Massachusetts marine fisheries management policy report, March, 1982

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

Massachusetts
Marine Fisheries Management
Policy Report

The Massachusetts Marine Fisheries
Advisory Commission and
The Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries

Funded by: Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program

SH COASTAL ZONE March 1982
327.7 INFORMATION CENTER
.M57
1982
wealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
King Governor John A. Bewick, Secretary

THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

STATE HOUSE BOSTON 02133

EDWARD J. KING
GOVERNOR

July 1, 1982

The Massachusetts Marine Fisheries
Advisory Commission
c/o Division of Marine Fisheries
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02202

Dear Commissioners:

I wish to congratulate you on a job well done and I am Oleased to approve the
Massachusetts Marine Fisheries Management Policy Report in fulfillment of Execu-
tive Order #165. The policies contained in this report will act as benchmarks
foi- the revitalization of the Commonwealth's valuable commercial and recreational
fisheries. These policies will also ensure the continued viability and stability
of the Commonwealth's marine resources and environment so that our children and
their children may benefit from their uses and pleasures.

The Commonwealth, from its earliest da@s, has been linked to the sea and
has been a national leader in commercial fish production and recreational
fishing opportunities. These policies, p1roduc,95 by the joint efforts ofl:the
fishing industry, state government and the P _'?
c will maintain' Massachusetts'
leadership position for the mutual benefit f 1.

Sincerely,

Edward J. King
Governor

EJK:RFD:dn

COMMONWEALTH 01,MASSAC11USETTS

By His IAcellency

:@J;
EDWAI.',D J. KING
GOVERNOR
AUG 9 31 979 EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 165

Fisheries Policy Development

t WHEREAS, the fishing industry is clearly of major social and
economic importance to the Commonwealth; and

WHEREAS, the Fishery Management and Conservation Act of
1976 represents an unprecedented and long overdue commitment by industry
and government to undertake comprehensive management of our valuable
fishery resources; and

WHEREAS, to be truly effective, this endeavor must be
complemented by meaningful and timely state programs that will result in
wise use of our fishery resources and a more prosperous fishing industry;
and

WHEREAS, a necessary first step in this regard is the
formulation of sound policy to guide development, management and
enhancement of the Commonwealth's resources consistent with necessary
socio-economic interests; and

WHEREAS, in Massachusetts this responsibility rests with the
Marine Fisheries Advisory Commission with support from the Division of
Marine Fisheries.

NOW, THEREFORE, 1, Edward J. King, Governor of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, by virtue of the authority vested in me
as Supreme Executive Magistrate of the Commonwealth, do hereby charge
the Marine Fisheries Advisory Commission, with support from the Division
of Marine Fisheries, with the task of developing a comprehensive fisheries
policy for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Given at the Executtye Chamber in
Boston this t A-
day
in the
of 0@
0 ou
yea IrPrd one thousand nine
I enty-nine and of
hundred and sev
the Independence of the United
States of America two hundred and
four.

@7TA
EDWARD
J@
GOVER
Commonv I sachusett
I Psaehusett@

Seeretar" the CommonweaTth."

GOD SAVE THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

MASSACHUSETTS MARINE FISHERIES MANAGEM ENT
POLICY REPORT
March, 1982

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CEN7ER
M4 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413

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

pro"rty of c8c Library

The preparation of this publication was funded by
the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National,
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and U.S.
Department of Commerce under a program imple.menta-
tion grant to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

r+-

V')

ACKNOWLEDGEMEMTS

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'sAssistant Directors, and the
Massachusetts Marine Fisheries Advisory Commission.

We also thank Assistant Director W.Leigh Bridges for his adminis-r
trative support and program guidance, Eleanor Bois and Marie.Callahan
for typing the manuscript, and Moga Waldman of Coastal Zone Management,
for preparing the,.teport's coastal maps. -Special:thanks to Robert S..
Barlow for not only developing policies while on the Marine Fisheries
Advisory Commission,.but for his assi.stance.in arranging lobstermen'A
meetingst '. distributing,questionnaires, and providing printing services.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. -Introduction..i ...... 4.0 .......................................
II. 'Massachusetts,Fisheries ............................. 5
A.-Fisheries .............................................
.1. Finfish ................................................... 11
2. Shellfish ........ .. ........
................... 12
3. Crustaceans .... *........................... 13
4. Recreational Angling .............. !....................... 15
51. Other Marine Resources ........... ........................ 24
.6. MArine Habitats .............................................. 24
B.-Fishing Ports ...................................... 29
1. Gloucester ............ ...... .......;.......... 30
2, New Bedford ............. 0............. * ......... ...... 30,.:
-@3. Boston... ; ........ e............................. ......... 31
[email protected] Provincetown ........................ ................. 31
Sandwich .............................................. 4.. 31
6. Other Ports ..................... .............. o ......... 32
C. Resource Management Zones .... ....................... 32
1. Fisheries Conservation Zone CZ ...................... 32
2. Massachusetts Territorial Waters .......................... 38
3. Contaminated Area Restrictions ................ I ........... 39
40 Sanctuaries .............................................. 41
5. Coastal Zone ............................................. 48
D. Processors ................................................. 48
E. Imports .................................................. 1. 49
F. Mariculture and Fisheries Enhancement ..................... 51
III. Division of Marine Fisheries .... I .............................. 55
IV. Fishery Related Agencies and Organizations .................. 0.. 60
A. International ............................................. 60
B. National .................................................. 60
C. Interstate ................................................ 62
D. State .............................................. o ...... 63
E. Educational Institutions ........... I.................... *..0 65
F. Local ..................................................... 67
G. Private organizations ..................................... 68
V. Public Concerns .............................................. 70
A. Port and Harbor Facilities ................................ 70'
B. Gear Conflict .................................... I ......... 71
C. Law Enforcement ................. ..................... o.... 72
D. Licensing .......................... i ...................... 73
E. Underutilized Species, Marketing, Fish Quality, and joint
Ventures ............................. ............. 74
F. Information and Education, Gear Technology ................. 75
G. Vessel Safety, Insurance, Financing and Loans ............. 76
H. Shellfish ................................ o ................ 76
I. Sportfishing Access*.* ................................ *..* 77
J. Recreational Saltwater License ............................ 78

Page

VI. Principles, Policies and Proposed Actions ..... 6 80
A. Statement of Principles .................... 4............ 8C)
B. Statement of Policies and Proposed Actions ................. 81
1.0 Fisheries Management 81
1.1 Resource ....... 81
1.2 Restrictions and Allocations ....... *# ......... 63
1.3 Regulations and Enforcement ............................ . 84
1.4 Fisheries and Habitat Enhancement ..................... :. 86
1.5 Mariculture ........ .......................... Be
1.6 Environmental Concerns ............................. 89
1.7 Coordination of Marine Management, Research, and
Academic Programs .................... & ................ 91
2.0 Research and Development ................................... 93
2.1 Fisheries Development ................................... 93
2.2 Marketing and Promotion ................................. 96
2.3 Fisheries Assistance .................................... 98
2.4 Research ................................................ 100
3.0 Information and Education ................................ 102
3.1 Statistics ............................................... 102
3.2 Information/Education .................