has had a profound effect upon
both the fishing industry and the state fisheries management agency.

With reductions in foreign fis hing and possible increases in cer-
tain stocks, Massachusetts commercial fisheries have resurged. Commercial
fish landings have increased and new boats have entered the fisheries.
However, this prosperity created new problems and aggravated old ones.
Additional vessels may have caused overfishing of certain stocks,
conflicts between gear types increased, and competition with the
expanding recreational fi:sheries intensified. Limited and poorly main-
tained port facilities were overtaxed, catch increases were not matched
by increases in domestic and foreign market sales, seasonal gluts occurred,
and ex-vessel fish prices fell.

Recreational fisheries also experienced problems relating to growth.
Fishing effort has increased, but public access to the coastal waters via
beaches, ramps, and piers has not kept pace. Some important sportfish
species have declined, but programs to manage recreational fish are lacking.

Responsibility for these problems rests with the Commonwealth's
fisheries agency, the Division of Marine Fisheries. In addition, the
Division must deal with a myriad of environmental, conservation and manage-
ment regulations, and programs recently promulgated by state and federal
authorities. In light of the 200 mile limit, the nature of fisheries
management in Massachusetts has changed drastically. Prior to 1977 the
Commonwealth's participation in fisheries management was limited to the
State's three-mile territorial waters. The State had no voice in managing
fish stocks vital to Massachusetts fishing industry outside state waters.

Now Massachusetts plays an important role with the New England Fish-
eries Management Council and National Marine Fisheries Services in managing
the fisheries in the Fisheries Conservation Zone (FCZ). As a participating
Council member, the Division must provide information and comment on
management plans. As part of a unified management approach the Division
must manage fisheries in state waters in compliance with federal manage-
ment regulations or face possible federal pre-emption of State management
authority. This responsibility has placed an added burden on the Division's
management, research, and statistics collecting programs.

Enactment of the 200 mile limit, growth of recreational and commer-
cial fisheries, and increased government regulation make it necessary for
Massachusetts to reassess its role relating to the fisheries. The State
must coordinate agencies and programs to assure long-term stability of
the fishing industry as well as wise management of the living marine
resources. The first step in the development of a fisheries policy is to
define the purposes, means, and responsibilities of the State in fish-
eries management, development, and promotion. A fisheries policy will
provide guidance in decision making and stabilize management direction
and philosophies. It will reduce conflicts, ommissions, and redundancy
between State agencies. In addition, the public will obtain an under-
standing of their responsibilities in fisheries management and be more
aware of the State's position on fishery issues. The policy will be a
basis for cooperation amongst government, industry, and public for the
benefit of the fisheries and the resources.

Massachusetts last examined its fishing indi;stry and fishery pro-
grams in 1960. The report, "Final Report on the Studies of Massachusetts
Marine Fisheries Problems", 1960, was prepared by the newly organized
Marine Fisheries Advisory Commission, composed of members with commercial
or recreational fisheries expertise. It reviewed major fisheries problems
ahd made IS recommendations for new regulations or programs to remedy them.
The report provided the impetus for changes in fisheries that are still
apparent today such as: state review of coastal alteration and wetlands
projects, coastal pollution monitoring, efficient fisheries management
by regulation rather than legi 'slation, creation of a permanent Advisory
Commission, creation of local shellfish constable positions, establish-
ment of the University of Massachusetts Cooperative Fisheries Research
Unit, acquisition of a research vessel, and provision for a Public Access
Board. The recommended establishment of a Marine Fisheries Fund and-an
Estuarine Research Program allowed the Division to form a credible marine
research program. Although the latter two recommendations are no longer
in effect (the Marine Fisheries Fund was rescinded in 1975 by the Legis-
lature, and the Estuarine Program was reorganized into Area Teams in
1977), the 1960 report provided the basis for the creation of a fisheries
agency more responsive to fishery needs.

Some of the problems addressed in 1960,however,are still evident
in 1981. The need for effective law enforcement capabilities, shell-
fish purification facilities, a seaworthy research vessel, a south shore
research station, and sportfishing public access have not been addressed
in the twenty years since first recommended. Meanwhile, recent develop-
ments have created more complex problems that require comprehensive and
multidisciplinary approaches to fisheries management.

In 1978 Governor Dukakis issued Executive Order #156 calling for
the Massachusetts Marine Fisheries Advisory Commission to develop a state
fisheries policy. With continued support from Governor King, the Division
of Marine Fisheries applied to Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management for
a Coastal Fisheries Assistance Program (sec. 306) grant. In December
1979 the grant was awarded, and the Division, in conjunction with the

Marine Fisheries Advisory Commission, began policy development..

As a first step, 23 coastal states, the National Marine Fisheries
!Service (NMFS) and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC)
were surveyed for existing fishery policy reports. Some states had fish-
ery development-plans, but only Alaska had a written policy outlining
general management guidelines. The NMFS and ASMFC had fishery plans and
policies that provided some useful information, but they dealt primarily
with national and international issues that had little relation to
Massachusetts fisheries. The lack of an adequate state fisheries policy
model resulted in a considerable amount of time establishing a workable
policy format.

To review and assess Division activities, a program questionnaire
was created. Division project leaders were asked to describe their pro-
ject's objectives, accomplishments, and funding. They identified how
their project, and the Division as a whole, could-'provide improved public
.service. These questionnaires were reviewed by respective Assistant
Directors (i.e. Bureaus of Research, Commercial Fisheries, Recreational
Fisheries, and Administration), who, in turn, completed a bureau question-
naire.

The next step was to identify commercial and recreational fishery
problems and issues, and provide a vehicle for the public to express
their opinions. Two questionnaires were written, (see Appendix 1). To
obtain further public input, a series of meetings (Appendix V) were held
along the Massachusetts coast in which issues and solutions were discussed
in depth. Twenty-six meetings with commercial and recreational fishermen
were conducted.

To define agency responsibilities and program coordination, a series
of meetings with related government agencies were held (Appendix VI).
Discussion centered on coordinating programs in which the Division parti-
cipated, reducing duplication of independently run programs, and filling
program gaps in which services are omitted.

. During the input phase of the program, development of fisheries
policies was initiated. Draft policy statements were formulated and sub-
mitted for comment to the Division's administrative and biological staffs,
and the Marine Fisheries Advisory Commission'. The administrative staff
met with project personnel frequently to define and refine policies. The
Marine Fisheries Advisory Commission met monthly to review, comment, and'
advise on policy development. After Division and Advisory Commission
approval, this draft policy report is being made available for public and
state agency review. After obtaining comments, the draft will be revised
and the final report will be issued.

For purposes of this report, a policy is defined as the establish-
ment of principles and guidelines for future action. Policies stated in
this report do not relate to a particular situation or fishery but attempt
to span the broad spectrum of fishing issues. These policies are intend@d
to be general enough to maintain their relevance over time, but specific
enough to provide guidance to administrators, biologists, and the public
in dealing with fishery matters. In addition to policies, proposed actions

are included in the report. These are recommendations to improve existing
situations. They may refer to ongoing programs, or suggest legislative or
program changes necessary to bring Massachusetts fisheries and government
closer to the stated aims of the policies. Informational sections are
presented to provide the reader with an understanding and appreciation of
fisheries and the agencies involved in protecting marine resources.

11. Massachusetts Fisheries

With commercial landings valued at $175.5 million in 1979, Massa-
chusetts ranked fourth in the nation in value of fish landed (Table 1).
In addition, $7.8 million worth of shellfish were harvested by recrea-
tional shellfishermen in 1978, and an estimated $30 million was expended
by recreational rod and reel fishermen in 1979. The fisheries provide
income for an estimated 16,200 (Mass. Division of Fmployment Security,
1979) to 16,443 people (Table 2), in such diverse fields as fishing,
processing, wholesale, retail, bait and tackle, and charter and party
boat fishing. An additional 824,954 people participated in Massachusetts
saltwater recreational fishing in 1979 (Table 3).

Fishing and agriculture (i.e., livestock and crops) are the most
valuable natural resource-based industries in Massachusetts. In 1979
their combined value was $431.1 million, of which 41% was derived from
commercial fisheries (Table 4). The value of commiarcial fisheries has
been growing at a 21% annual rate of increase since 1975-, compared to a
6% annual rate for agriculture. Fish landings surpassed either crop or
livestock value in 1978. Nationally, fish product value indices rose
rapidly from 1967 to 1977, increasing by 239.4% versus 92% for crops
(Council of State Governments, 1979).

While these statistics are impressive, they do not represent the
real value of the Commonwealth's marine resources. First, the statistics
themselves are taken from various sources, some of them estimates, some
of them approximations and most of them underestimates of true fisheries.
value. As examples, the recreational finfish catch is commonly an esti-
mate based on interviews of a very small portion of the total fishermen.
Data on foreign fish imports to Massachusetts are unavailable because
Federal Customs records imports by port of entry, not destination.
Second, landing values are poor indicators of total fisheries economic
impact. The fishery is a primary industry, meaning that unlike other
industries producing a finfished product in one step, fishing is only
the first in a series of steps. After the fish is landed it must be
processed, packaged, distributed, and sold. This creates economic
activity beyond the original landing value. The amount of additional
economic activity generated by a dollars worth of product is commonly
measured by an economic multiplier. In Rhode Islan'd the multiplier for
most industries is 1.69, but for fisheries it is 4.24 (Council of State
Governments,' 1979). This means for every $100 of fish landed, $424 worth
of economic activity is generated in wages, materials purchased, services
paid for, etc. Using the Rhode Island fisheries economic multiplier of
,LL.24, Massachusetts commercial fisheries landings generated $744 million
in economic activity in 1279. Add to this -he mul@iplied value of the
1978 inshore shellfish harvest C$7.8 million x 4.24 = $33,1 millionl,
and a conaervative estimate of recreational angling and its support
industries. in 19.75 of $122 million, brings the total value of Massachusetts
fisheries, to almost $900 million.

The 4istory of Massachusetts fisheries. is based to a great extent

on the cod. This fish played such an integral Dart in the exploration of
America, and the economic, political, and social life of Massachusetts
and it's citizens that the Great and General Court of Massachusetts chose,
in 1784, to hang a representation of the codfish in the House of Repre-
sentatives as a memorial to its importance. The cod was important because
of its abundance and storage qualities when salted and dried.

In 1497, John Cabot discovered the great codfish grounds of the
Northwest Atlantic that would be exploited by Europeans for almost 500
years, spurring the colonization of America's Northeast seaboard. The
first settlements in Maine and New Hampshire were fish curing stations
established before the Pilgrims arrived. When the Pilgrims landed in
Plymouth they were befriended by an English speaking Indian who had learned
the language from fishermen. The Pilgrims came to escape religious perse-
cution, but it was fishing that brought the first settlers to Gloucester,
Marblehead, Salem, Weymouth, and Scituate (McFarland, 1911).

By 1630, the colonists had established a profitable fishing indus-
try that was the only New England product valued in European markets.
Because the New Englanders caught and salt-cured cod in winter, the
quality was far superior than European fish and commanded a better price
in the markets of Spain, Portugal, and France. To protect its' only
industry, the General Court of Massachusetts established a commission
for management and quality control of the fish trade in 1635. Low
quality or "refuse" salt cod was shipped to the West Indies islands to
feed the slaves. In trade, the boats returned with sugar and molasses
to supply the new rum distilleries in Newport and Boston. This trade
soon evolved into the "Golden Triangle" trade route which lasted for
fifty years until the Revoluntionary War in 1775 (Jensen, 1972). New
England boats brought salt'cod to Europe, picked up slaves along the
African coast, traded the slaves in the West Indies for sugar and
molasses, and returned to New England. Many of New England's most
famous families earned their fortune in the Golden Triangle trade.

Massachusetts fisheries prospered in the decade between 1765 and
1775, with 20 towns cod fishing, 605 boats fishing, 4,175 fishermenand
9,600 men involved in curing, packaging, and transporting (McFarland,
1911). However, the Revolutionary War devastated the fisheries with
losses in fishermen, boats, docks, and gear. One of the most important
negotiating points in the subsequent peace treaty was the fishing rights
in Canadian waters. Although John Adams secured the fishing rights, it
was not the last dispute over U.S.-Canadian fisheries. Six times from
1811to 1911 treaties, conventions, and international arbitrations attempted
to define fishing rights in Northwest Atlantic waters.

In addition to the direct effects of the war, the fisheries suffered
from foreign import duties and fishing subsidies. To aid the fisheries,
in 1791 Congress approved allowances to fishing vessels based on vessel
size, amount caught, and months fished. This allowance was increased in
1819 under the stipulations that a logbook be kept and that fishermen
would not be paid wages, but be compensated by a share of the sale of the

catch. The act wa& repealed in 1866 but the share or lay system of pay-
ment still exists.

By the 1860's the fisheries had stabilized. Although salt cod was
still the most important product, mackerel (salted or pickled) had been
growing in value since 1815. The European trade diminished only to be
replaced by demand from the expanding western states. The last half of
the century saw the rise of Gloucester as a center for salt cod, mackerel,
and halibut, surpassing landings at Boston and Provincetown combined.

With the advent of the steam engine at the turn of the century, and
otter trawl shortly thereafter, the fisheries changed. More fish could
be landed in shorter trips, making fresh fish more available. As demand
for fresh fish increased, Boston became the leading fishing port because
it was the New England marketing and transportation center. Dependent
on the salt cod fishery, Gloucester suffered from decreased demand and
cheaper Norwegian, Canadian, and Icelandic import@ in the 1920's and 30's
.(Boeri and Gibson, 1976). However, Gloucester's processing industry sur-
vived by processing imported salt cod, improving filleting techniques,
and developing new processing methods (e.g., Clarence Birdseye quick-
freezing). The improvements in transportation and processing allowed
the introduction of new species to the fresh and frozen markets of the
East and Midwest.

During World War II, New England fisheries prospered due to military
contract buying and the European zations inability to fish. Exports were
five times the amount of imports and for the first time fishermen were
guaranteed a price for fish landed. However, after the war contract
buying ceased and operating costs rose with postwar inflation. With the
economy improving in the 1950's, demand for fish increased. Fishermen
began to reduce their catch to raise prices. In a countermove, processors
turned to imported fish to meet demand and found readily available supplies
and lower prices from Canada and Iceland. Fish price increases reduced
the effectiveness of fresh fish import tariffs based on weight. In
addition, frozen whole fish and fish blocks were imported duty-free. In
1953, introduction of the frozen fish block that could be processed into
fish portions and fish sticks caused a boom in the convenience food retail
market and fast food franchises. Unfortunately for domestic fishermen,
over 80% of frozen fish blocks were imported. U.S. fishermen were-in-
creasingly restricted to supplying the limited fresh fish market. By 1974,
frozen imports were 15 times greater than domestic production (Massport,
1977).

In 1961, Russian fishing ships began -fishing Georges Bank. They
were followed by fleets from 15 other countries until there were aDproxi-
mately 300 large trawlers off our coast. InitialLy, the highly efficient
foreign vessels fished only the non-traditional species such as hakes,
herring, and squid. However, with foreign effort increasing, more of the
traditional New England fisheries, particularly haddock, began to feel
the mounting fishing pressure.

Table 1. Comparison of the ten top ranked states according'to
commercial fish landing value in 1979 with fiscal year
1981 expenditure for state marine resource programs.

Millions if Millions1of Expenditures in 2
Dollars Pounds Millions of Dollars

Alaska 597.0 898.5 26.3

California 227.5 728.4 1.2.1

Louisiana 198.5 1,529.1 3.5

Massachusetts 175.5 374.7 1.3

Texas 160.2 84.9 2.2

Florida 124.0 163.0 2.3

Washington 116.0 170.0 67.

Virginia 84.6 572.7 1.9

Maine 80.3 232.1 2.7

North Carolina 58.4 390.5 1.7

55 million Salmon

lFisheries of the U.S., 1979.
2Personal communication with Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission, data is exclusive of law enforcements costs.

Table 2. Estimates of the number of vessels and people
employed in various sectors of the Massachusetts
fisheries, 1977-1979.

1977 1978 1979
vessels people vessels people vessels people
Draggers1 933 3,359 1,170 4,212 1,629 5,664
Lobster2 1,513 1,513 1,560 1,560 1,674 1,674
Shellfish 6323 3,5963 8614 3,6214 NA NA
Charter boat5 - - 125 250 - -
Party boat5 - - 91 283 - -
Bait and tackle
dealer6 - - - 276 - -
Boat rental6 - - NA .90 - -
Processing7 - 6,253 - 6,040 - -
Mariculture8 - - - - - 111

Number of vessels is the sum of boat licenses and offshore lobster
licenses issued by DMF. This assumes that most offshore licenses
were issued to boats that primarily fish finfish and catch lobsters
incidentally.
2DMF lobster licneses, combining coastal commercial and coastal
seasonal only.
3Kilbride, 1978.

4Anderson, 1979.

Nicholson and Ruais, 1979.
6Massachusetts Salt Water Fishing Guide.
7NMFS, Fishery Statistics of the United States, 1978, 1979.
8Personal communication, Michael Hickey, DMF, 1979.

Table 3. Estimated number of participants in Massachusetts
marine recreational fisheries for 1977 to 1979.

1977 1978 1979
Lobsterl 8,559 2 8,9152 10 '479
Shellfish 38,727 38,222 38,4753
Angling NA NA 776,0004

IDMF license statistics.

2As reported by shellfish constables of coastal cities and towns.
3The average of the number of shellfish licenses issued in 1977 and 1978.
4NMFS, Marine Recreational Survey, Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, 1979,
Washington, 1980.

Table 4. Estimated value of Massachusetts agriculture (based on cash
receipts from farm markets)l and fisheries (based on
ex-vessel price)2 for 1970-79 in millions of dollars.

Livestock & Total Ex-vessel
-products Crops agriculture fish prices

1970 - - 168.6 47.0
1971 82.2 76.4 158.6 48.3
1972 84.6 75.1 159.3 56.8
1973 105.0 84.3 91.1 56.2
1974 104.4 96.3 200.7 62.3
1975 107.6 98.7 206.3 82.9
1976 109.3 111.9 221.2 95.8
1977 105.1 120.5 225.6 114.0
1978 112.2 129.9 242.1 152.3
1979 117.8 137.8 255.6 175.5

1Dept. of Food and Agriculture, Massachusetts Agricultural Statistics,
1970-1979.

2Fisheries statistics of the U.S., 1971-1980.

Management responsibility for fisheries outside the 12 mile U.S. con-
tiguous zone belonged to the International Commission for the Northwest.
Atlantic Fisheries (ICNAF), organized in 1950. While ICNAF's research was
fairl accurate, its managament efforts were ineffective. In 1973 a bill
y
was submitted to Congress to extend U.S. management jurisdiction to 200
miles. The Fisheries Conservation and Management Act was passed in 1976,
resulting in reduced foreign fishing effort and revitalization of U.S. and
Massachusetts fisheries.

The following sections describe the various aspects of the fisheries,
their value, and interdependency. While each section is separated for dis-
cussion purposes, the components within the fisheries are interrelated. The
amount and type of fish landed is directly related to gear, regulations,
processing capabilities, and imports. A change in the status of one compon-
ent will affect the fisheries as a whole. The coordination and interplay of
the various parts provide Massachusetts with one of it's most valuable resources.

A. Fisheries

1. Finfish

There are approximately 46 edible finfish species of varying value in
the Massachusetts fisheries. Massachusetts landings of 18 of these
species were worth $90.4 million in 1979, an increase of over $30
million in two years (Table 5). There were an estimated 779 finfish
vessels, employing 2,789 fishermen in 1977. About 62% of the vBssels
were draggers, 12% gillnetters, and 23% using various gear such as
gillnets, long lines, pots, and trawls, depending on the season (Mass.
Division of Marine Fisheries, 1977).

G@=_dfish or bottomfish is a term to describe a number of commer-
1 __ - -or near the bottom. These fish are primaril
cial species dwe=zng arr y
caught by otter trawl; however, some are caught by line trawl and
recently gillnetting has become an important catch method. While the
federal groundfish management plan covers only cod, haddock, and
yellowtail flounder, other species such as pollock, whiting, the
hakes (red and white), redfish, anglerfish, and five flounder species
(winter flounder, grey sole, American dab, windowpane, and fluke) can
be considered in the groundfish category. In 1979, the combined
value of cod, haddock, and yellowtail was $50.1 million, almost twice
the total value of other groundfish species ($27.0 million). 'While
some fishing effort is directed specifically towards redfish, whiting,
and flounder, most other groundfish species are caught incidentally
in the cod, haddock, and yellowtail fishery.

There is a seasonal directed otter trawl fishery for whiting (also
called silver hake) from May to November from Cape Cod Bay to Gloucester.
Massachusetts boats landed 601 of the 1977 catch in the northeast, with
Gloucester as the primary port. This species is usually processed
frozen for human consumption but is sometimes converted to fish meal
for pet food.

Nighttime midwater trawling for adult.-sea herring in recent years
has become a profitahle new fishery in Massi-c-lid-ietts and Cape Cod Bay.
In addition to out-of-state vessels, there were three sets of Massa-
chusetts pair trawlers fishing state waters and landing their catch
in Gloucester in 1977. Gear conflicts with fixed lobster gear made
it necessary to impose areal and seasonal closures for this gear in
1976. However, from 1977 to 1979, landings have increased 13.1
million pounds and value has almost doubled to $3.6 million.

Menhaden is an oily, unpalatable member of the herring family that
is usuali-y--processed for poultry feed and oil. It is fished in the
harbors and coastal waters by purse seiners (5 in 1977), and landed
in Gloucester for processing. This migratory, schooling fish is sen-
sitive to temperature and oxygen conditions. Cool summer temperatures
may reduce migration into Massachusetts waters. Oxygen depletion and
other causes may induce massive kills. Landings over the past three
years have fluctuated from a high of 56 million pounds in 1972, down
to 17.4 million in 1977 and back up to 48 million pounds in 1978.
Menhaden were second to cod, for total pounds landed in 1978.

Atlantic bluefin tuna is a highly migratory species that enter
state waters uring the summer months and are fished by hand gear or
purse seine. Previous to 1977, this was primarily a recreational
fishery conducted by rod and reel from charter boats, although har-
poons, handlines, and purse seines have been used since the 1940's.
When Japanese buyers began purchasing tuna, the price per pound rose
from $ .05 to well over $1.00. Since some tuna exceed 1,000 pounds
each, the fishery quickly became more commercial than recreational.
In 1977, 3,704 hand gear permits (e.g. land line, harpoon, or rod
and r;Bel) were issued by NMFS, and two purse seiners (limited to two
by state regulation) were operating in state waters.

Because of increasing demand for adult eels in Europe, eel fishing
in Massachusetts has increased in recent years. Eels are-c-a-t-a-cTro-
mous fish which leave fresh water and coastal estuaries to spawn in
deep water in the Caribbean. Young eels (elvers) return to the streams
and grow to adults living up to 20 years. Eels are under town manage-
ment, but the Division has promulgated broad base state regulations.
While no uniform reporting system exists, the best catch estimate
made by Division personnel is 150,000 pounds landed, worth $90,000
in 1977.

2. Shellfish

There are over 12 shellfish species of commercial or recreational val-
ue in Massachusetts fisheries. Included in this group are species
caught by otter trawl (squids), drags (sea scallops, bay scallops),
pots (conchs), hydraulic dredges (sea clams and ocean quahogs), and
hand gear (soft-shell clams, bay scallops, oysters, razor clams,
mussels, and quahogs). In 1979, 22.6 million pounds of shellfish
worth over $54.1 million were landed in Massachusetts commercial shell-

fisheries according to NMFS statistics.

Sea scallops ($48.3 million) accounted for 89% of total shellfish
landin-ig---value, and 28-35 of total fish landing value. The sea scallop
fishery has prospered since 1974 when a large population of scallops
was found on western Georges Bank. Both landings and price per pound
increased yearly until 1978, when landings began to decline although
price per pound continued to increase. In 1977, 90 vessels and 1,000
fishermen were fishing from 8 Massachusetts ports: New Bedford,
Provincetown, Martha's Vineyard, Sandwich, and Chatham were the most
significant ports. Although scallops are the most valuable shellfish
to Massachusetts fisheries, they are predominantly caught outside
state waters and are under federal management control.

Interest in the two New England squid species, long finned (Loligo)
and short finned (Illex) as domesti-c-a-Ha -expc;Tt fish products has in-
creased in recent years. The larger sized Illex squid is fished north
of Cape Cod by inshore trawlers. The smaller Loligo squid supports
an inshore spring trawl fishery during its spawning migration south
of Cape Cod. 'While both species support seasonal trawl fisheries,
they are considered underutilized and could provide greater landings
and value to Massachusetts fisheries.

The inshore recreational and commercial fisheries for quahog,__@io@ft-
clam,
shell c e
7
-L-9p
--rEJ -111on-@n-d $ -mil -ion
_mussel, and
other shellfish, were valued 9 8 1 in 1977
and 1978, respectively (Table 6). Bay scallops (60%) and quahogs
.(21%) provided the greatest value to the predominantly hand raking
and small boat, scallop dredge fisheries. Numbers of participants
in the inshore shellfisheries averaged 41,560 in 1977 and 1978
(Table 7). In 1977 and 1978, the vast majority of participants in
the shelifisheries (94% and 91%, respectively) were recreational
fishermen. These fishermen accounted for 80% (1977) and 84% (1978)
of landed shellfish value (Kilbride, 1978; Anderson, 1979).

3. Crustaceans

This group of 5 commercially important species contributed a reported
li.5 million pounds of landings and $17.@ million to the total
Massachusetts fisheries in 1979 (Table 5). The lobster fishery, with
its incidental catch of rock and jonah crabs, is --tFe--m-o-s--t @valuable
fishery conducted within state waters. The offshore red crab is a
small but stable fishery, while the inshore-offshore northern shrimp
fishery has suffered a drastic decline in recent@ years.

Lobster fishing had primarily been an inshore pot fishery under
state management before offshore otter trawl and then pot fisheries
developed on Georges Bank in the 60's and 70's. The Massachusetts
lobster fishery can he divided into three components: coastal
commercial, coastal recreational, and offshore commercial. Total
1978 lobster landings and value for all components were 8.9 million

pounds (Anderson, 1979) worth $16.9 million, about 25% of U.S.
landings (Table 8). The coastal commercial. lobster fishery is fur-
ther divided into regular and seasonal licenses. Since 1945, the
regular commercial fishery has been limited to a maximum of 1430
licenses to control expansion of the fishery and reduce the risk of
overfishing. Due to new lobster license legislation to become effect-
ive in 1981, 100 licenses (80 thereafter) will be added each year from
a list of applicants with fisheries experience. Seasonal commercial
licenses are issued only to fulltime students (288 in 1979), and
allows them to fish a maximum of 25 pots from June 15 to September 15.
In 1979, 10,479 coastal recreational licenses were issued (Table 9),
allowing sportfishermen to dive or fish up to 10 pots for family con-
sumption. The third license category, the offshore permit, allows
lobsters caught in out-of-state waters to be landed in Massachusetts.
The reported 1978 offshore catch was 1.9 million pounds, worth $3.6
million (Anderson, 1979). This fishery is conducted by pot and otter
trawls on board vessels primarily out of Harwich, Sandwich, and
Westport. Many of the 521 offshore permits issued in 1979 were to
finfish boats to allow them to land lobsters caught outside 3 miles
incidental to trawling operations.

Although commercial license holders comprise only 18% of lobster
fishermen, in 1978 they accounted for almost 97% of the reported lob-
ster catch. Most of the lobstering activity occurs in Essex and
Plymouth counties, which account for 61.% of total licenses and 62%
of pounds caught in 1978. In the same year, the total value of
lobsters landed plus boat, pot, and diving gear value was $34.2
million. The value of the Massachusetts lobster fishery has increased
over the years, as has the number of participants. Even though coastal
commercial licenses have been limited since 1975, the number of
licenses issued in all categories has increased 28% from 1976 to
1979 (Table 9).

Red Spajas-are large, deep water (250-400 fathoms), offshore crusta-
ceans that support a small pot fishery based in New Bedford.,. The
fishery was worth almost a million dollars in 1979 (Table 5). Crabs
are kept alive onboard the vessels until cooked and shucked onshore.
The meat is frozen in five pound blocks, and the legs are sometimes
individually quick-frozen (IQF).

Northern shrimp are a small but long-lived (six years) shrimp species
that has s fishery in the Gulf of Maine off and on for
over 40 years. Massachusetts, Maine, and New Hampshire boats began
to seriously exploit this resource in the early 60's, but by the 70's
the declining fishery faced reduced fishing seasons and catches.

The shrimp trawl--tisheny-out of Gloucester between 1969 and 1975
averaged--r-4-mil@ion pounds landed and up to $5 million in value. The
fishery, formerly conducted year round off Gloucester by as many as
52 boats in 1973, has declined to a short winter fishing season with
annual catches not exceeding a million pounds since 1976. Although

explanations for the decline differ, a probable combination of over-
fishing and unfavorable environmental conditions reduced the shrimp
population in spite of management efforts by Massachusetts, Maine,
New Hampshire, and NMFS under ASMFC auspices.

4. Recreational Angling

Recreational angling for sportfish has always been presumed to be a
small component.of Massachusetts fisheries. However, recent NMFS data
indicate that sportfishing accounts for a surprisingly large share of
the edible fish harvest, estimated between 40-50%.

Because recreational fisheries are so difficult and expensive to
survey, statistics tend to be incomplete and imprecise. In addition,
since fishermen are unlicensed, fish at irregular times, and over
large areas, it is difficult to estimate the r 'eal value of sport-
fisheries. Defining a fisherman as recreatiotal or commercial is a
problem because no distinct boundary separates the two groups. In
Massachusetts one can land and sell a giant Atlantic bluefin tuna for
$1,500 without a commercial rod and reel license, while someone who
catches and sells $63 worth of scup (based on estimated 1980 value
for 100 pound-s plus one fish) must be licensed. Many anglers sell
thousands of pounds of fish each year and still consider themselves
recreational fishermen.

There are four categories of recreational angling based on method
used to fish: from a pier or jetty, from a beach. onboard a party
or charter boat :@@@ndo'nbUcar - @iprl@a-Eeor-re@t-af-i@at. In--t-S-e -recent
i-ede@ai-recreational fishing survey conducted in 1979 (NMFS, 1980),
an estimated 776,000 people made over 2.7 million salt water fishing
trips in Massachusetts. Interestingly, 275,000 (3-5Lo)_of the total
recreational anglers were out-of-state residents, indicating that
sport fishing is an imp-o-F @an t-i-Ffi for tourism (Table 10).
In New England, the average fishing trip lasted 3.9 hours, cost
$10.60, and involved traveling 30.3 miles (Table 11). Out-of-the-
pocket expenditures by Massachusetts fishermen in 1979 was estimated
at $Z.9 @mil @cn. Of the four fishing categories, private/rental boat
fishing was the most successful, averaging 6.2 fish caught per trip,
accounting for 79% of the weight of fish caught and 54% of the trips
in the region. The U.S. Coast Guard's Annual Boating Statistics for
1977 reported 170,000 private marine recreational boats in Massachusetts.
It was estimated (Bromberg, 1973, cited in Nicholson and Ruais, 1979)
that in 1973 there were 34,390 private boats in Massachusetts used in
salt water angling. The federal fishing survey revealed that Massa-
chusetts fishermen caught 20.5 million fish, 56% of the total fish
catch (numbers) in New England. The species most sought after by
fishermen in the region (Table 12) were bluefish (24%) and winter
flounder (19%), while 26% of the fishermen had no preference. The
most commonly caught species in Massachusetts (Table 13) in terms of
millions of fish were winter flounder (10-2), cod (1.8), pollock (1.5),
and mackerel (1.1).

Accurate estimates of total economic impact of recreational fishing
are difficult to obtain because they involve estimates of sales of
fishing tackle, boats, motors, trailers, fuel, food, lodging, travel
expenses, insurance, and other costs. In 1975 an estimated $3.4
billion (U.S. Dept. of Interior, 1977) was expended nationwide on
saltwater fishing. In New England and New York in 1975, after sales,
value added, wages and capital expenditures were considered, the total
economic impact of recreational fisheries was $610 million, with an
estimated 8,300 people employed (Centaur, 1977, as cited by Nicholson
and Ruais, 1979). Assuming that 20% of the value and employment fig-
ures were generated in Massachusetts (Based on 20% of total fishing
trips in New England and New York area 1979), then the Commonwealth's
xrecreational-fisheries total worth was an estimated $122 mi n, and
employed 1660 people in 1975. 1 -

Money spent by recreational anglers contribute to the Massachusetts
restaurant, hotel, and tourism industries. Anglers are the main sup-
port to the charter and party boat, bait and tackle, and boat rental
businesses. An estimated 91 party boats and 125 charter boats, with
carrying capacity of 4,631 and 750 respectively, operate in Massachu-
setts (Nicholson and Ruais, 1979). Party and charter boats charge a
fee for carrying saltwater anglers to fishing grounds. Party boats
are usually large vessels with an average capacity of about 51 fisher-
men. The captain decides where and-what to fish. While they pursue
cod throughout the fishing year, other species fished include: win-
ter flounder in spring; pollock, bluefish, fluke, and haddock in
summer; and winter flounder, pollock, and haddock in fall. In contrast,
charter boat fishermen have more influence in what is fished and they
most commonly seek bluefish and striped bass in the summer months.
These boats are generally smaller and carry 5 or less people (limited
by Coast Guard regulation).

While making 8% of the trips in New England in 1979, charter and
party boats accounted for 10% of the recreational catch (Table 14).
Data from Nicholson and Ruais, 1979, indicate that seasonal employment
in the Massachusetts charter and party boat industries averages 250
and 283 people, respectively (Table 14).

.There are 138 bai-t and tackle shops and 45 boat rental operations
located in coastal Massachusetts that are dependent on recreational
fishing. In addition, there -are 148 public and private coastal boat
launching ramps in Massachusetts waters, approximately one every 14
miles of coastline. Assuming that two people are employed per boat
rental and bait and tackle operation, the total estimate of people
employed at some time of year by Massachusetts recreational fisheries,
including charter and party boats, is 899 (Table 14). While the in-
volvement Of Deople and expenditure of money in recreational fisheries
is probably la'rge, the precise value of recreational fisheries in
Massachusetts is still an unknown quantity.

Table 5. Massachusetts commercial landings and value
of selected species and total landings and
value for all species, 1977-1979 (in millions
of pounds and millions of dollars).

1977 1978 1979

Pounds Value Pounds Value Pounds Value

Cod 41.4 13.7 49.2 17.2 81.3 23.9
Haddock 25.1 8.0 33.2 10.6 33.4 14.2
Pollock 16.2 2.4 21.6 3.8 19.7 4.0
Hakes 5.8 0.8 6.2 9.9 6.4 1.1
Yellowtail flounder 28.1 13.3 33.2 10.6 22.9 12.0
Other flounder 34.1 11.5 38.8 17.6 35.8 15.7
Redfish 14.2 2.2 13.1 2.3 16.1 3.6
Whiting 27.2 2.3 27.2 3.8 7.6 1.4
Sea herring 37.7 1.4 40.5 2.7 50.8 3.6
Atlantic bluefin tuna 1.6 1.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 3.2
Swordfish 0.8 1.2 4.2 5.6 3.7 5.8
Menhaden 17.4 0.4 49.0 1.2 29.0 0.7
Anglerfish 1.9 0.7 2.2 0.8 2.6 1.2

Total all finfishl 279.3 62.1 336.5 83.3 329.4 94.5

Lobster 5.1 9.3 7.3 14.4 7.7 16.0
Rock crab 0.1 - 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.1
Northern shrimp 0.5 0.3 0.1 - 0.9 0.3
Red crab 2.5 0.8 2.7 0.9 2.7 0.9

Total all crustaceansl 8.3 10.5 10.3 15.4 11.5 17.2

Quahog 0.3 0.7 0.5 0.9 0.5 1.5
Soft-shelled 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.7
Surf 0.2 0.1 - - - -
Conch 0.1 - 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
B. scallop 0.2 0.5 0.3 1.1 0.3 1.4
S. scallop 17.0 28.0 17.0 42.2 14.2 48.3
Squid 3.1 0.5 1.2 0.2 7.0 2.0

Total all shellfishl 20.1 30.1 18.8 44.7 22.6 54.1

Total all species2 319.3 114.0 376.9 152.3 374.7 175.5

1NMFS, Massachusetts landings, 1978, 1979 with Massachusetts supplemental
landings added.
2NMFS, Fisheries of the United States, 1978, 1979.

Table 6. Combined commercial and recreational shellfish harvest
and estimated value for Massachusetts in 1977 and 1978.

1977 1978

Bushels Value Bushels Value

Quahog 181,123 3,2242421 104,267 2,081,441

Soft-shelled clam 62,133 1,353,118 56,698 1,363,708

Oyster 23,403 386,510 4,978 86,397

Bay scallop 151,731 2,388,573 297,329 5,978,874

Razor clam 754 11,048 722 12,226

Sea clam 36,543 281,171 14,339 108,423

Mussel 24,914 73,371 15,312 95,805

Other 43,882 375,079 14,004 146,142
8,093,291 9,873,016

*Calculated by using value of commercial harvest price/bushel expanded
to include recreational catch.

lKilbride, 1978
2Anderson, 1979

Table 7. Number of shellfish permits issued by the local
cities and towns of Massachusetts in 1977 and 1978.

19771 19782

Resident family 33,036 31,254

Non-residont 41,776 31,995

Commercial 2,550 3,621

Other 915 2,973
71,277 41,843

lKilbride, 1978
2Anderson, 1979

Table 8. Massachusetts coastal and offshore lobster
landings and values for 1977 and 1978 (in
millions of pounds and millions of dollars).

19771 19782

Pounds Value Pounds Value

Coastal commercial 5,432,427 10,136,748 6,729,745 12,748,445

oastal recreational 333,103 621,560 298,853 554,139

Offshore commercial 488,465 967,811 1,897,699 3,633,048
6,253,995 11,726,119 8,926,297 16,947,622

lKilbride, 1978
2Anderson, 1979

Table 9. Number of lobster licenses issued by the Division
I
of Marine Fisheries from 1976 to 1979

1976 1977 1978 1979

Coastal commercial 1,369* 1,371* 1,368* 1,386*

Coastal seasonal 146 142 192 288

Coastal recreational 8,122 8,559 8,915 10,479

Offshore commercial 243 298 414 521
9,880 10,370 10,889 T2,674

1Division of Marine Fisheries license records.
*Moritorium on licenses.

Table 10. Estimated number of marine recreational fishing
trips and participants in-Massachusetts,- 19791

Coastal Non-coast'al Out--of-state Total
Residents Residents Residents Participants

Number of trips 2,015,000 166,000 562,000 2,743,000

Number of participants 454,000 47,000 275,000 776,000

iMarine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey, Atlantic and Gulf
Coasts, 1979, NMFS, 1980.

Table 11. Estimated marine recreational fishery cost, effort, 1
and catch statistics for New England region in 1979

Mean Miles
(one fish % weight of trips
Method Hrs Cost way) caught/trip fish caught (thousand s)

Pier/jetty 3.2 3.7 19.0 3.1 7 1,425
Beach 3.5 8*.1 28.9 1.7 4 1,254
Party/charter 4.1 27.1 60.8 4.7 10 533
Private/rental 4.7 12.5 31.1 6.2 79 3,771

All methods 3.9 10.6 30.3

iMarine Recreational Fishing Statistics Survey, Atlantic and Gulf Coasts,
1979, NMYS, 1980.

Table 12. Percentage of type fish sought and
estimate number of fish caught by
New England recreational anglers
in 19791.

Species sought Number
Species as % of interviews caught (thousands)

No preference 26 -

Bluefish 24 4,824

Winter flounder 19 12,448

Mackerel 9 2,172

Cod 8 2,602

Striped bass 6 185

Other fish 6 2,499

Tautog 6 999

Pollock 4 2,277

Flounder, summer 3 571

Flounders 3 523

Smelt 3 644

Scup 3 4,581

Total catch all species 40,064

Exceeds 100% because of multiple answers.

Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey, Atlantic and Gulf Coasts,
1979, NMFS, 1980.

Table 13. Estimated Massachusetts marine
recreational fishery catch in
numbers and percent for 19791.

Number
Species (thousands) Percent

Winter flounder 10,249 45

Cod 1,835 8

Pollock 1,510 7

Mackerel 1,093 5

Bluefish 969 4

Scup 949 4

Tomcod 698 3

Smelt 521 2

Herrings 475 2

Flounder, summer 378 2

Black sea bass 330 1

IMarine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey, Atlantic and Gulf Coasts,
1979, NMFS, 1980.

Table 14. Estimated number of people and vessels involved in rec-
reational fishing support businesses in,Massachusetts.

Vessels
or dealers People

Charter boats 125 2501

Party boatsl 91 2831

Bait and tackle dealers2 138 276*

Boat rental dealers2 45 90*

TOTAL 899

lNicholson and Ruais, 1979.
2Massachusetts Salt Water Fishi ng Guide.

*Estimated on the basis of two people per dealer operation.

5. Other marine resources

In addition to the well known commercial and recreational species,
there are other marine organisms of substantial, but for the most
part, undocumented value. The bait fisheries supply recreational
rod and reel fishermen, and party and charter boat operators with
seaworms, shellfish, and finfish for bait. Seaworms are the most
valuable bait species, bringing about $2.50 per pound to the diggers.
Squid, surf clams, ocean quahogs, and grossly contaminated soft-
shelled clams are commonly used as bait for cod, haddock, mackerel,
and flounder. Menhaden, minnows, small eels, and certain small
shrimp species provide bait for striped bass, bluefish, and smelt.
Small unmarketable finfish and refuse from processed commercial
species are employed for lobster bait. While bait fisheries are
undoubtedly valuable, estimates of actual value are not available.

Marine algae are sometimes harvested for foo"d purposes. In Canada
duj:_c6--is--ga--thered and dried for human consumption. In Massachusetts,
particularly on the South Shore, Irish moss (Chondrus crispus) is
raked from intertidal rocks and processed for carrageen, a binding
substance used in ice cream and makeup. The Irish moss harvest in
1978 was reportedly worth over $14,000 (Anderson, 1979).

Other commercial and recreational fisheries exploit marine species
on a small scale basis. Periwinkles and limpets are harvested to
fill ethnic market demands. Horseshoe crabs are in demand not only
for eel bait, but also for medical research. Blue claw crabs sup-
port a popular recreational dipnet fishery in Nantucket Sound. Ade-
quate data does not exist to substantiate the actual value of these
fisheries.

In recent years, public appreciation of the marine environment's
aesthetic values have increased. The annual spring alewife runs
attract hundreds of spectators. The public is willing to expend
money to observe marine fauna in their natural habitat as evidenced
by the popularity of whale watching and SCUBA diving. Because these
activities support commercial ventures it underlines the importance
of maintaining the quality of the marine environment.

B. Fishing Ports

There are 51 commercial fishing harbors in Massachusetts (Figure 1).
Five Ports (based on 1977 landing exceeding $1 million) can be considered
of major commercial importance: Gloucester, New Bedford, Boston,_@oyiLnce-
town, and Sandwich. Other ports o3@_-Importa_iiE@@e: Chatham, Plymouth,
Scituate, Hyannis, Martha's Vineyard (four harbors), and Nantucket. Each
port differs in number and types of vessel, processing, port facilities,
and species landed. Within each port, the catch varies with fluctuations
in fish prices and seasonal fish migration. Addition of new boats, trans-
ient nature of the fleet, and seasonal gear changes (e.g. from lobstering
to gill netting) make it difficult to categorize the numbers and types

of vessels in each port. According to DMF estimates, these eleven ports
in 1977 accounted for 252 million pounds of fish (not including sea
scallops, shellfish, and lobsters), valued in'excess of $56 million, em-
ploying an estimated 2083 fishermen on 565 finfish boats (Table 15). In
1979, the number of finfish boats in these eleven ports increased to an
estimated 628 (Table 16, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket totals were
estimated). Landings in the five major ports in 1979 accounted for 84%
of the catch and 73% of the value of all commercial species landed in
Massachusetts.

1. Gloucester

Gloucester is a fresh fish harvest ng-pcr-t, and_also a frozen fish
processing.pqrt. It has consistently been the leading New Eh-gffla'nd
@3@in terms of volume landed and is ranked seventh nationwide.
In 1979, 160.2 million pounds of fish worth 29.7 million dollars
(Table 17) were landed in Gloucester by a fleet of 369 vessels
(Table 16). Finfish vessels numbered 243, and consisted of offshore
and inshore trawlers, gillnetters, seiners, herring pair trawlers,
and Danish seiners. The 126 lobster boats made this port the leading
lobster center on the North Shore. Groundfish, whiting, menhaden,
sea herring, redfish, and shrimp are important to the fresh fish
industry. The areas fished encompass the Gulf of Maine and Georges
Bank.

While fresh fish is important to the fishermen, only one out of the
12 processors deals solely in fresh fish. Much of the fresh fish is
shipped to New Bedford, New York, and Philadelphia. The lack of pro-
cessing, cold storage, and offloading facilities restricts the quan-
tities that can be landed and the price that can be paid. Many pro-
cessors deal with imported frozen fish and fish blocks.

2. New Bedford

New Bedford is noted for both fresh fish and scallops worth over $40
million in 1977. Scallops alone accounted for $20.2 million or half
the value of the total catch. The 164 finfish, 50 scallop, and 17
lobster boats, landed 86.0 million pounds of fish valued at $67.4
million in 1979. Many of the draggers are new steel hulled vessels.
Fishing is conducted for scallops on Georges Bank and Nantucket Shoals,
for yellowtail on Nantucket Shoals and Rhode Island Sound, and for
cod and haddock on Nantucket Shoals and Georges Bank.

Twelve of the fifteen processors handle fresh fish, mostly flounder,
cod, and haddock. in 1977, an estimated 700 to 800 people were em-
ployed in fish processing. Although processing and cold storage
facilities exist, docking space is limited.

3. Boston

While Boston ranked third in Massachusetts in pounds landed (30.3

million) in 1979, it is primarily a center for fresh fish importing
and processing. Fresh fish is trucked in from Canada, Maine, and
other Massachusetts ports. Boston's 21 fresh fish and 5 frozen fish
processors deal in cod, haddock, flounder, and redfish.

The 37 finfish vessels range from small gill net boats fishing
outside Boston Harbor to large offshore trawlers fishing Georges Bank
and the Gulf of Maine. While the docking space is adequate for the
number of vessels, offloading and processing facilities need improve-
ment. Massport has undertaken the task of remodeling and improving
the Boston Fish Pier's facilities.

Centered around the Boston Fish Pier is the largest lobster landing,
importing, and wholesale center in Massachusetts. Numerous dealers
purchase lobsters from the 98 lobster boats moored throughout the
harbor. In 1977 over 788,000 pounds of lobsters worth $1.5 million
were landed in Boston.

4. Provincetown

In 1979 this port landed 23.4 million pounds of mostly flounder, cod,
and scallops worth $10.3 million, an increase of over 5 million
pounds since 1977. Many Boston and New Bedford vessels contribute
to the landings of the Provincetown fleet of 44 finfish, 4 scallopers,
and 6 lobster vessels. The addition of 25 vessels over the past four
years has aggravated the berthing conditions on the deteriorating
town wharf. Lack of ice and cold storage facilities means that ice
must be trucked in from New Bedford and fish trucked out immediately
after landing. Two wholesale buyers truck fresh fish to Hyannis for
freezing and chilling and then on to markets in Boston, New Bedford,
New York, and Philadelphia.

5. Sandwich

The Sandwich fleet increases from about 18 finfish and scallop boats
in summer, to about 30 during the winter. Recreational boats leave
the basin at the east end of the Canal and vessels from New Bedford
and Provincetown return. Fourteen lobster vessels are based in
Sandwich. Landings in 1979 totaled 17.5 million pounds worth $9.8
million, up almost $5 million from 1977. Three processors handle
fresh fish, shellfish and lobsters. A fourth processor, with two
freezer plants, purchase mackerel, menhaden, and sea herring.

6. Other Ports.

Many of the Plymouth and Scituate boats fishing for cod, yellowtail,
winter flounder, and swordfish land at either port. In 1979, there
were 14 finfish and 31 lobster boats in Plymouth, and 19 finfish and
12 lobster boats at Scituate. A number of lobster boats switch to
cod gillnetting during the winter. At both ports, boats tie up at
the town pier, ice is delivered, and fish shipped by truck.

Figure 1. Massachusetts commercially important ports and harbors

25. Rock Harbor
26. Wellfleet
27. Pamet River
28. Provincetown
2 29. Nauset Town Cove
30. Chatham *
3 31. Stage Harbor
1. Newburyport-Salisbury 4 32. Saquatucket Harbor
2. Newbury 33. Wychmere Harbor
3. Ipswich 34. Allens Harbor
4. Rockport 5 35. Bass River
5. Gloucester** 36. Hyannis *
6. Manchester 7 37. Cotuit
7. Beverly-Salem 8 38. Green Harbor
8. Marblehead 9 39. Falmouth Inner Harbor
9. Swampscott 10 40. Woods Hole
10. Lynn 11 41. West Falmouth
11. Nahant 12 42. Little Bay
12. Saugus 13 43. New Bedford **
13. Winthrop 14 44. Westport
14. Boston ** 15 45. Cuttyhunk
15. Hull 16 46. Menemsha
16. Quincy-Hingham 17 47. Vineyard Haven
17. Cohasset 18 48. Oak Bluffs
18. Scituate * 49. Edgartown
19. Green Harbor 50. Madaket
20. Plymouth * 51. Nantucket
21. Ellisville
22. Sandwich ** 19
23. Barnstable
24. Sesuit
28 27 20

25 29

24
22
23

42-
3
34 33 32
35
36
37
43 41

40 39 38
47
44
48

45 49

** Primary ports 51
50
*SeconDary ports

Table 15. Massachusetts fishery (finfish) by port. 1

1977

Total pounds Total value Total boats Total
landed fishermen

Gloucester 147,646,535 $20,852,897. 180 650

New Bedford -62,219,000 221,232,697. 124 750

Boston 22,251,298 5,960,077. 37 175

Provincetown 8,360,000 2,686,040. 44 174

Sandwich 4,996,000 1,930,106. 16 31
00

Chatham 3,050,000 838$470. 88 207

Plymouth 1,770,000 528,000. 14 50

Scituate 7750,000 282,000. 22 80

Hyannis 613,600 191,000. 7 12

Martha's Vineyard 283,960 228,282. 21 88

Nantucket 19,903 9,177. 12 41

Totals 251,985,296 $561)215,746. 565 2*083

ISource: The Commercial Fisheries of Massachusetts, 1977, Division of Marine Fisheries.

Table 16. Estimated numbers of vessels for selected ports, 1979.

Gloucester Plymouth

243 finfish 14 finfish
126 coastal lobster 31 coastal lobster

New Bedford Scituate

164 finfish 19 finfish
50 sea scallopers 12 coastal lobster
17 coastal lobster

Boston Hyannis

20 finfish 6 finfish
98 coastal lobster 1 sea scalloper
1 offshore lobster

Provincetown Sandwich

44 finfish 17 finfish
4 sea scallopers 1 sea scalloper
6 coastal lobster 14 coastal lobster

Chatham

68 finfish
5 sea scallopers
8 coastal lobster

628 - Total for finfish boats for above major ports (Marthas Vineyard and.
Nantucket estimated).

Estimated total for all Massachusetts ports, 1979.

Finfish: 735
Sea scallopers: 76
Coastal lobster: 1243
Offshore lobster: 27

Source: Division of Marine Fisheries, 1979.

Table 17. Commercial landings at certain Massachusetts Portsi
and total Massachusetts landings for 1977 to 19791
(millions of lbs, millions of dollars, all species).

1977 1978 1979
Lbs Value Lbs Value Lbs Value

Gloucester 150.9 21.5 185.1 mg 160.2 29.7

New Bedford 75.5 43.2 71.9 54.6 86.0 67.4

Boston 22.2 6.0 27.3 8.1 30.3 10.7

Provincetown 17.9 6.9 19.9 9.1 23.4 10.3

Sandwich 15.3 5.0 17.5 9.8

Total Massachusetts
319.3 114.0 376.9 152.3 374.7 175.5

Not reported to avoid disclosure of private enterprise.
lNMFS, Fisheries of the U.S. 1977, 1978, 1979.

Chatham has a unique fishing fleet because of the harbor's physical
characteristics. The shallow sand bar at the entrance to Pleasant
Bay limits the 88 boats (1977) to a vessel size between 30-50 feet.
In 1977, most of the smaller vessels (20) jigged for cod, while the
laraer boats (68) primarily longlined for cod and flounder. By 1979,
almost all the longline boats had switched to gill nets. Although
catches have increased because of gill nets, many fear damage to the
cod stocks and a lessening of the previously high fish quality.
There are two buyers that ship the catch to markets in Boston and
New York.

Hyannis' small commercial fleet is limited in summer to six vessels
(1979), due to recreational boats competing for the scarce berthing
space. During the,winter as many as 16 scallop and finfish boats
land in Hyannis and sell to the one local buyer.

Martha's Vineyard has four ports: Vineyard @faven, Oak Bluffs,
Edgartown, and Menemsha. Menemsha is the main commercial port for
the Island's finfish, scallop, lobster, and swordfish fisheries.
The Island has buyers, one in Vineyard Haven, two in Menemsha, and
one in Edgartown. Except for Menemsha, commercial docking facilities
are limited..

As with other ports in vacation areas, the commercial fleet in
Nantucket must make way for recreational boats, especially in summer.
The 12 local scallop and finfish fleet swells to over 32 in summer
during the squid and fluke season, putting a further strain on dock-
age facilities. There are three buyers on Nantucket, but they ship
fish to the mainland and most of the locally consumed fish is shipped
in from Hyannis.

C. Resource Management Zones

Fish distribution, bottom type, vessel size, and gear type are all
factors influencing where fishing is conducted. Other, more artificial,
factors are the resource management areas controlled by federal, state,
and local governments. These areas are primarily controlled for environ-
mental and resource management purposes, however, some are restricted due
to contamination. The following is a discussion of regulated resource
areas affecting Massachusetts waters.

1. Fisheries Conservation Zone (FCZ)

The federal Magnuson Fisheries Conservation and Management Act (FCMA)
of 1976 (200 mile limit) established federal authority over manage-
ment of fisheries from state territorial seas out to 200 nautical
miles. With regulations promulgated by the New England Fisheries
Management Council (NEFMC), the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) has the authority to enforce regulations for foreign and
domestic fishing in this zone. A state must manage fish stocks
common to state territorial seas and the FCZ consistent with NEFMC
fisheries management plans, or face possible pre-emption of manage-
ment authority by the Secretary of Commerce.

The New England Council has fishery management plans in place for
groundfish (cod, haddock, and yellowtail) and sea herring. A sea
scallop plan has been submitted to the Secretary of Commerce and
management plans for lobster, silver hake, other hake, redfish, red
crab, and pollock are under various stages of development. The Mid-
Atlantic Fisheries Management Council has approved management plans
for butterfish, surf clams, ocean quahogs, mackerel, and squid (both
Loligo and Illex). Striped bass and fluke (summer flounder) manage-
ment-plans are being developed by the NMFS funded Interstate Manage-
ment program in conjunction with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission. Swordfish are managed under the Billfish-Shark management
plan of the South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council. Atlantic
bluefin tuna are managed by the International Convention for the
Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT).

2. Massachusetts territorial waters

Before the American colonies were established, the territorial seas
were defined in English common law as extending one marine league
(three nautical miles) from shore, later popularized as the distance
a cannonball could be fired5 (Massachusetts Water Resources Commission,
1970). Under common law, English sovereigns had property rights to
the soil under the sea extending to the high water mark, and the
authority to regulate and govern navigation for the common use and
benefit of all persons (the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
has always defined "navigation" as including fishing). English
common law applied to the Massachusetts Colony as well, as stated in
the Colony Ordinance of 1641-47. This ordinance made one change in
common law to give private property rights to the proprietor down
to the low water mark with the stipulation that "Every inhabitant
who is an householder shall have free fishing and fowling in any
great ponds, bays, coves, and rivers so far as the sea ebbs and
flows..." This provision allowed the public the right to cross
private property to fish or fowl in coastal waters. After the
American Revolution, the English King's authority over the Massachu-
setts territorial sea was transferred to the statets legislative
powers. This authority covers over 1,200 miles of coastline and
over 1600 square nautical miles of ocean.

The Massachusetts*territorial sea extends three miles (amended from
three nautical miles) from the mean low water mark. In addition, the
internal waters under jurisdiction of the Commonwealth include bays
and inlets where a baseline from headland to headland is drawn to
represent the shoreline. The internal waters extend seaward three
miles from the baseline. Under this provision the western portion
of Massachusetts Bay, southwest Buzzards Bay, and all of Cape Cod Bay
fall under the Commonwealth's jurisdiction (Figure 2).

The Commonwealth manages most living marine resources in the terri-
torial waters, and generally regulates consistent with FCZ regulations.
Marine mammals are protected by the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Endangered species are protected by both the National Marine Fish-
eries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Control over
shellfish (in contaminated waters), sea worms, and eels is exercised
by cities and towns. Local communities may manage alewives if the
Director approves their petition to do so. Town jurisdiction ex-
tends only to three miles and does not include central Cape Cod Bay
and western Massachusetts Bay.

Management actions can be enacted either as statutes by the Legis-
lature or as regulations promulgated by the Division of Marine
Fisheries. Statutes enacted by the Legislature are codified under
M.G.L. c. 130, General Laws relating to Marine Fish and Fisheries.
However, many statutes or special acts dating back hundreds of years
have not been codified, and in some cases are antiquated, conflicting
or forgotten. Under M.G.L. c. 130, s. 17A (approved 1962) the Director
of the Division has the power, upon approval by the Marine Fisheries
Advisory Commission, to specify the manner, size, quantity, season,
hours, and areas by which fish may be taken. Founded in 1960, the
nine members commission is made up of commercial and recreational
fishermen, people associated with the commercial and recreational
fisheries, and other individuals chosen for their knowledge and
experience in Massachusetts' fisheries. The Commission reviews,
comments and votes on regulations affecting Massachusetts marine
fisheries and discusses fisheries problems and issues and recommends
solutions. It works closely with the Director in matters pertaining
to the Division and its programs and advises on policy matters. The
Attomey General's Office is of the opinion that regulations pro-
mulgated under authority of s. 17A (10) supercede conflicting special
acts.

a. Restricted Fishing Areas

Certain areas of the Commonwealth's internal waters have fishing
gear and seasonal restrictions imposed for management purposes
(Figures 3 and 4). A myriad of statues and regulations have
evolved to form a patchwork 'of-regulated areas to discourage-.gear
conflict, protec t e @reiources, and avoid navigation hazards.
Restrictions range from banning netting in an area (as in Buzzards
Bay) to requiring a special permit to fish in an area (e.g., seining
Atlantic bluefin tuna in Cape Cod Bay). Additional restrictions
were established to prevent mobile trawling gear from damaging
stationary lobster gear. The waters three miles from shore from
the New HamDshire border along the coastline to Provincetown, off
the eastern coast of Chatham and Orleans, and the eastern coast-
line ofNantucket Sound are closed to trawling during the lobstering
season from spring to fall. The inner harbors and coastal bays are
managed under regulations which require a special permit to net in
these specified areas. In recent years the Division has attempted
management regulations by special permit as a means to control'
fishing effort, reduce gear conflict, and obtain management inform-
ation. By issuing or revoking special permits, the number of fish-

ing vessels in an area can be controlled and fishing regulations
effectively enforced.

Contaminated areas

Restricting resource harvesting in certain coastal areas for public
health reasons is a responsibility of the Division of Marine Fisher-
ies. The Shellfish Sanitation Program within the Department of
Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE) works under regulations
established by the Department of Public Health and guidelines estab-
lished by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. They conduct fre-
quent tests of the waters overlying shellfish beds and issue notices
of reclassification. Upon notification, the Division issues area
opening and closure notices. Primarily, these closures are the
result of sewage pollution, but seasonal closures for paralytic
shellfish poisoning (PSP) and long-term closures for toxic sub-
stances have also occurred.

a. Contaminated shellfish areas

From Boston Harbor north, an estimated 6,250 acres of productive
shellfish bottom, with an estimated annual potential harvest of
73,450, are contaminated by sewage waste to an extent that shell-
fish harvesting must be restricted. South of Boston, additional
shellfish areas, primarily containing quahogs, are restricted.
The Shellfish Sanitation Program classifies these areas-according
to the MPN (mean probable number) of Escherichia coli (E. coli)
bacteria per 100 ml of the overlying waters; 70-700 MPN being
moderately contaminated and above 700 grossly contaminated. E.
coli is a harmless bacteria, commonly found in mammalian inte@_sti-
nal tracts, however, its presence in the water column indicates
the possible presence of more harmful bacteria and viruses which
cause hepatitis, gastroenteritis, and other diseases. Filter
feeding bivalve shellfish like soft shelled clams, surf clams,
quahogs, mahogany quahogs, oysters, and razor clams filter out
and store bacteria and viruses along with their planktonic algal
food. Non-filter feeding shellfish (periwinkles and whelks),
crustaceans (lobster and shrimp), and finfish do not take up
bacteria and viruses. Scallops are filter feeders also, but
because only the idductor muscle or eye of the scallop is eaten,
they do not pose a health hazard.

Some of Massachusetts most productive shellfish areas are con-
taminated. Of the 6,250 acres of contaminated productive shell-
fish bottom on the North Shore, 49% are classified as moderately
contaminated. From this area an estimated annual production of
38,800 bushels are available for harvesting. Through the work
of the DEQE's Division of Water Pollution Control, many of the
formerly grossly contaminated areas have had pollution levels
reduced and have been reclassified as moderately contaminated.
The Division of Marine Fisheries, in conjunction with the DEQE,

Shellfish Sanitation Program,and the U.S. Food and Drug Adminis-
tration issues Master Digger Permits for the harvesting of soft
shelled clams from moderately contaminated areas. These clams
must be purified at the Division-operated Newburyport Shellfish
Depuration Plant prior to sale. After holding the clams in steri-
lized waters for forty-eight hours, the result is a clean, high
quality product.

The Division's Shellfish Relay Permit program allows the trans-
fer of shellfish from contaminated to clean areas for natural puri-
fication. This is commonly used for purifying quahogs on the South
Shore and the Cape where there are no purification facilities, but
many clean areas for relaying.

b. Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning (PSP) Closures
Since 1972, periodic blooms of the single-cefled dinaflagellate,
Gonyaulax tamarensis, have appeared in Massachusetts waters.
nyaulax will bloom when sunlight and nutrient conditions are just
right, usually in the spring and fall. Rarely does it occur in
sufficient quantities to discolor the water, however, the 1972
bloom was so massive that the colorful but misleading nickname
fired tide" was _,)@j.'Lied. This may be confused with the fish killing
red tide in southern waters caused by another dinoflagellate. As
with sewerage pollution, Gonyaulax does not effect finfish or
crustaceans. Only filter feeding (bivalve) shellfish can filter
out and store the dinoflagellate, although whelks may become
poisonous from eating bivalve shellfish. When a person eats con-
taminated shellfish, the Gonyaulax releases a powerful chemical
poison, called a neurotoxin, which attacks the human nervous sys-
tem. Effects range from slight tingling sensations to severe
respiratory arrest and, very rarely, death, depending on the amount
of toxin.

Certain areas along the coast such as the North Shore and Nauset
Inlet are more prone to annual PSP outbreaks. Although the shell-
fish eventually purge themselves, occasionaly the PSP persists,
particularly if the bloom was large or winter temperatures reduce
shellfish activity. Shellfish along the entire coast are tested
periodically for PSP by DEQE's Shellfish Sanitation Program. The
test results are sent to the Division for public notification of
shellfish area openings and closures.

c. Toxic substances

The accumulation or soilling of toxic substances such as Polychlori-
nated biphenyls (PCB's), oil, or mercury has forced resource clo-
sures of certain harbors in Massachusetts. PCB's discharaed from
two olants on the Acushnet River (Kolek, 1980), led to the 1977
restrictions on harvesting certain species in three areas off New
Bedford (Figure 5). A buildup in mercury in the substrate resulted

in shellfish closures in small areas of upper Sippican Harbor and
Falmouth Inner Harbor, and oil spills or leaks have closed Great
Harbor, Falmouth and Red Brook, and Bourne to shellfishing.

4. Sanctuaries

Sanctuaries are areas of the ocean set aside to protect important
habitat, an exceptionally productive ecosystem, an area of historic
or cultural interest, or an area of scientific or educational value
(Conservation Law Foundation, 1980). Sanctuaries exist on both the
state and federal levels. Under M.G.L. c. 132A, s. 14 and 15, the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management (DEM) has named
five Massachusetts Ocean Sanctuaries: North Shore, South Essex, Cape
Cod Bay, Cape Cod, and Cape and Islands (Figure 6). In these sanctu-
aries any act which disturbs the seabed, such as drilling, dumping
industrial wastes, building structuresremoving sand and gravel is
prohibited. Fishing activities are not restricted under Massachusetts
Ocean Sanctuary provisions.

The U.S. Department of Commerce may also designate areas as Federal
Marine Sanctuaries (16 USC 1431-1434).

Recent court litigation concerning a jurisdictional dispute between
Massachusetts and the Federal Government over central Nantucket Sound
was temporarily resolved. While neither party conceded jurisdictional
control over the area, both agried that if central Nantucket Sound was
designated a federal marine sanctuary, Massachusetts would relinquish
its claim provided (a) no additional federal regulations governing
fishing activities be imposed, and (b) that federal marine sanctuary
rules conform with regulations of the Massachusetts Ocean Santuary
Act.

5. Coastal Zone

The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-583) is ad-
ministered by the Department of Commerce and funds development of
coastal zone programs in coastal states. The Massachusetts Coastal
Zone Management Program has the responsibility of achieving "effective
management beneficial use, protection, and development of the coastal
zone" (Section 302 (a) of CZMA). This extends to:

"The seaward limit of the state's territorial sea (i.e., 3 miles),
extending from the Massachusetts-New Hampshire border south to the
Massachusetts-Rhode Island border, and landward to 100 feet inland
of specified major roads, rail lines or other visible rights-of-way.
The coastal zone includes all of Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard and
Nantucket" 1 (Figure 7).

IMassachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program and Final Environmental
Impact Statement, 1978.

Figure Z. Massachusetts territorial
waters

Ir 1p

CA coo SAV

-.:..f .0-

Figure 3.

RESTRICTED AREAS ALONG THE MASSACHUSETTS
COAST FOR:
B BOTTOM PAIR
OTTER TRAWLING
BEAM

AREA RESTRICTIONS (all dates are
inclusive)

------ Closed All Year
1 ------ Open All Year
2 ------ Closed April 1 to April 30
3 ------ Closed May 1 to October 31
4 ------ Closed April 1 to October 31
5 ------ Closed April 1 to December 31
5 A ------ Closed April 1 to November 14
B ------ Closed April 1 to June 14 and
Closed October 1 to January 31
4
SPECIAL PERMITS NEEDED FOR AREAS A and B

3 1

3 3

3
1

1 2

1 1

Figure 4.

RESTRICTED AREAS ALONG THE MASSACHUSETTS
COAST FOR:

1 SCOTTISH SEINING
DANISH SEINING
PAIR SEINING
MIDWATER TRAWLING

AREA RESTRICTIONS
--------- Closed All Year
1 --------- Special Permit Required For:
Scottish, Danish, and Pair
Seining
2 --------- Closed For The Taking of
Flounder and Groundfish
2 3 --------- No Line Trawling, Netting, or
Seining in Main Shipping
3 Channels

Special permits available for certain
fisheries in Boston harbor
Nantucket waters subject to town regulation
No gill netting allowed in inner Boston
harbor and Buzzards Bay
All bays, harbors, and estuaries are
closed to gill netting except by special
permit

r'igure 5. Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB)
Contamination Areas of New Bedford
Harbor.

New Bedford Fairhaven

D8rtmo,,th 2.
4-@
Z
Q r-
-i ro

M
0
2. 0
Cn
3. U)
oint 3. 3:

Rock
Wilbur Point
Ricke*rsons 3. Point
Point

Q)
z Negro Ledge

Mishaum Point

Areas subject to PCB closures include (1) waters closed to all
fishing activities, (2) waters closed to the taking of lobsters,
flounders, eels, scup, and tautog, and (3) waters closed to lobstering
only.
40

Figure 6. Ocean Sanctuaries of Massachusetts

North Shore
Ocean Sanctuary

Nominated 7ederal
Marine Sanctuary
(Central Nantucket Sound)

South Essex
Ocean Sanctuary

-C<@; a,

-4, Cape Cod
Ocean
Sanc-tuari

CaDe-Cod Bay
Ocean Sanctuary

:Tv

Cape L Islands

Figure 7. Area of the Massachusetts
Coastal Zone Management
Program

r K t

D. Processors.

In 1976, approximately 114 Massachusetts fish processing firms pro-
duced $311 million worth of fish products or about 68% of the total
New England value of fish products (Hughes and Kellogg). The
Massachusetts value of processed products increased to $358 million
in 1977, with 123 plants employing 4,454 people on a yearly basis
and 5,302 seasonally (Table 18). In addition, 86 wholesale plants,
employing 951 people, purchased and marketed processed fish to 845
retail markets (from DMF licensing statistics). Using these figures,
and assuming one person for each retail market, an estimated 7,098
people were employed at sometime in 1977 in fish processing, whole-
sale, and retail firms.

There are four ge eral_types of fish processors in Massachusetts.
Fifty-one out of 123 processing firms in 1977 PrimarjJ_y_fi!-1et-ed
fresh finfish. They handled about 22% of the'processed fish product
vai-ue, employed 27% of the processing work force, and averaged $1.8
million in sales. Their supply for the most part came from Massachu-
setts landings, but a significant amount was imported from other
states, Canada, and other countries.

Although -figures are not available, as much as 90% of the
fish supply for crie 13 large finfish processors originated from for-
eign imports in the form of frozen-fish blocks. These processors,
located in Gloucester and-N-eiThedford, prodiYc-ed unclassified (i.e.,
not identified by species name) frozen fish portions, sticks, dinners,
and other products for a nationwide market. Although small in number,
they produced about 53% of the Massachusetts processed fish product
value (1977), employed 50% of the work force, and averaged $14.3
million in sales.

Fifty-five shellfish processors make up the third category of
Massachusetts seafood processing firms. Except for shrimp and soft-
shelled clams, these processors deal in 5heIlZiiq@_qupp@ied by
Massachusetts fishermen. This sector averaged sales of $1.1 million
annually (1977), employed 23% of the work force, and produced 17% of
the product value.

The three industrial fish processors averaged $3.6 million in sales
(1977), employed 12% of the work force, and produced 3% of the pro-
duct value. Gloucester is the primary industrial fish processing
port in Massachusetts. Menhaden and other unmarketable fish are
reduced to fish oil and meal, the latter is used for chicken feed.

The centers for fresh fish processing in Massachusetts and New
England are New Bedford, Boston, Gloucester, and Cape Cod (Georgianna
et al., 1978@. Gloucester processors handle mostly cod, haddock,
pollock, and ocean perch. Boston processes 79% of the haddock, 67%
of the cod,and 81% of the pollock processed in Massachusetts. New
Bedford, the scallop processing center, also processed cod, haddock,

and flounder, especially yellowtail flounder. Massachusetts firms
import and process a large percentage of the Maine landings of cod
(59%), haddock (90%), pollock (76%), and flounders (67%). It was
estimated that virtually all of the annual Newport, R.I., cod,
haddock, pollock, and ocean perch landings and 90% of the flounder
landings were shipped to Massachusetts for processing.

In the v@holesaler_category there were six Massachusetts fishermen's
cooperatives operating in 1979 (NMFS, 1980). Cooperatives are owned
and operated by fishermen. They buy fish from fishermen and purchase
supplies for fishermen. Collective pooling of their catch can some-
times increase profits by eliminating a layer in the marketing pro-
cess. The cooperatives assist fishermen by purchasing fuel, ice,
and fishing gear at lower bulk rates. All 4ix cooperatives marketed
the members' catch, five were also involved in purchasing. The six
cooperatives represented 929 fishermen and 514 vessels.

Since establishment of the 200 mile limit in 1976, foreign fish
buyers have expressed interest in-joint ventures to supplement fish
supplies reduced by foreign fishing quotas. A typical proposed joint
venture would involve U.S. fishermen harvesting underutilized species
for direct transfer and sale to foreign processing ships. U.S.
fishermen would profit from harvesting species with little or no
marketability in the U.S. and fishing pressure on some traditional
species may be reduced. However, direct sales to foreign buyers may
prevent U.S. processors from establishing necessary processing capa-
bilities to create domestic and export markets.

E. ImDorts

About 60% of the fish products consumed in the United States are im-
ported from foreign countries. Before World War 11 95% of the fish
products were supplied by the domestic fleet, this fell to 71% by
1948 (Massport, 1977). Between 1950 and 1970, U.S. population and
fish consumption rose, while domestic landings remained between 2 to
2.5 million metric tons. During this period imports rose from 25%
to 60% of U.S. fish consumption.

Fish imports are classified into two major categories; frozen (whole
and blocks) and fresh (whole, headed or filleted finfish, live lob-
sters, and shellfish). It is virtually impossible to obtain statis-
tics on foreign imports into Massachusetts. Federal import statis-
tics are kept by custom district, not by state. Although all imports
to the Boston Custom District may be processed in Massachusetts, it
is difficult to estimate the percentage of Massachusetts imports
originating from the Portland Custom District. Most of the 116
million pounds of frozen fish portions, sticks, and dinners processed
in Massachusetts in 1976 were European and Canadian imports.

Imported fresh finfish, lobsters, and shellfish are primarily of
Canadian origin. It is estimated that 8.3 million pounds of fresh

finfish worth $3.1 million (Kellogg, 1980) were imported into Massa-
chusetts from Canada in 1978 (Table 19). Canada exports 90% of its
groundfish harvest to the United States (Environment Canada, 1976).
Canada also exported 13.1 million pounds of live lobster, and 2.3
mill-ion pounds of lobster meat to the U.S. in 1978. An unknown quan-
tity of imports from Canada, estimated at 25% (Brown, 1974), origi-
nate on the duty free French islands of St. Pierre and Miquelan off
Newfoundland. Polish, West German, Portuguese, and Spanish vessels
offload fish at these ports for processing in Canada and the United
States. This circumvents the U.S. law prohibiting landing fresh fish
in U.S. ports by foreign built and operated vessels.

Frozen fish imports do not directly compete with-the mainstay of
the New Enj_a__nE-f"Eshdlii@@s, fresh-fish! __ However, the import of pri-
maril-y-Ciiiadianfresh finfish, lobsters, and shellfish do suppress
the ex-vessel prices paid to Massachusetts fishermen. Fishermen
claim that Canadian federal and, provincial subdidies to the fishing
industry provide Canadians with an unfair advantage in U.S. markets.
Government subsidies on vessel purchase, construction, repair, and
conversion; fish handling and storage; processing-plant construction
and expansion; boat insurance and fuel have reduced the Canadian im-
ed '_@73'0/p"ound (Capalb -@_7 @7
ported fish prices by an estimat- o et al., _1 I
a
l6bster-frice- @6`iria@ted $ .33 to $ .44/pound (Hasselback,
nd es
1979). Concern ov,_@r imports is not new. Until 1939, tariffs ($ .025/
pound) on foreign groundfish effectively increased import prices 40%
(Massachusetts Port Authority, 1977). Tariffs were reduced for
Canadian fish in 1939 to $ .018/pound for the first 15 million pounds
or 15% of U.S. consumption and $ .025/pound thereafter. -This rate
was extended to other countries in 1948, and because fish prices
increased, this lower rate only added 9% to the import costs. Today
tariffs present even less of a barrier to fresh fish imports, while
there are no tariffs at all for imported frozen fish processed in
the United States.

Since 1952 there have been five attempts (1952, 1954, 1956, 1962,
and 1977) to increase tariffs on Canadian fresh fish imports. All
of these petitions have either been disapproved by the U.S. Tariff
Commission or vetoed by the President. Even though U.S. laws
state that foreign subsidies provide justification for countervailing
duties, opposition to increased tariffs has been based on maintain-
ing international relations and keeping fish prices to consumers
low.

F. Mariculture and Fisheries Enhancement

Mariculture can be defined as the propagation and husbandry of marine
animals or olants by private industry for commercial reasons. For
purposes of this report, fisheries enhanvement is defined as use of

public funds for propagation or husbandry of marine species to aug-
ment existing stocks or introduce new species for public use. Re-
cently mariculture has engendered an increasing amount of public
interest and support. However, this support must be tempered by
the realization of mariculture's limitations. Massachusetts' climate
conditions are not optimum for most established mariculture species.
Any species selected for mariculture must be short-lived, fast-
growing, and command a high market value. It's nutritional needs,
reproductive cycle, and disease susceptibility must be well under-
stood. In addition to facing local opposition to seashore use, a
mariculture operation may need five state permits (three from DEQE,
one from DEM, and one from DMF), two federal permits (EPA and Army
Corps of Engineers), and three local permits (from the Zoning, Conser-
vation, and Shellfish Commissions).

Depending on techniques used, mariculture (and fisheries enhance-
ment) can be intensive or extensive. In intensive mariculture most
or all of the animals life cycle, feeding, and grow-out is under
complete control. Biomass produced per acre is high, as is labor
and capital costs, but a high quality product is produced with low
mortality. In extensive mariculture the fish spend part of their
life cycle in the natural environment. While total biomass produced
is large and measures are taken to control reproduction and mortality,
the death rate is greater in the open ocean than in a controlled
environment. Anadromous fish can be raised in this manner, but legal
questions exist over who owns the fish when they return to the river.

The mo9t common form of mariculture in Massachusetts is the Driv e
shdl,l@fish @nt._ On- M.G.L. c. 130, s. 57, municipalities, after
D71-vision inspection, may grant private individuals exclusive rights
to the sea bottom for shellfish mariculture for periods not exceed-
ing 10 years. In addition, M.G.L. c 130, s. 68A allows municipali-
ties to license off-bottom shellfish culture using rafts, racks, or
floats.

As of 1980, 50 grants in 13 towns were issued encompassing a total
of 391 acres; the grants range in size from 1/4 acre to 93 acres.
The average grant was 5-7 acres and usually consisted of a small
'family-type' operation; larger grants employed up to 10 people.
Assuming two people'per small grant, an estimated 111 people are
involved in shellfish grant mariculture in Massachusetts. Seventy-
five percent of the grants cultured eastern oysters, the remainder
grew quahogs, bay scallops or mussels. All were leased from towns
for a 3-10 year period with option of renewal at the discretion of
the Division and the town involved (personal communication, J.M.
Hickey).

In addition to shellfish grants, there are three closed system
aquaculture operations in Massachusetts. -IF-66T ercial prawn
(Macrobrachium) gr6win-j-Farm in-NeV--Bedford, a commercial operation
in Salem growing crustaceans and finfish for sale as marine speci-

mens, and a non-profit, educational fresh water aquaculture center
in Falmouth.

The Division of Marine Fisheries has a number of fishery enhance-
ment programs such as the Coho Salmon Project, Lobster Hatchery, and
Anadromous Fish Project. The Division is involved in the Merrimack
River Anadromous Fish Restoration Project and various local shell-
fish enhancement programs. Other publically funded marine enhance-
ment programs include shellfish hatcheries in Mashpee, Eastham,
Tisbury, and Edgartown. Other coastal towns have expressed interest
in regional shellfish hatcheries to provide seed stock and learning
centers for their constituents. Interest in mariculture development
has been demonstrated by other agencies such as: Coastal Zone
Management, Sea Grant, Department of Food and Agriculture, the
Secretary of Environmental Affairs, Massachusetts Cooperative
Extension Units, and local Economic Development Commissions.

Table 18. Number of processing and wholesale plants and average
employment in Massachusetts from 1970 to 1978.

Processing Wholesale Total

Plants Season Year Plants Season Year Plants Season Year
1970 125 4,800 4,097 108 1,043 894 233 5,843 4,991
1971 110 4,643 3,965 102 918 812 212 5,561 4,777
1972 107 4,482 3,876 99 942 851 206 5,424 4,727
1973 104 4,875 41,208 97 852 751 201 5,707 4,959
1974 117 4,739 3,885 92 849 746 209 5,588 4,631
OD
1975 120 4,638 3,845 91. 885 787 211 53,523 4,632
1976 1111 4,370 3,637 96 1,019 868 210 5,389 4,505
1977 123 5,302 4,454 86 951 831 209 6,253 5,285
1978 113 4,999 4,312 93 1,041 809 206 6,040 5,121

Source: rishery Statistics of the U.S. 1978, 1979.

Table 19. Estimated imports of fresh, whole, or headed
Canadian groundfish by Massachusetts in 1978.

Quantity C.I.F. Value
(thousand-lbs) (thousand dollars)

Cod 1,461 487

Haddock 5,341 2,166

Flounders 1,491 488

Ocean Perch 13 8

Pollock 0 0

Whiting 0 .0

Votes: All imports of fresh, whole, or headed fish classified as
cusk, haddock, hake or pollock are assumed to be haddock.
lSource: Massachusetts Imports of Canadian Fish Products.
C. Kellogg, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, 1980.

III. Division of Marine Fisheries

The Division--of-Mar-i-ae-Fisheries within-the Department of Fisheries,
Wildlife and Recreational Vehicles under the Executive--Off@-ic-(-i--Of-Etiviron-
mental Affairs is responsible for the management of the Commonwealth's
living marine resources. The Division is charged with promoting and
developing the commercial and recreational marine fisheries of Massachu-
setts. Functioning under the statutes of M.G.L. c. 130 and regulations
approved by the Marine Fisheries Advisory Commission, the Division man-
ages the harvest of finfish, mollusks, crustaceans, seaworms, and marine
plants within the territorial waters of Massachusetts. To accomplish
these duties, the Division issues licenses, conducts research, provides
technical assistance to communities and fishermen, collects statistics,
publishes information and educational material, constructs fishways,
purifies shellfish, and propagates fish and crustaceans. In addition,
Division personnel interact with many federal, inters@ate, state, and
local management agencies and various private fisheries related organi-
zations.

Prior to 1942, responsibility for marine fishery management rested
within a bureau of the Division of Fish and Game. In 1943 the Division
of Marine Fisheries was established with a staff of six biologists and
five conservation helpers. The first marine facilities were the Martha's
Vineyard Lobster Hatchery, built in 1948, and the Shellfish Depuration
Plant, acquired from the town of Newburyport in 1961. The Division re-
mained a small organization until two events occurred: the formation of
the Marine Fisheries Advisory Commission in 1960 to study fishery problems
in Massachusetts, and the Congressional passage of the Fisheries Conser-
vation and Management Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-309). The Commission recom-
mended establishment of a Marine Fisheries Fund, fishery research programs,
construction of laboratory facilities, and purchase of a research vessel.
P.L. 88-309 provided federal funding to realize many of these recommen-
dations.

Presently, the Division has a professional staff of seventy-seven
including administrators (7), biologists (33), biological aids and
laborers (16), marketing and extension specialists (6), clerical (10),
laboratory personnel (3), a lawyer (1), and an economist (1). in
addition to its Bostonoffice, the Division maintains five facilities:
the Newburyport Shellfish Purification Plant; Cat Cove Marine Laboratory
(Salem); two offices for south shore personnel (Sandwich); and a lobster
hatchery (Martha's Vineyard). An Anadromous Fish Hatchery and Rearing
Station to be operated jointly by the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife
and Division of Marine Fisheries, is being constructed in East Sandwich.
A 52' research vessel and a number of smaller outboard boats are employed
for sea sampling. Future plans call for construction of a marine station
to house south shore personnel and replacement of the existing research
boat with a larger, more seaworthy, and versatile vessel.

Before 1975, Division program, administration, and operating costs
were appropriated from the Marine Fisheries Fund. The Fund was estab-

lished in 1962 from revenues received from licenses, and fees and a
portion of the unrebated gas tax proportional to fuel usage of fishing
boats. With State reorganization in 1975, the Fund was repealed and
Division revenues reverted to the General Fund. The Division's budget
for Fiscal Year 1979 was $1,656,448. Although $1,153,993 was appro-
priated from the General Fund for FY 1979, this does not reflect the
actual cost to the state. The Division contributed $573,977 to the
General Fund from its licensing program, fees from the shellfish puri-
fication plant and fines. In addition, $896,529 was received from pri-
vate trusts, 100% federal grants and federal reimbursements. These
monies reduce the actual cost to the state of managing its marine
resources and developing its fisheries to $185,942.

Not included in the above budget is the annual appropriation for
shellfish reimbursement to the cities and towns. Although it varies
from year to year, $2SO,000 was distributed to local communities to
partially reimburse (up to 50% depending on the ambunt appropriated)
them for shellfish management work in FY 1979. The Division administers
the diStribution of these funds for the Legislature.

The Director of the Division reports to the Commissioner of the
Department and oversees the Marine Fisheries Advisory Commission,
Council Liaison to the New England Fishery Management Council, Legal
Counsel, and four bureaus. The Counsel represents the Division and is
responsible for all legal/legislative aspects of Division operations.
Coun-cil Liaison participates in New England Fishery Management Council
meetings/hearings as a representative of the Director and reviews
fishery management plans to provide state input and assure state compati-
bility with management and enforcement practices. Four bureaus, each
with an Assistant Director, govern various research, administrative,
and management of sport and commercial fisheries programs (Table 20).

The Bureau of Administration and operations coordinates and admin-
isters all fiscal activities of the Division. This includes budget
preparation, requisitions for goods and services, vendor payments, and
maintenance of the Budgetary Control Register. It coordinates personnel
recruitment, administers federal grant and non-federal trust activities,
and issues licenses and permits. It is involved in conducting public
and adjudicatory hearings as prescribed by M.G.L. c. 30A, and administer-
ing distribution of financial aid to communities for shellfish propaga-
tion and management.

In addition, the Bureau is responsible for the operation of the
Division's offices and laboratories. Cat Cove Marine Laboratory provides
the Division with comprehensive, accurate, and.timely laboratory services
including testing for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB's), heavy metals,
pest 'icides, and Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning (PSP). The Shellfish
Deouration Plant purifies moderately contaminated soft-shelled clams to
produce a product suitable for human consumption. Two field offices on the
South Shore house a variety of -projects. The Lobster Hatchery and Research
Station on Martha's Vineyard is responsible for the hatching, rearing, and

liberating of Post-lival lobsters into state waters to augment the
natural population. The Hatchery also conducts research on the biology,
genetics, and possible mariculture of lobsters.

The Division issues licenses in three major categories: commercial
fishermen, dealer, and special permit. In 1979, a total of 19,946 licenses
were issued, an increase of 4,801 since 1976. During this period the
number of commercial shellfish licenses increased by 625, commercial
boat under 60 feet licenses by 558, and non-commercial lobster-licenses
by 2,357. Total revenues from licenses in 1979 were $526,884. Although
license fees provide partial funding for Division research, management,
and administration, licensing is important for other reasons. Licenses
serve as an indicator of resource use, specifying the number of fisher-
men, type of gear, and size of vessel utilized. Name and address inform-
ation provide a directory for distributing information to fishermen and
collecting statistics from fishermen. Limiting the number of licenses
issued is a management tool for reducing overfishing. Finally, licenses,
and the threat of revocation, are vital to enforcement of marine regulations.

The Bureau of Resea=h orovides information which will result in
improved fishery management, e+ancement of stocks, habitat protection,
and development of the fishing industry. Specific objectives include:
research that has direct application to fishery management problems;
evaluation of environmental impacts of coastal alteration; and, pro-
viding liaison with other states and federal agencies on marine research
matters. Five major programs operate from this Bureau. Three area teams,
geographically divided into the North Shore, South Shore, and Cape and
Islands provide information and technical assistance to the public. TIE-
recommend management strategy for wise utilization of coastal resources
state and federal agencies,
and resource user groups. Coastal Lobster Investigations Program is
responsible for managing coastal lobster resources. Through catch sampling
and tagging studies, an indication of resource condition can be estimated.
The Resource Assessment project conducts semi-annual bottom-trawl surveys
of the state's territorial sea to acquire a perspective on marine resources
subject to state management. Objectives include an estimate of relative
abundance, population structure, and fish distribution in relation to
temperature, salinity, and depth. A codfish ageing program assists the
National Marine Fisheries Service in evaluating the age structure of
sampled populations. The Pilgrim Power Plant study, under contract to
the Plymouth Nuclear Power Plant, evaluates long-term effects of power
generation on the marine ecosystem. The knowledge accumulated adds to
the large data base necessary to predict, assess, and guide operation of
the existing unit and possible future units. The Division resource econo-
mist evaluates the supply and demand implications of management practices
and generates information on costs and returns of fishing efforts as in-
luenced by management.

Tbg_Jh=_eaiL of Sportfisheries is concerned with management of sport-
fish and developmen-t--a-n-T-m-a--inte-nance of anadromous fish resources. The
Division cooperates with the Public Access Board to assess recreational

fishing access needs and develop plans for boat.launching and fish pier
facilities. A Coho Salmon project has developed techniques of hatching,
rearing and stocking of a strain of Massachusetts Coho Salmon to estab-
lish a recreational fishery during low cycles of native sportfish popu-
lations. The Anadromous Fish Management program restores, maintains, and
enhances existing fish runs and manages the various anadromous fish species.

The Bureau of Commercial Fisheries is responsible for management of
the State's commercially important marine resources and supports develop-
ment of the Commonwealth's commercial fishing and seafood industries.
Four projects, each dealing with specific aspects of commercial fisherie@
are incorDorated in this Bureau. The Fisheries Extension Service pro-
vides the commercial fishing industry with technical assistance, work-
shops and training seminars, introduction of new fishing techniques, and
distribution of fisheries information. The Seafood Marketing Program
objectives are to stimulate market development for underutilized species,
promote domestic and foreign expansion of Massachiusetts markets, and
encourage institutional use of state fish products. The Shellfish
Technical Assistance Project aids local shellfish and the shellfish in-
dustry in management and enhancement of shellfish resources. The Fisheries
Statistics Project collects, compils, and distributes landings and econo-
mic data for Massachusetts marine resources.

Table 20. Organizational chart, Division of Marine Fisheries

Massachusetts Department of Marine Fisheries
Fisheries, Wildlife & Recreational Vehicles Advisory Commission

Division of Marine Fisheries

Counsel II Director Extented Fisheries

Philip G Coates Jurisdiction
Act 706
ADMINISTRATION & OPERATIONS RESEARCH SPORT FISHERIES COMMERICAL FISHERIES
Asst. Director & Asst. Director & Asst. Director & Asst Director &
Marine Fisheries Biologist Marine Fisheries Biologist Marine Fisheries Biologist Marine Fisheries Biologist
Arthur P. Chestnut W. Leigh Bridges Randall H. Fairbanks James J Fan, Jr.
Act 0100 Act 0800 Act 0700 Act 0400 Act 0101 Act 0701

Administration Coastal Investigation Fishery Managment Fisheries Fisherman Service
Act 0101 Act 0703 Act 0301 Act 9401

Lobster Investigation Salmon Fishery Shellfish
Act 0202 Development Technical Assistance
Operation Resource Assement Act 0102 Act 0407
Offices & Laboratories Act 0703
Act 0104 Coho Salmon Fish Seafood Marketing
Hatchery & Heating Station Act 0401
Shellfish Purification Plant Operations Act
Act 0500 Research Vessels Statistics
Act 0205 Act 0404

Power Plant
Act 6002

Cod Aging
Act 9710
C7M Program For
Marine Fisheries Research
Act 9707

IV. Fishery Related Agencies and Organizations

A. International

1. International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas
(ICCAT)

Established in 1969, the Convention is responsible for the manage-
ment of the Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) in the Atlantic
Ocean and adjacent seas. After national quotas and other management
measures are established @y ICCAT, the National Marine Fisheries
Service establishes U.S. quotas and regulations for commercial and
recreational fishing. While the Division regulates the number of
tuna purse seining boats in Cape Cod Bay, all management and quota
restrictions in state waters are under ICCAT and NMFS control.

2. Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO)

Formerly the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic
Fisheries (ICNAF), this organization conducts research and manages
the fisheries of the Northwest Atlantic outside the 200 mile limit
of the United States and Canada.

B. Na tional

1. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)

The National Marine Fisheries Service is parz of the National Oceanic
and-Atmospheric Administration in the Department of Commerce and is
the Federal marine fisheries management and research agency.
Massachusetts is one of the 20 states within the NMFS Northeast
Region, which includes the New England states, all the states south
to Virginia, and west to Minnesota. The Northeast Region is divided
into two regional organizations: The Regional Office and the North-
east Fisheries Center. The Regional Office interacts with state
fishery agencies and the fishing industry, and it organizes and
implements fishery management plans. Programs conducted out of the
Regional Office include Marketing, Financial Assistance, Fisheries
Development, Law Enforcement and Marine Mammals, Fisheries Manage-
ment, Statistics and Market News;, and Federal Aid (i.e., P.L. 88-309
and P.L. 89-304). The Northeast Fisheries Center is the regional
research organization for the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic areas.
The Center is directed from Woods Hole and includes seven labs each
with specific objectives.

The Division works closely with NMFS in many areas and numerous
Division programs are partially funded by NMFS's Federal Aid Program.
Under the Commercial Fisheries Research and Development Act (P.L. 88-
309) NMFS partially funds the Division's Fishery Statistics Program,
Resource Assessment Project, Shellfish Technical Assistance Project,
Fisheries Extension Program, and Seafood Marketing Program. Under

the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act (P.L. 89--304) NMFS provides
partial funds for the Division's Anadromous Fisheries Management
Project, and the Anadromous Fish Hatchery and Rearing Station. The
latter is in cooperation with the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries
and Wildlife. The Division's Codfish Ageing Program is funded under
contract with the Northeast Fisheries Center, Woods Hole.

2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WS)

The USF&WS operates fish hatcheries and conducts research to preserve
and manage freshwater fish, waterfowl, and wildlife on federal and
open lands. It jointly administers the Anadromous Fish conservation
Act with NMFS and it disperses Dingell-Johnson funds to the states
(obtained from a 10% tax on rod and reel gear) for recreational
fisheries programs, development, and research. The Division parti-
cipates in the Merrimack River Anadromous Fish Restoration Program
funded by USF&WS under the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act (P.L.
89-304). Together with the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries,
Wildlife and New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game, the USF&WS
and the Division are attempting to restore Atlantic salmon and shad
to the Merrimack River. The Division also reviews and comments on
coastal alteration projects under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act (P.L. 85-264).

3. New England Regional Fisheries Management Council (NEFMC)

one of nine quasi-governmental management bodies created by the
Magnuson Fisheries Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (i.e.,
the 200 mile limit), the Council is responsible for developing manage-
ment plans for species in the New England region of the Fisheries
Conservation Zone (FCZ). Seventeen voting members, including 10
Governors' nominated members-at-large serving 3-year terms, the
fisheries administrator, the five coastal New England states, the
Regional Director of NMFS, and the Executive Director of the
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission serve on the Council.
Non-voting members are representatives of U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, United State Coast Guard, and Department of State.

Massachusetts is represented on the Council by the Director of
the Division. He*is assisted by the Council Liaison. Other Divi-
sion personnel participate in meetings, oversight committees, and
the Scientific and Statistical Committee to provid8 state input in
the management of the New England fisheries. The Division works
for tonsistency with federal regulations in state territorial waters.

4. Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM)

Created by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-583),
the office provides funds to coastal state governments for developing
and conducting Coastal Zone Management programs (refer to Massachu-
setts Coastal Zone Management Program).

5. Office of Sea Grant (OSG)

Developed through the National Sea Grant College and Program Act of
1966 (P.L. 89-688), the office is the only national intergovern-
mental program cooperating with state and local governments, aca-
demic institutions, and industry to promote marine research develop-
ment, technology, environmental research, education, training, and
advisory services for Lastal zone areas. It provides grants to
public and priNte universities, institutes, laboratories, and other
agencies.
_V
In Massachusetts, the Woods Hole OceanograDhic Institution Sea
Grant Program conducts studies in the biological, physical, and
chemical aspects of the coastal zone while supporting aquaculture,
pollution studies, and a marine policy program. The Massachusetts
Institute of Technology is the designated Massachusetts Sea Grant
College and by utilizing its' engineering an-d scientific skills,
conducts research projects and advisory services for the benefit
of the fishing industry. MIT Sea Grant has supported fisheries
education programs at Massachusetts Maritime Academy and the Cooper-
ative Extension Service at the University of Massachusetts. The
Division reviews and comments on Sea Grant Fishery technology
projects.

6. United States Army Corps of Engineers

The Corps approves applications for construction in coastal zones,
rivers, and waterways. They inspect and approve construction pro-
jects, establish danger zones, prescribe navigation regulations,
and investigate obstructions and complaints. The Division, from
time to time, is asked to comment on fishery impacts resulting from
alteration of marine environment and ocean disposal sites for
dredge spoils.

7. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

Working under the Department of Health and Welfare, the major responsi-
bility of the FDA is to enforce federal legislation and programs to
assure that all food, including seafood, shipped interstate is safe
for human-consumption. FDA regulates and inspects interstate ship-
ments of fish and shellfish for possible contamination. In particu-
lar, sportfish caught beyond state territorial waters are tested
for mercury content exceeding the federal .5 parts per million limit.
FDA administers the State-Federal Industry Cooperative Shellfish
Sanitation Program. This program provides for the harvesting,
depuration, and marketing of moderately contaminated shellfish that
otherwise would remain unutilized. The Division's Newburyport Shell-
fish Purification Plant is overated under Shellfish Sanitation Pro-
gram guidelines.

C. Interstate

1. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC)

Based in Washington, D.C., the Commission is composed of all Atlantic
coastal states, each represented by the head of the fisheries admin-
istrative agency, a legislative appointee, and a governor's appointee.
The Commission prqvides a forum for discussion and resolution of
common fishery problems. Under Amendment I of its charter, the
states can develop joint management regulations for fishery resources
primarily in state waters and shared by one or more states. Under
contract from NMFS, the Commission administers the federally funded
Interstate Fisheries Management Program. The Division is involved
actively in the ASMFC, ani has assisted in developing interstate
fisheries manag-6ment plans for northern shrimp, lobster, striped
bass, and summer flounder.

D. State

1. Executive Office of Environmental Affairs

The Secretary of Environmental Affairs is appointed by the Governor
and is responsible for the State's environmental policies and laws.
The following departments and divisions come under the direct super-
vision of the Secretary.

a. Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Recreational Vehicles (DFW&RV)

The DFW&RV manages and studies, under the direction of a commissioner,
inland and marine fish and wildlife resources. The following
Divisions act directly under this Deipartment:

(1) Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF)

See Section III.

(2) Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (DF&W)

This Division is supervised by a public-staffed,seven-man board
and is responsible for the management, protection, and enhance-
ment of all wildlife and freshwater fisheries of the State.
Their fisheries jurisdi@tion commences on rivers and streams
where the water does not rise and fall with the tide or above
the first upstream dam. The DF&W conducts reserach, promulgates
regulations,and issues licenses for freshwater recreational
fishing. It stocks and manages such sportfish as trout, large-
mouth bass, sea run brown trout, walleye pike, and pickerel, and
assumes management responsibilities over anadromous fish in
fresh water. Many of its fishery programs are partially funded
up to 75% by the Dingell-Johnson Federal Aid Program. The Division
of Fisheries and Wildlife has a cooperative agreement with Marine

Fisheries and NMFS in the building and operation of a coho salmon
and sea-run trout hatchery in East Sandwich. In addition, both
Divisions participate in the program for restoration of Atlantic
salmon and shad in the Connecticut and Merrimack Rivers.

3) Public Accesq Board

This Board purchases land, design projects, and funds construction
of access facillties to forests, ponds, and sea shores for recre-
ational purposes. In particular, the Board facilitates con-
struction and operation of ramps and fishing piers for public
access to salt water angling. The Board has an Executive Director
and is composed of one member from each of the Departments'
agencies'. including the Division of Marine Fisheries.

b. Division of Law Enforcement (DLE)

In addition to enforcing the rules and regulations relating to mar-
ine fisheries (M.G.L. c. 130), the Division of Law Enforcement per-
forms similar service for the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife
(K.G.L. c.131), Division of Forests and Parks, Division of Water
Pollution Control (M.G.L. c-21), and the Division of Wetlands (M.G.L.
c. 131, s. 40). There are 17 coastal enforcement districts (I
officer per district) and two enforcement vessels to patrol approxi-
mately 2,000 miles of coastline.

c. -Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management (MCZM)

office is responsible for developing policies, implementing
studies, and advising wise use of the Massachusetts coastal zone.
Studies include the impact of Georges Bank oil exploration, Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) dredge and spoil disposal practices, and
oort and harbor development. They also review projects under the
Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act. CZM offers technical
assistance to coastal communities through a management program and
financial assistance. It provides for federal consistency with
CZM policies, and strives for making the state's regulatory and
management programs work in a more assured, timely, and consistent
manner. CZM interacts directly with the Division through grants
providing funds for such positions as the Resource Economist, and
Marine Fisheries Management Policy Program personnel.

d. DeDartment of Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE)

The main regulatory agency under the Secretary of Environmental
Affairs, the Department administers most permit programs dealing
with coastal alteration and municioal and industrial waste disnosal.
It monitors contaminated shellfish areas, and air and water quality.
Several Divisions operate under the jurisdiction of DEQE: the
Division of Land an@ Water Use administers the Wetlands Protection
Act (M.G.L. c. 131, s. 40), the Waterways Program (M.G.L. c. 91,
s. 1-59), and the Community Sanitation Program (M.G.L. c. 111).

The Division of Air and Hazardous Materials is responsible for
monitoring smurces of air pollution to assure they do not exceed
federal emission standards. The Division of Water Pollution Con-
trol has permitting authority over municipal sewage treatment works
(M.G.L. c. 21, s. 27, 43), awards grants for the construction of
sewage treatment and collection systems, and issues water quality
certificates. The Division of Mineral Resources licenses exploration
and extraction of mineral resources in coastal waters (M.G.L. c 21,
s. 54).

Division of Marine-Fisheries revi-ews proposals for coastal alter-
ations under the Wetlands.Prote@-ion-Program and coastal dredging
under the Waterways Programs to prevent damage to marine resources.
Upon notification by DEQE's Shellfish Sanitation Program, the
Division opens or closes shellfish areas to harvesting (see con-
taminated areas, II, C, 3).

e. Department of Environmental Management (DEM)

This department administers the Coastal Wetlands Restriction Program
(M.G.L. c. 130, s. 105) and Ocean Sanctuaries (M.G.L,- c. 132 A,
s. 13-17). The Coastal Wetlands Restriction Program imposes
restrictions to environmentally harmful development on selected
coastal wetlands. Occasionally the Division is asked to comment
on a restriction proposal.

2. Department of Commerce and Development

The Department assists in the establishment and expansion of indus-
tries in Massachusetts. It provides industries with local statis-
tics, aids in site selection, imports financial advice, and works
for legislative support. Through the Division of Tourism, it pro-
motes sportfishing by distributing informational literature and by
sponsoring the Governor's Cup fishing derby.

3. Department of Public Health (DPH)

Through the Division of Food and Drug, the DPH oversees and inspects
seafood processing plants and implements health and sanitation regu-
lations relating to fish and shellfish. Food and Drugs' seven fish
inspectors examine trucks, shucking houses, and retail businesses
dealing in seafood before the Division of Marine Fisheries issues
permits. The Shellfish Sanitation Program of DEQE operates under
regulations and guidelines established by DPH as part of the National
Shellfish Sanitation Program.

E. Educational Institutions

1. Massachusetts Cooperative Fisheries Research Unit

The Unit is based at the University of Massachusetts (Amherst),

Department of Forestrzy and Wildlife, and is primarily funded by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, with additional financial support
from the Commonwealt-@,'s Division of Marine Fisheries and Division
of Fisheries and W'61dlife. The Unit Leader and Assistant Leader
teach fishery courses and advise graduate students conducting
fisheries research. In recent years the Unit has concentrated on
anadramous fish research, and plans to build a research laboratory
on the Connecticut River. The Unit had a small.research facility
in Gloucester, but the station was recently transferred to the Food
Technology Department.

2. Massachusetts Maritime Academy

In 1978 the Academy established a Marine Fisheries Education and
TAining Program to provide commercial fishermen with training in
fisting gear design and repair, marine engines, electronics, navi-
,gation, and business maAgement. Courses ai@e conducted at the
Buzzards Bay Campus, Essex Agricultural School, and onboard its
training vessel MARITIME QUEST. The Academy is striving towards
an instruction program to certify new fishermen in safe navigation
and gear handling.

3. Massachusetts Cooperative Extension Unit

This unit serves as a public information and education distribution
network for agriculture, home economics, youth, and community
resource development. Funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture
and based at the University of Massachusetts (Amherst), it supports
the County Extension Agents (funded 20% by the Unit and 80% by the
County). The Unit's Community Resource Development Program, through
a three-year MIT Sea Grant contract, is training it's extension
agents in fisheries related matters at the Massachusetts Maritime
Academy, and, in cooperation with the Division of Marine Fisheries,
has recently reprinted the Massachusetts Salt.Water Fishing Guide.

F. Local

1. Board of Selectmen or City Council

The Board of Selectmen or City Council has management responsibilities
over shellfish, eels, and seaworms in the coastal towns and cities
(M.G.L. c. 130, s. 52-56). In areas where waters are mildly or
grossly contaminated by sewage pollution or contaminated by paralytic
shellfish poinsoning (PSP) or toxic substances, control remains or
reverts to the state. However, local management control over con-
taminated shellfish is possible through development of management
plans approved by the Division. Local communities may issue commercial
and recreational licenses for the taking of these resources and are
responsible for management regulations, propagation, and enforcement.
Many communities have shellfish commissions which act for the board
of selectmen or city council. The Division of Marine Fisheries may

reimburse the cities and towns for up to 50% of their shellfish
management expenditures from monies annually appropriated by the
legislature (M.G.L. c. 130, s. 20A). The board of selectmen or
city council maylissue grants in coastal watersito private indi-
viduals for purposes of growing and harvesting shellfish (M.G.L.
c. 130, s. 57, 68A). Upon written request to and approval from the
Director of the Division, ;he board of selectmen or city council
may control and manage the anadromous fisheries within their towns
or cities (M.G.L. c 130, s. 94).

2. Conservation Commissions

The conservation commissions of the local cities and towns review
applications for dredging, filling, and other coastal alterations
under the Wetlands Protection Act (M.G.L. c. 131, s. 40). Their
responsibility is to assess the probable impact of a project and
assure that the fisheries are not harmed. The area of purview ex-
tends to 100 feet beyond either the 100 year flood plain or the
landward edge of a wetland, whichever is greater.
.0
3. R-egional Development Groups

A number of county or regional commissions have taken an active role
in developing the fisheries in their area. These groups organize
meetings, distribute information, and fund studies in an effort to
improve the economic climate for fisheries. While not limited to
fisheries development, the Cape Cod and Nantucket Planning and
Economic Development Commissions and the Martha's Vineyard Commission
are particularly involved in assisting the fisheries on a regional
basis.

G. Private Organizations

1. New England Fisheries Development Foundation (NEFDF)

The newly formed NEFDF evolved from the New England Fisheries Develop-
ment Task Force which oversaw NMFS funded fisheries development
activities. The NEFDF is a private, non-profit foundation dedicated
to developing the harvesting, processing, and marketing sectors of
the commercial fishing industry. Reorganization into a foundation
provides greater operational flexibility through the receipt of funds
from private, federal, regional, and state sources. The foundation
will examine proposals and issue grants for projects to improve
gear and processing technology, develop fisheries for underutilized
fish, expand markets for traditional species, and other projects to
spur the growth and diversity of the New England fishing industry.

2. New England Fisheries Steering Committee, Inc. (NEFSC)

The general purpose of the committee is to promote the welfare of
the New England fishing industry by disseminating information on

fishing techniques and by improving markets for fishery products.
The Committee Acts as the regional representative for industry at
the national level and provides a channel of communication between
industry segments. The Division supports the objectives of the
Committee and serves as a non-voting associate member.

3. fisheries Associations

A number of organizations have been founded to bring tog ether
fishermen and/or processors with common interests and problems
(Appendix III). These groups take an active role in providing
services to their members, distributing fisheries information, and
advising regulatory agencies. The Massachusetts Lobsterman's
Association (MLA) has assisted in developing state lobster conser-
vation regulations and participated in federal lobster management
plan development. It has developed group life insurance and boat
insurance plans for its members. MLA and Massachusetts Inshore
Draggerman's Association (MIDA) officers have worked with the New
England Fisheries Management Council and Marine.Fisheries Advisory
Commission. MIDA has established an insurance *an with safety
guidelines for its members. Other organizationi (Appendix II)
suc,D as the Interstate Party Boat Association, Cape Cod Charter
Boat Association, Massachusetts Sportsmen's Council and various
sportfishing clubs have actively served recreational fishermen by
promoting and protecting their interests.

Processor associations in Gloucester, Boston, and New Bedford
perform a similar function in cooperating to solve problems and
advising 'government on regulatory issues. These associations pro-
vide a vital link between government agencies and the fishing
industry by which information and public input are exchanged.

The Massachusetts Shellfish Officer's Association, while not a
government agency, brings together the shellfish managers from
all the cities and towns. The MSOA promotes management consist-
ency between local communities, regional shellfish development
and enhancement plans. The association provides a unique oppor-
tunity for coordination and cooperation between state and local
shellfish managers.

V. Public Concerns

In developing a comprehensive marine fisheries policy, a necessa@ry
and important part of the process is the involvement of the public. Be-
fore the policies were drafted, the fishing public had the opportunity
to air their concernsito affect the shaping of policy. This was provided
at meetings with commercial and recreational fishermen, sportfishing
clubs, fisheries organizations, and other fishery related interests to
obtain their views and opinions an topics affecting their livelihood and/
or recreational enjoyment. JF
Public meetings were held in major ports and coastal communities
throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts mainly during the two-month
period of February and March, 1980 (Appendix V). Adequate notification
of meetings was a higg priority and was accomplished by direct mail,
newspaper ads, television and radio interviews, and posters. While
meeting attendance ra(;bged from excellent to poor, 'most meetings provided
a good forum for the exchange of ideas. Issues discussed included,port
and harbor facilities,.Iicensing, gear conflict, distribution of fisheries
information, boat insurance and loans, law enforcement, fisheries regula-
tions, habitat protection, and topics pertaining to state fisheries manage-
ment or lack thereof.

In conjunction with public meetings, two fisheries questionnaires
were distributed (see Appendix I). One addressed problems in the commer-
cial fisheries sector including finfish, lobster, and hellfish.
The other, a recreational questionnaire, concerned problems
facing rod and reel fishermen, recreational shellfish and lobster fisher-
men, and party and charter boat fishing activities. Specific comments on
other problem areas were encouraged. In addition, questionnaires were
mailed to members of organizations such as the Massachusetts Lobsterman's
Association (MLA) and the Massachusetts Inshore Draggermen's Association
(MIDA); and, a Portuguese translation of the commercial questionnaire was
prepared and distributed in New Bedford. Letters were sent to sport-
fishing organizations to solicit additional comments on public access,
fishing information, commercial vs. recreational fishing, sportfish, and
a saltwater fishing license.

The following topics drew*the most response from the questionnaires,
public meetings, and personal communications. Since these topics evoked
similar responses coastwide, they are discussed on a collective basis,
while citing specific examples.

A. Port and Harbor Facilities

Lack of adequate piers, docks, dredged channels,.ice,and other facili-
ties was a major concern for all areas of the coast including the
primary ports of Gloucester, Sandwich, and Provincetown, but particu-
larly the secondary ports of Scituate, Chatham, and Plymouth and
smaller ones like Newburyport, Hull, Beverly, and Nantucket. Conditions
cited by fishermen were deteriorating docks, conjested offloading and

docking areas, and lack of ice and boat maintenance facilities. The
public contends that the communities give little or no support to the
commercial fishery regarding improvements in harbor facilities.

Since fishing is not a highly visible industry in small ports, it
is difficult to convince local officials of its economic value.
Coastal communities with fisca traints are not willing to allot
money to improve facilitie@/@,that-only benefit a small percentage of
the population and tax bas/@/ "Newbu'Yport,.for example, expends a great
deal-of effort and money/f'@ d w and waterfront-restoration to
induce tourism and pleasure drofusnage and very little on their com-
or

mercial fishing indust

The public'�@iggested th ollowing courses of action. The state
should assis@!4_.he fishermen by providing-economic studies documenting
the importance of commercial fishing in each port. Fishing generates
a lot of unnoticed dollars back into the commufiity bv way of employ-,
ment, fish processing, marketing, boat supplies, boal"t maintenance,
taxesmand tourist interest. Massachusetts should initiate a statewide
port and harbor development program. Fisheries extension agents should
survey areas, solicit opinions, and make preliminary recommendations
on projected port facility needs. The state should provide port and
harbor developmen-@ funds or act as liaison to find federal development
grants for local communities. The state should assist communities
with the technical aspects of applying for grants, obtaining permits,
and designing facilities. A comprehensive statewide program would be
more efficient than expecting individual communities to organize, plan,
and fund port development projects.

B. Gear Conflict

The traditional conflict between stationary and mobile fishing gear
has been well documented in the past. In 1977, the Division organized
an ad hoc Gear Conflict Committee, composed of knowledgeable fisher-
men, to deal with disputes between gill netters and trawlers on the
North Shore and lobstermen and pair trawlers on the South Shore. As
different species became valuable, new gear is developed, and economic
conditions evolve, the intensity and scope of fishing activities change
and new conflicts are created.

This was found to be true in the rapidly developing gill-net fisheries
on the North Shore, South Shore and outef Cape Cod. It is easy to enter
the gill net fishery because of the small capital outlay for gear and
boat, and the lack of restrictions on net numbers, mesh size, or length.
As a result the fishery is experiencing a lar@ge influx of inexperienced
and part-time fishermen unfamiliar with proper net setting and marking
technicues. Nets are sometimes set perpendicular to shore or' without
adequate markings or radar reflectors making it difficult for trawlers
to avoid them. In addition, a iarge number of experienced lobstermen
are seasonally fishing gill nets, while many lona-lines have switched
to gill nets. The general increase in gill net numbers result in

encroachment onto traditional trawling grounds. This and improper
handling techniques result in both 'natural and man-induced gear loss.

Many were concerned over the effects of gill netting on fish quality,
spawning success, navigation, fish stock, and recreational fishing. Fish
quality suffers if-a fish is caught in a gill n6t and not boarded for
24 to 48 hours after it is dead. Gill nets can be set on most bottom
types, including some important spawning grounds heretofore unavailable
to mobile gear. Nets stretched across river mouths or near shoalspre-
sent hazards to navigation. Non-biodegradeable gill nets may continue
to catch and destroy fish long after they are lost at sea. Party/
charter boat fishermen complained of gill nets set in "star patterns"
on Jeffrey's Ledge that interfere with traditional hook and line
fishing.

Both commercial and recreational fishermen declared a strong desire
for State regulatory action. Suggestions included a thorough research
into the developing Massachusetts' gill net fishery and what actions
other states have implemented. Regulations should be based upon pro-
tecting spawning grounds, improving fish quality, limiting number of
gill nets, and reducing gear loss.

Gear conflicts between trawlers,and between pair trawlers and lobster
gear was discussed. Large offshore and out-of-state trawlers compete
with small inshore trawlers in state waters. Inshore trawlers have a
limited fishing range and depend on resources within State territorial
waters, especially during bad weather seasons. Larger vessels capable
of fishing offshore in most weather conditions, deplete inshore waters
before moving offshore, leaving less for the inshore boats. Pair
trawlers fishing for herring in State waters at night have caused ex-
tensive damage to lobster gear on the South Shore.

In an issue related to gear conflict, sportfishermen contend that
trawlers and fish weirs take large quantities of sportfish, spawning
fish, and forage fish within state waters. The public suggested seasonal
closures of certain areas known to contain large numbers of spawning
sportfish and initiating a system of limited entry and/or vessel size
constrainj's to limit inshore fishing to a reasonable number of small
boats.

C. Law Enforcement

The Division of Law Enforcement operates within the Executive Office
of Environmental Affairs. Although it is not part of, or controlled
by, the Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Recreational Vehicles,
DLE primarily enforces rules and regulations of the Division of Marine
Fisheries (M.G.L. c. 130) and the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife
(M.G.L. c. 131). In addition it must enforce the rules and regulations
of four other agencies. The Law Enforcement Division is severely
hampered by shortages of personnel, budget constraints, and numerous
responsibilities. Officers find it difficult to enforce both marine
and inland laws within the large coastal enforcement districts.

The lack of effective enforcement was expressed at all meetings and
was rated a severe problem on a high percentage of the questionnaires.
Many abuses were mentioned in the lobster fishery such as: violation
of the ten pot limit by recreatianal lobstermen, improper marking or
construction of buoys and pots; taking short and egg-bearing lobsters;
divers removing lobsters from traps; lobstermen setting pots in closed
areas and in marked channels; and, poachers h@Lul_ing pots at night.

I
A logical solution suggested at a number of meetings was to incor-
porate law enforcement directly into the resource agency it primarily
serves and/or create a marine law enforcemen@ unit. Commercial lobster-
men suggested using smaller and less conspicuous vessels to enforce
lobster laws. In addition, this would facilitate the laborcus task
of checking licenses, gear markings, and escape vents. Increasing
the authority and/or training of local shellfish officers, policemen,
and harbor masters and Marine and Recreational Vehicle officers would
also aid the enforcement of marine fishing laws.

Examples of enforcement problems in the mobile gear fisheries included
trawlers landing fish during closed seasons, exceeding landing quotas,
fishing with small mesh nets, and fishing inside closed state waters.
Fishermen contended that too many conflicting and restraining regula-
tions were alreadv in effect and were imDossible to enforce even with
more officers. They favored institution of mesh regulations rather
than closed areas and quotas. Enforcement ofmesh size regulation
could be eased if there were minimum fish size limits enforced for
fishermen and buyers alike. Fishermen said that as long as there is
a market for 'snapper' cod and small flounder, they would.continue
catching them with small mesh nets.

The public believed Law Enforcement officers had limited knowledge
of commercial fishing operations and gear; this hampered interpretation
of marine regulations. A solution to this problem would be to provide
seminars and courses in gear and fishing techniques for the officers.

Other topics of discussiori were problems related to prosecution of
violations. Most violations, however small, must be tried in court.
Rather than bring minor violations to court, on-site citations similar
to traffic tickets should be issued. Because judges commonly deal
with serious crimes, they tend to underrate the importance of resource
violations. Many convicted resource violators receive little or no
ounishment.

D. Licensing

The major concern involving licenses was abuse of the $5.00 rod and
reel permits' exemption for those who catch and sell less than one
hundred pounds plus one fish per day. Many fishermen, including some
from out-of-state, catch and sell more than the limit without a
license. 'While some fishermen ignore the regulations, others find
ways around the law, such as selling 100 pounds of fish at five dif

ferent markets or distributing fish to friends for them to sell.
These violations commonly occur in the striped bass sportfishery and
results in the loss of valuable management statistics.

In a related issue, the definition of a commercial versus a non-
commercial sportfish fisherman was discussed. This is of particular
concern for Cape Cod residents who feel out-of-state fishermen take
advantage of the Massachusetts striped bass fishery by landing and
selling 500 to 600 pounds per day. They expressed the need for a
license residency requirement and/or a $100-500 rod and reel license
for selling striped bass. While some favored a license others opposed
any kind of license that would effect the catch or sale of sportfish.
These people felt that the fish they sell offset the cost of fuel and
maintenance for their boats and they should not be subject to further
bureaucratic regulation and cost.

There appeared to be few problems with procedures for submitting
catch reporting or processing license applications. However, the
public d-ld suggest that licenses,be issued at Division field stations
in addition to the Boston office. This.would reduce traveling when
licenses are needed quickly. Mail handling and costs would also be
reduced. Others thought that the numerous types, fees, and conditions
for obtaining licenses were confusing, and that the Division should
either simplify the licensing system or provide more information.
This is particularly true in issuing seasonal lobster permits where
there is confusion over student eligibility, fishing seasons, and pot
limits.

A number of people questioned the legality of restricting the number
of commercial lobster licenses issued. They felt that this was unconsti-
tutional and inhibited a persons right to make a living from the sea.

E. Underutilized Species, Marketing, Fish Quality, and Joint Ventures

Underutilized species are relatively untapped resources for Massachusetts
fisheries. With traditional fish and shellfish such as cod, haddock,
flounder, scallops, and lobster fully utilized and increasingly regu-
lated, fishing communities have to look for other types of fish with
market potential. Consequently, consumers must be made aware of the
many nontraditional fish available that are nutritional, flavorful,
and less expensive. This can be done through promotion campaigns and
expanding domestic and export markets.

Commercial fishermen, particularly in the ports of Chatham, Sandwich,
and Provincetown, expressed interest in developing markets for under-
utilized species such as dogfish shark, cusk, and hake. They lacked
knowledge of proper techniques to keep catch quality high enough to
satisfy foreign market standards. They needed information on modern
storing, offloading, and processing techniques to maintain fish quality.
Fishermen indicated the need for consumer information programs to edu-
cate the public in the availability and preparation of nontraditional

U
fish. Fihsermen urged the greater use of Massachusetts caught fish in
State institutions, school lunch programs, hospitals, and nursing homes.

Fish quality, fish prices, azd Canadian imports were also discussed.
Since buyers do not always acknowledge better quality by paying higher
prices, some fishermen suggested a State-sponsored grading system simi-
lar to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's system for meat and poultry.
Other marketing suggestions included promoting "Massachusetts caught
fish" following the idea of "Massachusetts grown vegetables". Adver-
tising "Massachusetts lobster" rather than the commonly used 'Maine
lobster' was also suggested. Competition from foreign imports, parti-
cularly from Canadian-lobsters and fresh fish reduced ex-vessel prices
to Massachusetts fishermen. Canadian government subsidies and low im-
port tariffs keep imported fish prices low and increase price compe-
tition for U.S. caught fish.

The subject of joint ventures with foreign countries correlated with
marketing underutilized species. Some fishermen did not want the red
tape or,high quality demands involved with joint ventures. While others
feared losing their domestic buyers and felt that foreign markets were
not secure. The Division, by providing information on foreign buyers
regulations, quality standards, and processing methods, could aid
fishermen and fishing organizations that are interested in a joint
venture. In this way the U.S. fishermen could make their own nego-
tiations and insure a quality product at a fair pric e.

F. Information and Education, Gear Technology

Most commercial fishermen expressed considerable interest in obtaining
information on gear technology developments, European fishing methods,
and fisheries meetings. There was strong support for the publication
of an informative monthly newsletter or periodical. Included in such
a newsletter could be articles on various Division programs, new legis-
lative acts, and biological data obtained from research projects.

The Division's Fisheries Extension Program was appreciated by t hose
that have come in contact with it. However, some fishermen said the
agents, while knowledgeable about traditional gear, needed more inform-
ation on new techniques and large boat gear (40 feet +). While the
Extension Agents were helpful, they did not tell experienced.fishermen
anything new. In realizing that there were just three agents and one
coordinator, the fishermen suggested an increase in part-time or
seasonal personnel.

The Marine Fisheries Education and Training Program conducted at the
Massachusetts Maritime Academy was well received. According to its
Director, over 800 commercial fishermen and other oarticipants received
instruction and training in fishing gear, marine engines, electronics,
net mending, navigation, and business management. People who took the
courses remarked that they were informative, but were geared toward
the novice fisherman or to persons that were not actively pursuing

fishing as their main source of income. In the future they would like
to see a more intensive curriculum for the experienced fishermen, held
evenings at local high schools. Although the MIT Sea Grant Program
funded the Fisheries Training Program, the fishermen felt that Sea Grant
had done little else to help commercial fishermen.

Recreational fishermen believed that sportfishing6information could
be best distributed through the local Chambers of Commerce. This would
help both the vacatio6r and novice find where to fish and what to
catch. The Division should supply brochures and bookelts describing
fishing areas, access areas, and state fishing regulations. The Divi-
sion should further educate the novice in fishing techniques and in-
form them that there are other edible fish to catch besides striped
bass, bluefish.and flounder.

G. Vessel Safety, Insurance, Financing and Loans

Fishermen all agreed that vessel safety and complying with Coast Guard
safety guidelines was important. Insurance companies give premium
deductions as incentives for installing special safety gear on vessels
@i.e. survival suits). Some fishermen wanted more information on
insurance company safety guidelines. In most cases, fishermen felt
that insurance matters were best handled through group co-ops and
fishing organizations. Several associations already had excellent
comprehensive insurance packages for their members and it was the
general concensus that the state need not become involved.

Fishermen thought that financing and loans for new boats, gear, and
electronic equipment was best handled by the individual, even though
banks are not inclined to loan money to repair older vessels. Some
fishermen found that federal loan applications involved too much red
tape and paper work. Local banks that are more familiar with the
fishing industry, were generally more favorable and charged less
interest than federal guaranteed loans.

While fishermen did not want any new state financial aid programs,
most felt that assistance would be needed in the event of a natural
(e.g. paralytic shellfish poisoning) or chemical (e.g. oil spill)
disaster, provided the Division could substantiate individual catch
loss on the basis of post catch reports.

H. Shellfish

At meetings in Ipswich, Bourneand Westport and with the Massachusetts
Shellfish Officers Association, shellfish issues were discussed in
depth. Topics of concern included shellfish licensing issues, the
need for a regional shellfish hatchery, use of contaminated shellfish
as bait, and State shellfish sanitation and purification programs.

Dual state and local commercial shellfish licensing requirements were
not a problem. However, the delay involved in obtaining a State license

before shellfishermen can be issued a local permit does create problems.
These delays are also experienced with shellfish seed and transplant
permits. As previously mentioned, a recommended solution would be to
issue licenses at Division field stations and upgrade the efficiency
of all licensing procedures.

MSOA members expressed interest in developing a regional South Shore
public shellfish hatchery to augment the supply of seed stock. Al-
though seed stock is available from private sources, the seasons or
amounts available are not always adequate for local shellfish propa-
gation needs. While a public facility may satisfy@the town's seed
shellfish needs, the hatchery could also be used as a training center,
possibly affiliated with a university. An additional hatchery function
could be shellfish disease inspection. Instead of sending shellfish
specimens out-of-state for required disease-free certification, the
work could be done in-state more timely. Meanwhile, it was suggested
that the Division provide pathological inspect-ion capabilities for
shellfish and other fish.

The State's shellfish purification plant-was discussed at a number
of meetings. With the plant operating at full capacity and still not
able to meet incr eased demand I shellflishermen recommended expanding
the existing facility and, building additional facilities, encouraging
construction of private depuration facilities, or decreasing depuration
time from 48 to 24 hours. In addition, shellfishermen felt that more
coordination between the Deuartment of Environmental Quality Engineering
(DEQE) and the Division of Marine Fisheries was necessary in conducting
the Shellfish Sanitation Program. Delays in opening areas, early
closures and general bureaucratic malfunctions were cited in control
of Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning (PSP) areas and management of con-
taminated shellfish. Unnecessary delays in opening and closing noti-
fication resulted in loss of valuable fishing time or confiscation
of PSP contaminated shellfish after ourification at the Depuration
Plant. Another aspect of the contaminated shellfish issue is the
use of this neglected resource for bait. A North Shore party boat
owner said a large population of contaminated shellfish off Newburyport
cannot be harvested and used for bait because of the inability to
resolve interagency problems over regulation and enforcement. Some
believe that when bait fishing was allowed a portion of the shellfish
were illegally sold for consumption. Therefore the whole area was
closed to any shellfishing.-

The public recommended the Division take action on a number of
fronts. The Division should imDlement a shellfish resource assessment
program to define the extent and value of inshore and offshore shell-
fish resources and aid in state and local shellfish management. The
Division should provide more mariculture technical assistance including
information on culture techniques, species selection, proper equipment
and cost estimation. Finally,' commercial shellfishermen claimed that
local shellfish regulations discriminated against them in favor of
recreational shellfishermen, and they asked for Division support.

I. Public Access

The decreasing availability of coastal recreational fishing sites and
launching ramps was a major concern at all recreational fisheries
meetings. With the scarcity and overcrowding of existing ramps and
piers and the closing down of other access sites, the public's ability
to enjoy --r-e-c-reational F17sh-i-ng--H-a-T-temTlga-se-ff--YE-e-State-run Public
Access Board builds ramps and piers to he maintained by the city or
town, but the Board's funding and thus it's construction rate has
decreased in recent years. Existing ramps are falling into disrepair
due to vandalism and lack of maintenance. Some towns are restricting
ramp use to residents 'only. A number of proposed ramp construction
sites are being opposed by local residents who claim new ramps will
cause environmental degradation. These factors, in conjunction with
increasing recreational fishing activity, have caused a severe short-
age of publically funded fishing access.

Similar problems exist with shore fishing sites. Many beaches and
shoreside Parks are closed at night due to vandalism. Beach property
owners are attempting to restrict beach fishing access by closing
paths or persuading the town to ban nearby parking. Many bridges
and piers are being closed to fishing because of alleged safety
problems.

The public believed the Division must provide strong support for ade-
quate funding and administration of the Public Access Board. The
Board must begin to make long range plans for improving coastal access.
Coastal land must be set aside for future access use and economic
and ecological data must be provided to justify constructing ramps
and piers. In addition, either the Division or the Board must dis-
tribute information on beach, pier, ramp,and party/charter boat
locations.

J. Recreational Saltwater License

In general, public opinion is against any new license or regulatory
burden, so the initial public opinion for a recreational rod and reel
license was understandably negative. The public believed that
recreational fishing was the last free, god-given right that wasn't
licensed or taxed. *Since they already pay for tackle, bait, and gas,
the imposition of a fishing license would only add an additional
financial burden. A license may force the young, old, and financially
pressed to abandon recreational fishing.

After the initial objections were expressed, the general reaction
boiled down to how, if at all, would a recreational license benefit
the fishermen? Would the revenues be used for sportfish programs?
Would there be more Division sportfish programs? Would public access
be upgraded? The questionnaire results indicated that if the above
questions were answered in the affirmative then 55% of the recreational
fishermen would favor a license, otherwise they were against a license.

Other fa cets of the recreational license question was the need for
.-recreational catch statistics and the possibility of Massachusetts in-
creasing it's share of Federal Dingell-Johnson funds. Without a lic-
ense the Division's ability to estimate numbers of fishermen, fishing
method used, and resulting catch is extremely limited. This makes
substantiating the value of recreational fisheries and the need for
sportfish management and development programs difficult. Funds for
additional programs may come from license revenues but substantially
more money may be obtained from the Dingell-Johnson fund.

Dingell-Johnson monies are collected through the ten percent Federal
excise tax on all fishing gear and tackle. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service redistributes funds to the states based 60% on the number of
licenses issued and 40% on land area. An estimated $280,000 was
alloted to Massachusetts in 1980. Because Massachusetts has no salt-
water license all the money went to fresh water fishery programs, even
though saltwater fishermen contributed a substantial amount to the
Dingell-Johnson fund. The final recommendation was for a feasibility
study to examine the possible'revenues (both state"and federal) from
a license; its effects on the fisheries, individuals and dependent
industries; and what sportfish programs revenues could support.

VI. Principles, Policies, and Proposed Actions

A. Statement of Principles

1. Massachusetts fisheries are renewable resources that are of major
importance to the employment, economic, and recreational needs of the
people. They contribute significantly to -the supply of valuable
fisheries products, to tourism, and to state revenues.

2. Renewable marine resources can be maintained and enhanced if properly
managed, but there is a limit to their productivity. If mismanaged
or unwisely utilized, they may be depleted and the fisheries disrupted.

3. The public has a right to utilize the Commonwealth's living marine
resources because they are common property. Historically, this right
was "free and open", based on the presumed inexhaustibility of these
resources. However, increases in commercial*and recreational fishing,
use of modern fishing technology, and environmental alterations have
proven this premise false. Therefore, it is clearly necessary that
the Commonwealth protect, manage, and enhance marine resources for
continued use and enjoyment by present and future generations.

4. Those who derive benefit from a public resource must share the responsi-
bility for management. They must participate in the regulatory pro-
cess, comply with regulations, contribute necessary information, and
share in management costs.

5. The Division of Marine Fisheries is the lead agency in the Commonwealth
for the management and enhancement of marine fishery resources and the
promotion and development of the recreational and commercial marine
fisheries.

B. Statement of Policies and Proposed Actions

1.0 Fisheries Management

1.1 Resource Management - Management of living resources requires a
Te-1-17-ate balance beiween their conservation to allow for natural
biological growth and replenishment and their utilization to ob-
tain economic, social, and aesthetic rewards of their abundance.
The Commonwealth will actively promote conservation, management,
and oDtimum utilization of living marine resources for the bene-
fit of all. Implied in the concept of optimum utilization is
the consideration of relevant social, economic, and biological
factors in determining highest beneficial uses of the resource.

The goal of managing the Commonwealth's marine resources is
to maximize their availability over time. In this way, to the ex-
tent possible given resource limitations, long-term social and
economic benefits can be derived from their utilization. The
resources shall be managed to provide: economic stability and
social well-being in the commercial fishing industry; enjoyment
and food to recreational fishermen; economic benefit to the
industries dependent on commercial fishing, recreational fishing,
and tourism; and wholesome, high quality protein to the public.

Fisheries are conducted by individuals and private enter-
prise. The opportunity to engage in fishing should-be available
to everyone except when it is necessary to limit entry to a
fishery for biological, social, or economic reasons. Although
economic stability of the fisheries is a desirable objective,
the preferred approach is to maintain fish abundance at adequate
levels rather than directly managing the economic performance
of the fishing industry.

1.1 Proposed Actions

The Division will:

A. work closely with the following agencies whcse management
responsibilities affect stocks utilized in Massachusetts
.... ... fisheriesf National Marine Fisheries Service to exchange
assessment and statistical data and conduct fisheries
research; New England, and other Fisheries Management
Councils, to develop fishery management plans and regu-
lations for fisheries outside Massachusetts waters; Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission and other coastal states,
to manage fish stocks common to territorial waters of two
or more states;

B. improve capabilities to gather and analyze biological,
sociological, and economic data to provide a sound basis for

fisheries management by

(1) maintaining existing NEFMC liaison position to review
federal fisheries management plans for offshore fish-
eries important to Massachusetts;

(2) establishing staff with capabilities to develop state
management plans for species predominantly under
Massachusetts jurisdiction;

(3) implementing a sea sampling program on board Massa-
chusetts commercial fishing boats to collect valuable
catch and effort data unobtainable elsewhere, and to
assess fishery conditions and fishermen's views.

C. solicit input from user groups and the general public con-
cerning management issues, and form ad hoc advisory committees
when needed to address management problems;

D. propose legislation to require coastal communities to develop
regional management plans for shellfish beyond traditional
inshore harvesting areas;

E. propose legislation to change the shellfish local aid fund
reimbursement system to a grant system that will provide
towns with 'Incentives to prepare management plans to facili-
tate full development of their shellfish resources;

F. examine possibilities of integrating all aspects-of the
Shellfish Sanitation Program responsibilities into the
Division of Marine Fisheries to bring the management, testing,
and purification of contaminated shellfish under one State
agency;

G. recommend a change from local to ::,egional or state eel manage-
ment control. Because of the eels'migratory nature and the
general lack of effective local management a new approach
is necessary;

H. support efforts to decentralize and streamline the federal
fisheries management process so that timely and effective
management can be achieved. By transferring more management
authority from Washington to the Regional Councils, manage-
ment plans can more efficiently respond to changing fishery
conditions;

support efforts to implement the state-federal management
program under the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
in order to fully develop fishery management Of SDeCies that
occur predominately in state waters;

J. propose the adoption to necessary legislation to implement
Amendment I of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commis-
sion charter to allow Massachusetts to enter into interstate
fishery management agreements.

1.2 Restrictions and Allocations - Fisheries management employs statutes
and regulations limiting the amount, means,or types of resource har-
vesting as tools to ma 'intain and increase resource abundance. Fish-
ery resources will be available for utilization by all user groups
unless fishing conflicts or resource depletions dictate the need
for allocation or fishing restrictions. Restrictions can be based
on area, gear, time, season, or fish size. Allocations may limit
the number of fishermen or quantities of fish taken, and allowances
may be considered for traditional fishing practices and historical
resource users.

Introduction of new fishing practices or patterns may result
,,in resource or gear conflicts. The Division supports resolution
of these conflicts by mediation, with allocation or restrictions
to be instituted when other means fail. In such cases, the Division
recognizes the importance of traditional fishing practices and
patterns but may modify or introduce restrictions to prevent con-
flicts resulting from new '5ishing practices. The Division may
reserve fishery resources or areas for certain recreational or
commercial uses where social, economic, or other factors make
joint utilization inappropriate.

1.2 Proposed Actions

The Division will:

A. consult with the Marine Fisheries Advisory Commission on
fisheries problems and issues, and submit to the Commission
regulatory proposals relating to mar;ine fisheries for
appropriate action;

B. promulgate regulations that complement Federal Fisheries
Management plans developed by the New England, Mid-Atlantic,
and other Fisheries Management Councils and international
management organizations, subject to the needs and concerns
of the Commonwealth;

C. implement reasonable and enforceable landing/possession
limits as a means to regulate total harvest. Refrain from
using quotas when possible;

D. consider adopting seasonal area closures in state terri-
torial waters to allow for spawning of important commercial
and recreational species;

E. re-establish the Gear Conflict Committee to develop recom-
mendations for reducing present and potential gear conflicts.

1.3 Regulations and Enforcement are essential components of effective
management. Effective resource management is impossible if regu-
lations are unenforceable or unsupported by user groups.

The Division shall advocate minimum regulatory control. The
regulatory process shall be timely, simple, and provide opportunity
for public input. Regulations shall be designed to achieve well
defined goals, maximize public compliance, and facilitate enforce-
ment. Each regulation shall contain a clear statement of rationale,
and provide for penalties commensurate with the violation.

Recognizing that fisheries support commercial enterprises and
that illegal harvesting adversely affects the commercial fishermen's
livelihood, the recreational fishermen's enjoyment, And the fishing
industry as a whole, the Division advocates effective enforcement
of laws and regulations established for management of the Common-
wealth's marine fisheries resources. The Division of Marine.
Fisheries will cooperate with the Division of Law Enforcement
to increase the level of effectiveness of marine fisheries law
enforcement.

1.3 Proposed Actions

A. The Division will

l.. propose legislation to increase-penalties and fines for vio-
lations of fishery statutes and regulations. At present,
illegal fishing can be highly profitable even after existing
fines are paid;

2. utilize Division adjudicatory hearing procedures for re-
curring resource violators;

3. re-codify all statutes relating to marine fisheries and
replace archaic, inappropriate and conflicting statutes and
special acts with up-to-date regulations and statutes; and
promulgate all future fishery management restrictions other
than emergency actions, through regulations approved by the
Marine Fisheries Advisory Commission;

B. The Division recommends

1. supporting legislation to transfer the Division of Law Enforce-
ment into the Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Recre-
ational Vehicles;

2. the creation of an Enforcement Policy Board, composed of
members from each agency served by the Division of Law
Enforcement, to assign direction and priorities consistent
with managment needs for enforcement of state resource and
environmental laws;

3. the creation of aseparate marine fisheries law enforcement
unit within the DLE, staffed with officers trained in, and
assigned to, enforcing marine fisheries laws;

4. continuing the marine fisheries enforcement training program
for Division of Law Enforcement officers, and encourage
deputization of Division of Marine and Recreational Vehicle
officers, and local shellfish constables;

5. that the Division of Law Enforcement develop capabilities to
provide intensive short term enforcement in certain problem
areas and during certain fishing seasons;

6. the Division of Law Enforcement establish a Counsel position
acting as a prosecuting officer to expedite processing of
court cases for fishery violations;

7. initiation of an informational program to appraise the
Massachusetts judicial system as to the serious nature of
resource violations as threats to the economic and social
well-being of major commercial and recreational industries.

1.4 Fisheries and Habitat Enhancement - Creation of artificial habitat,
introduction of exotic species, and restoration and development of
anadromous fish and shellfish populations are effective methods of
increasing productivity, providing additional recreational and
commercial fishing opportunities, and enhancing the forage base.
The Division will support and participate in such enhancement
efforts if these activities do not disrupt traditional fishing
practices or adversely impact existing fish populations or the eco-
system.

Restoration efforts involving construction of fish passage
facilities will be prioritized to achieve maximum benefit at mini-
mal cost. The Division will.discourage development of alewife
populations in drinking water supplies where stream flows are
generally inadequate to support fish passage on a sustained basis.

Introduction of fish species not naiive to the Massachusetts
marine ecosystem will only be considered if life histories and
disease relationships are well documented, and a substantial need
can be demonstrated.

Artificial reef construction will be supported where reef-
type fish exist, substantial natural cover is absent, and hydro-
graphic conditions, materials used,and construction methods em-
ployed will ensure long-term usefulness.

In light of the existing energy situation, many tidal rivers
streams are being studied as possible locations for low-head
hydroelectric installations. While the potential benefits are
"-great, consideration must be given to protection of anadromous
fisheries. Low-head hydroelectric installations shall be designed
and constructed with fishways as an integral part, provided the
Division believes the resource justifies the cost. Installations
shall be operated to minimize adverse effects on fish and fisheries
as a result of drawdowns, dewatering below the dam,or fish impinge-
ment on turbines.

1.4 Proposed Actions

The Division will:

A. expand the Anadromous Fisheries Management Project to increase
native anadromous fisheries by managing existing runs, re-
moving hinderances to migration, preventing pollution, building
fishways, re-establishing or introducing new runs where
feasible; and developing a research capability that will form
a sound scientific basis for managing anadromous fish resources;

B. increase stocking levels of coho salmon as a means of accumu-
lating data to evaluate the potential of a hatchery sustained
coho fishery in Massachusetts coastal waters;

C. determine feasibility of restoring or creating discrete popu-
lations of striped bass in Massachusetts coastal waters as a
means of compensating for lost fishing opportunities result-
ing from the recent decline in coastal migratory stocks;

D. in the absence of private shellfish hatcheries, support
development of cost-effective public shellfish hatcheries
to supplement natural reproduction;

E. support the shellfish relay system as a means to purify and
utilize contaminated shellfish resources.

1.5 Mariculture - The Commonwealth encourages and supports mariculture
as a potentially valuable method of increasing the supply of sea-
food products and eMDloyment. The Division will adopt a lead role
in reducing institutional, social, technical, and economic barriers
restricting mariculture growth. Institutional barriers will be
lessened by streamlining the cumbersome permit process and reducing
legal impediments to construction of mariculture facilities and
product sales. While recognizing that priorities assigned to mari-
culture depend on local competition for coastal usage, the Division
will support mariculture operations when they do not adversely im-
pact on local marine resources and traditional industries. The
Division will provide technical assistance and favor economic in-
centives to improve conditions under which mariculture in Massa-
chusetts can grow.

1.5 ProDosed Actions

The Division will:

A. prepare a Massachusetts mariculture plan to detail methods,
programs, and legislation necessary to improve the climate
for mariculture. The plan will clarify legal ambiguities and
define areas where mariculture should receive high priority.
It will create guidelines for types of species and operations
that the Commonwealth will support, and actions necessary to
further private mariculture development;

B. propose legislation to streamline the permit process for
mariculture operations;

C. inform the public of available financial and tax incentives
to encourage private enterprise investment in mariculture;

D. support efforts to develop state fish and shellfish path-
ology capabilities to provide shellfish disease free certi-
fication, discern causes for fish kills, and promote disease
prevention in mariculture operations.

1.6 Environmental Concerns - Maintenance and enhancement of fishery
resources are partially dependent on the protection of habitat,
sustaining a viable food chain, and improvement of water quality.
Habitat protection need not exclude other uses of coastal areas.

The Division shall review coastal alteration proposals with
the intent of lessening and if possible, eliminating significant
impacts on marine resources. The Division will provide data or
identify data needs necessary to render sound judgements regarding
impacts of coastal alterations on marine resources. Recommendations
on alteration projects shall include those measures of established
technology necessary to mitigate resource impacts.

In the absence of any adverse environmental impacts, it shall
be Division policy to favor fishery related coastal development
over non-fishery related development. When resource values ulti-
mately conflict with coastal facility development, the Secretary
of Environmental Affairs shall resolve the"issue.

In conflicts between fishermen and marine mammals or
endangered species, the Division will work for a reasonable com-
promise providing safety for protected species, while limiting
negative impacts on fisheries.

In the exploitation of non-renewable resources, the Division
will work towards minimizing the impacts on fisheries.

1.6 PrODosed Actions

The Division will:

A. support existing policies established by the Coastal Zone
Manag ement Program of 1978;

B. comply with its' responsibilities to review and comment
respective to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1934)
amended 16 U.S.C. (661-66C) for protection of fish and fish
habitat in coastal waters and streams;

C. take an active part, when requested, in the review process
of the:

(1) Wetlands Protection Program (M.G.L. C. 131, s. 40)
in order to conserve coastal wetlands as valuable
spawning and nursery habitat for commercial, recrea-
tional, and prey species, and as an area of high
primary productivity in the marine food chain;

@2) Waterways Program (M.G.L. C. 91, s. 1-59) in order
to protect marine resources, promote maintenance
dredging of fishing ports, and prevent hazards to
navigation;

(3) Water Pollution Control Certification Program (M.G.L.
C. 2"l, s. 43) in order to protect the public health
and increase the utilization of available shellfish
resources;

(4) Army Corps of Engineers Section 10 Permit Program in
order to protect the marine environment and resources
from any deleterious effects of coastal alteration,
dredging or ocean dumping;

D. oppose introduction into the marine environment any sub-
stances that:

(1) reduce fish and water quality;

(2) cause fish kills;

(3) induce fish stress or diseases that reduce an organ-
isms' ability to survive, grow, or reproduce.

E. support utilization of living marine resources in any area
designated as a state ocean sanctuary or federal marine
sanctuary;

F. request that the Secretary of Environmental Affairs resolve
any interagency conflict over recommendations on coastal
alterat@on proposals.

1.7 Coordination of Marine Management, Research, and Academic Programs
Fishery programs at all levels of government are interdependent.
Because fish populations recognize no jurisdictional boundaries, the
Division will encourage coordination and nonduplication of fishery
related programs conducted by federal, state, and local government
agencies, the academic community, and private industry. The
Division will actively participate in and/or advise regional, inter-
state, and local management entities so that the interests of
Massachusetts fisheries are reoresented and protected.

1.7 Proposed Actions

The Division will:

A. provide information to the Washington, D.C. staff of the Office
of State-Federal Relations so that they can properly address
fisheries issues of concern to Massachusetts fishermen;

B. promote the rational protection of marine mammals and endangered
species through the National Marine Fisheries Service and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;

C. support Massachusetts Maritime Academy proposed fishermen's
Navigation and Safety Certification Program provided that
fishermen active at the time of program inception are exempt
from any certification requirement;

D. coordinate with the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife in
the management of diadromous fish to provide consistency of
regulations and programs;

E.- propose legislation to give the Division of Marine Fisheries
and the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife joint authority
in determining the boundary of fresh and salt water in the
Commonwealth's rivers and streams;

F. recommend the coordination of the Commonwealth's various mar-
ine related research, management, and educational programs
into a Massachusetts Marine Fisheries Research and Educational
Consortium. This consortium should be composed of the Division
of Marine Fisheries, Massachusetts Maritime Academy, Massa-
chusetts Institute of Technology Sea Grant, University of
Massachusetts (Amherst) Cooperative Fisheries Research Unit,
Southeastern Massachusetts University, and Massachusetts
Cooperative Extension Service. These agencies and academic
institutions,aiready linked individually by various grants
.and agreemen7s, could develop cooperative programs and share
facilities to improve fishery knowledge at no increase in
State spending. Available resources are as follows:

(1) Division of Marine Fisheries research lab, research

vessels, and professional fisheries personnel;

(2) Massachusetts Maritime Academy - fisheries library,
dormitory facilities, and fisheries education pro-
grams;

(3) MIT Sea Grant - grant funds for fisheries research,
information and education;

(4) University of Massachusetts (Amherst) Cooperative
Fisheries Research Unit - fisheries research faculty,
facilities,and graduate students;

(5) Massachusetts Cooperative Extension Service - fisheries
information distribution system, printing capabilities,
and editorial expertise;

(6) Southeastern Massachusetts University fisheries
courses, research vessel.

2.0 Research and Development

2.1 Fisheries DeveloDment - The Commonwealth will participate actively
in development of commercial and recreational fisheries utilized
by its citizens. Although increased fishing effort will not be
encouraged in fully utilized fisheries where it will lead to over-
exploitation and overcapitalization, expanded fishing opportunities
in non-traditional fisheries will be carefully explored.

The Commonwealth will support the development and implementa-
tion of innovative techniques to improve fish quality, reduce fish-
ing costs, modernize existing port facilities, and improve services
to the existing fleet. For fishery development and other purposes,
the Commonwealth will recognize party and charter boats as commercial
vessels. In recreational fisheries, the Commonwealth will promote
opportunities available in sportfisheries, while working to reopen,
maintain, and construct points of public acpess to the fisheries.

The Division will assume a lead role in marine fisheries
development in the Commonwealth, coordinating publicly funded act-
tivities by federal, state, and regional development programs at the
state level, while recognizing the New England Fisheries Development
Foundation as the lead fisheries development agency in the New
England Region.

2.1 Proposed Actions

A. The Commonwealth shall establish programs to modernize and
improve fishing ports and support facilities to provide
better services. The office of Coastal Zone Management and
the Division of Waterways should be given prime port develop-
ment responsibilities. These and ot-her state agencies involved
in port development should adopt the following cr3' eria and
priorities in carrying out these programs:

Criteria

programs will be directed at rehabilitating facilities
,in existing fishing ports;

(2) no program should be approved wit -h the sole intent of
increasing fishing effort on the fully utilized fisheries;

3) conversely, programs should be aimed at developing non-
traditional fisheries, improving fish quality, and
reducing fishing costs.

Priorities
Ai) new docking facilities for parts where existing dockage
is inadequate, causes damage to vessels, or presents
danger of personal injury;

(2) maintenance dredging of fishing port harbors and channels;

(3) offloading facilities and equipment that improve fish
quality and reduce costs;

(4) support facilities such as ice, fuel, cold storage, and
marine railways that improve fish quality or reduce
costs;

(5) processing plants that improve fish quality, reduce
product costs, and increase product diversity and markets.

B. The Division will assist the fishing industry in development
of new or improved techniques for harvesting, handling, and
processing fish. The following areas will receive high
priority:

(1) techniques for improving fish quality at all stages from
harvesting to sales;

(2) techniques for reducing fuel consumption, insurance,,or
other operating costs;

(3) techniques that will establish fisheries for under-
utilized species;

(4) techniques that will promote vessel and personal safety;

(5) distribution of technical information on any of the above.

C. The Division will encourage, advise, and assist commercial fish-
ermen in the following areas:

(1) establishing fisheries co-operatives to create more
favorable market conditions for seafood products;

(2) formation of fishermen's associations to promote improved
communications between fishermen and federal, state, and
local government agencies that affect their livelihood;

(3) acquiring information on regulatory, biological,
economic,and gear conflict developments in the fisheries;

(4 ) establishing short-term joint marketing ventures with
foreign buyers, unless or until U.S processing capabili-
ties exist for a particular species.

D. The Public Access Board should receive adequate funding to main-
tain and improve public access to recreational fisheries. The

Board's activities should center on the following objectives:

@,-U) developing criteria for siting,estimating size, and
prioritizing construction of boat ramps, fishing piers,
and parking facilities;

(2) recognizing that undeveloped coastal land is rapidly
diminishing, acquire available land for future use as
public access sites;

(3) construct and maintain boat ramps and fish piers for
public access to fisheries;

(4) oppose unreasonable restrictions on public access to
bridges, piers, and beaches for recreational fishing.

2.2 Marketing and Promotion - Much of Massachusetts fishing industry is
composed of many small, independently owned units within the harvest-
ing, processing, and distribution sectors. The diversity of small
units makes it unprofitable for individual companies to promote and
advertise fishery products. As a result, consumers are often not
well informed about value and characteristics of Massachusetts seafood.
Whereas the Commonwealth derives substantial benefit from industry in
the form of taxes, employment, and valuable consumer products, it will
benefit the Commonwealth to assist industry to improve quality, market-
inz and utilization of fishery products. It is the responsibility
( M.G.L. C. 130, s. 17 3, of the Division to aid industry in find-
ing new markets, improving fish quality, and fostering industry's
ability to assume this role.

2.2 Proposed Actions
A. The 6ommonwealth@will assist the fishing industry in improving
both foreign and domestic markets in -@he following ways:

(1) expand the Division's existing marketing program to
increase promotion of all Massachusetts seafood products
in local, regional,and international markets. Through
cooking demonstrations, media promotions, and marketing
literature distribution, this program will increase
utilization of traditional and non-traditional species.
It will educate consumers and the seafood industry as to
the value, characteristics, and proper handling of Mass-
achusetts seafood products;

(2) state operated institutions should make every effort to
purchase Massachusetts harvested and processed fishery
products when available;

(3) Massport's European and Japanese offices should encourage
the development of foreign markets for Massachusetts fish
products;

(4) work toward reducing U.S. dependence on foreign imports by
encouraging development of competitive domestic frozen
fish processing capabilities;

(5) work towards establishing industry marketing capabilities
through an industry sponsored regional marketing and pro-
motion program.

B. TheConpqnwe.a1_th'@will assist the fishing industry in improving
fish quality in the following ways:

(1) the Commonwealth should adopt the Federal Fish Quality
Standards as criteria for seafood purchases by state
institutions. This would eliminate the duplicative and

arbitrary method now employed by the State, simplify
purchasing procedures, and provide incentives to the
processor to adopt the federal inspection program;

(2) the Division will work towards improving fish quality
through voluntary incentives. By promoting higher sales
value of quality fish, clarifying fish nomenclature,
educating the consumer to recognize fish quality, and
informing industry personnel of improved fish handling
techniques, imposition of government quality regulations
can be avoided;

0) the Division's Extension Service will promote the use of
gear and product handling methods that will improve sea-
food quality onboard fishing vessels;

(4) the Division will consider the Rossible effects on fish
quality of any proposed managem@!nt regulation.

2.3 Fisheries Assistance - Assistance to the fishing industry can be in
7he form of financia , technical, tax regulatory, or planning
programs. It is to the Commonwealth's benefit to maintain a strong
and vital fishing industry by assisting it in overcoming hardships
or'improving its economic potential. Due to its diversity and its
dependence on a fluctuating resource base, the industry may encounter
various economic impediments.

If it will benefit the Commonwealth,the State may consider
assisting the fisheries. Examples might include: for economic hard-
ship from natural or man caused resource disasters; for common needs
that the industry cannot provide for itself; for developing non-
traditional fisheries; or for technical assistance. State assistance
should not be provided if it duplicates a federal or other assistance
program, if it competes with a service provided by private enterprise,
or if it attracts more fishing units into a fully utilized fishery.

2.3 Proposed Actions

A. The Commonwealth sh6uld considei, the following assistance pro-
grams for the fishing in UsTry.

(1) seek financial support and alternate programs for fish-
ermen deprived of harvesting a resource due to natural
(e.g. paralytic shellfish poisoning) or chemical con-
tamination (e.g. oil spill, toxic chemicals, etc.),
provided the DMF can document the individuals' historic
catch value through statistical reports;

(2) give the fishing industry equal priority with the agri-
culture industry in emergency fuel allocation plans;

(3) expand or implement the Commonwealth's;

(a) port and harbor development programs (see sec. 2.1);

(b) fisheries marketing program (see sec. 2.2);

B. The CommonWealth should not consider the following assistance
programs:
@Vvessel construction and loan programs. This would dupli-
cate a federal program and possibly increase effort on
overexploited fish stocks;

(2) vessel insurance program. This is a role more appropriate
_/to pr vate enterprise. The fishing industry could decrease
its high insurance rates through organization to obtain
group rates and by instituting self-imposed safety
requirements.

C.' The Division shall investigate, develop,and propose legislative
tax changes to provide tax incentives to the commercial and
recreational fishing industry with the following conditions:

(1) fisheries tax revenue at local and state levels should
benefit the fisheries by funding port development,
marketing, and other programs directed to improving the
commercial fishing industry;

(2) co=ercially licensed fishermen should remain exempt from
sales tax on fishery related purchases;

(3) party and charter boats should be considered commercial
fishing enterprises-;

C4) excise tax revenues on recreational boats should be
directed- to improving public access.

2.4 Research - The basis for sound fishery management is a strong and con-
tinuing research program. Since the Division's statutory mandate to
conduct fisheries research is very broad and funds are limited, it is
necessary to prioritize research efforts.

The Division will emphasize applied research leading to improved
management of marine fishery resources and development of the commercial
and recreational industries. Research will include stock assessments,
developing new and improved assessment methodology, and ecological
studies leading to a better understanding of the marine ecosystem.

Marine environmental impact studies involving coastal alteration
and development projects will be considered and undertaken on a case-
by-case basis. The Division supports basic marine biological research
resulting in a better understanding of interactions and factors con-
trolling marine ecosystems, but believes this research is more appro-
priate for the academic community.

2.4 Proposed Actions

The Division will:

A. with the ultimate goal of developing a long range predictive
capability;

(1) continue to conduct resource assessments on demersal spe-
cies and expand capabilities to conduct resource assess-
ment on crustaceans, shellfish, and other commercial and
recreational species. These assessments are basic to
developing management plans for species in State territor-
ial waters;

(2) develop and implement new techniques for resource assess-
ment of lobster, pelagic finfish, recreational species,
and anadromous fish in State territorial waters;

B. perform fisheries catch and effort monitoring studies as needed
to judge effects of management plans and regulations;

C. conduct marine environmental impact assessment studies on marine
situated power generating or other facilities when requested.
Research on alternative impacts will be performed under the
direction of committees composed of agencies having either an
interest or regulatory authority for marine environmental impact;

D. perform only those socio-economic studies necessary to provide
information for developing management plans and conducting fishery
programs.

E. increase support facilities for conducting research by:

(1) constructing a research station on the South Shor e as
originally proposed in 1964 by the Marine Fisheries
Advisory Commission;

(2) purchasing an adequate coastal research vessel;

(3) utilize the potential of Cat Cove Marine Laboratory to
- conduct applied laboratory research to complement
Division field research capabilities;

(4) improving lobster hatchery research capabilities.

F. continue to partially fund the University of Massachusetts
(Amherst) Cooperative Fisheries Research Unit to conduct
basic fisheries research. Provide support and assistance in
improving the units'coastal research capabilities by obtain-
ing Sea Grant research funds, constructing a coastal research
facility, and by sharing existing Division research facilities.

3.0 Information and Education

3.1 Statistics - The Division advocates collection of complete, accurate
fisheries statistics necessary for resource management, guidance for
state and local programs, assistance in private investment decisions,
substantiating disaster relief needs, providing data to evaluate
environmental alterations, and for general public information.
Resource harvesters are obligated to take an active part in manage-
ment by contributing accurate statistical information as a requisite
for continued resource use.

While statistics are public information, the Division main-
tains a policy of confidentiality to protect individuals and businesses.
Statistics shall not be used for tax or law enforcement purposes
except that mis-reporting or non-reporting of statistics will be sub-
ject to administrative action. Statistics shall be publicly available
in an anonymous-grouped format (minimum of three reports). Individual
data shall not be released without writterT consent.

3.1 Proposed Actions

The Division will:

A. propose legislation for approval of a statistics confidentiality
system mutually acceptable to the Division, National Marine
Fisheries Service, and New England Regional Fisheries Manage-
ment Council to allow reciprocal access to fisheries statistics;

B. propose legislation for approval of statistical reporting require-
ments providing penalties for non-reporting or mis-reporting rang-
ing from fines to license suspension or non-renewal. Require
submission of statistics for species under local control;

C. implement an expanded Statistics Program to collect data on
fisheries primarily conducted within state waters or managed
by either the Division or local communities. This will encom-
pass most commercial fisheries for finfish, shellfish, and
lobsters within state territorial waters. To accomplish this
increase in workload a computerized reporting and distributing
system will be adopted.

3.2 Information/Education - Informed and enlightened users of fishery
resources tend to be more-conservation oriented, possess-an apprecia-
tion of the resource base, and provide constructive input to the
management process. Management regimes developed in concert with a
knowledgeable and cooperative public are more widely accepted,
voluntarily complied with, and hence require minimal enforcement.
Informed fishermen are also better able to avail themselves of fish-
ing opportunities, thereby maximizing utilization of the resource
and benefits der ived therefrom.

it shall be the policy of the Division to inform and educate
-the public on all aspects of utilization, development, management,
and appreciation of marine resources..

3.2 Proposed Actions

The Division will:

A. continue to encourage public participation in the management
process by soliciting input through well publicized meetings
and hearings;

B. develop staff and funding necessary to prepare and distribute
printed material in the form of periodicals, newsletters,
leaflets, and guides and to otherwise disseminate information
on fishery resources, marine fisheries and related matters;

C. solicit guidance and advice regarding recreational fisheries
issues through an informal committee to be comprised of know-
ledgeable sportfishermen, charter boat operatorsand tackle-
shop owners;

D. coordinate the printing and distribution through the University
of Mass. (Amherst), Cooperative Extension Unit, of information
on fishing gear, recreational fishing, fish cookery, fish
'0
species, and other educational material of public information.

3.3 Licensing In accordance with the principle that those deriving
benefit from a public resource must contribute to its management,
it shall be the Division's policy to require licenses for all
fisheries for which the state provides management, research, or
other services. Licensing is necessary for management, enforce-
ment, statistical and informational purposes, and to offset state
expenditures for fishery programs.

The Division may at times restrict the number of licenses
issued to reduce fishing effort in fully utilized fisheries.
Licenses may be suspended or not renewed for violations of fishing
regulations or statistical reporting requirements. Licenses
provide a source listing of fishery utilizers necessary to obtain
statistical data and to inform fishermen of regulatory changes.

3.3 Proposed Actions

The Division will:

A. investigate the integration of statistics and licensing func-
tions into a single computerized system;

B. propose the elimination of the rod and reel ($5) license;

C. initiate a legislative s-tudy resolve on the feasibility of
establishing a marine recreational fishing license in
Massachusetts;

D. effect the necessary legislation to allow the issuance of
licenses solely for the commercial harvest of edible crabs.

VII. Program Recommendations

A. Division of Marine Fisheries Programs

I. Construct a research station near the Cape Cod Canal [2.4, E., (1)].

2. Purchase an adequate coastal research vessel E2.4, E., (2)].

3. Improve and investigate by professional consultation the systems for
issuing licenses and gathering statistical data by a computerized
system [3. 3, A. 1.

4. Expand capabilities to gather biological, sociological, and economic
data necessary for fisheries management by:

a. obtaining adequate funding for New England Fisheries Management
Council liaison position to review fisheries-management plans
C1.1, B., (1)1;

b. establishing staff with capabilities to develop state management
plans for species predominantly under Massachusetts jurisdiction
[1.1, B., (2)1;

c. establishing staff to implement a sea sampling program aboard
Massachusetts commercial fishing vessels [1.1, B., (3)1;

d. expanding resource assessment studies to include crustaceans,
shellfish, and other species [2.4, A., (1)];

e. develop new resource assessment techniques for lobster, pelagic
finfish, recreational species, and anadromous fish [2.4, A., (2)1.-

5. Increase the ability of marketing programs to promote seafood in the
local, regional, and international markets E2.2, A., (1)].

6. Implement an Information and Education Program to prepare and distri-
bute commercial and recreational fisheries information [3.2, B.I.

7. Determine feasibility of restoring or creating discrete populations
of striped bass in Massachusetts [1.4, C.I.

8. Establish state fish and shellfish pathological capabilities
[1.5, D.I.

S. Prepare a Massachusetts Mariculture Plan C1.5, A.].

10. Expand Anadromous Fish Restoration and Enhancement Program to in-
crease the number and size of native anadromous fish runs E1.4, A.].

100

B. State Programs

1. Establish a program to modernize and improve fishing port and harbor
.C
lacilities C2.1, A.].

2. Improve the enforcement capabilities of the Division of Law Enforce-
ment by:

a. transferringDLE into the Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and
Recreational Vehicles [1.3, B. (1)3;

b. establishing a DLE counsel (lawyer) position to prosecute resource
violations [1.3, B., (6)3;

c. establishing a separate marine enforcement unit within the Division
of Law Enforcement or Division of Marine Fisheries [1.3, B., (3)1;

d. creating a Law Enforcement Policy Board [1.3, B., (2)3;

e. continuing a marine fisheries enforcement training program [1.3,
B., (4)].

3. Examine the possible integration of all testing, management and puri-
fication aspects of the Shellfish Sanitation Program into the Division
of Marine Fisheries [1.1, F-3.

4. Establish or assign staff within the Washington, D.C. office of
Massachusetts State-Federal Relations to address fishery issues
[1.7, A.].

5. Create the Massachusetts MArine Fisheries Research and Educational
Consortium [1.7, F.I.

6. Develop a Navigation and Equipment Safety certification program at
Massachusetts Maritime Academy [1.7, C.I.

C, Recommended Legislation

1. Amend M.G.L. c. 130, s. 83 to eliminate the Rod and Reel - Unlimited
license ($5.00) for the sale of more than 100 lbs plus one fish.
-Elimination bf this license would require a rod and reel fisherman
to purchase an individual Commercial fishermans license ($25.00) to
sell any fish [3.3, B.I.

2. Petition the Legislature for a study resolve funds to explore feasi-
bility, format, benefits and costs of establishing a recreational
fishing license [3.3, C.I.
3. Amend"M.G.L. c. 130 to increase the fines and penalties for violations
of laws and regulations pertaining to resource harvesting, pollution,
licensing, gear, and statistical reporting [3-1, A. (1) and 3.1, B-1.

101

4. Amend M.G.L. c. 130, s. 21 to:

a. provide for a confidential statistics reporting system mutually
acceptable to the Division and National Marine Fisheries Service
to allow reciprocal access to fisheries statistics C3.1, A.];

b. provide penalties for misreporting or non-reporting of statis-
tics ranging from fines to suspension or non-renewal of license
[3.1., B.I.

5. Amend M.G.L. c. 130, s. 20A to change the present shellfish local
aid reimbursement fund system to a grant system [1.1, E.I.

6. Amend M.G.L. c. 130, s. 52 to:

a. require local communities to collect and submit statistics to
the Division for species under local control-C3.1, B.1;

b. remove eel management from local control and place it under state
or regional management [1.1, G.1;

c. require local communities to develop regional management plans
for shellfish resources beyond traditional inshore harvesting
areas. This will facilitate commercial fishing of a resource
presently unharvested due to conflicting local restrictions
[1.1, D.I.

7. Develop and submit for legislation recommendations for changes in
taxation to provide incentives to the fishing industry and secure
funds for fishery related construction programs [2.3, C. (1-4)].

8. Amend M.G.L. c. 130, s. 16 to allow the Division of Marine Fisheries
and Division of Fisheries and Wildlife to define boundaries between
fresh and salt water for fisheries management purposes C1.7, E;I.

9. Propose enabling legislation to adopt Amendment I of the Atlantic
State Marine Fisheries Commission charter [1.1, J.1.

10. Amend M.G.L. c. 130, s. 37, 38, 38A, and 83 to allow the Division to
issue a permit for commercial harvesting of edible crabs separate
from any lobster permit [3.3, D.I.

11. Develop and propose legislation to streamline the mariculture per-
mit process [1.5, B.I.

102

-"@- -
111HIIIIIIIIIIIIIIN
71 . 3_6668 14103 1684 , I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
I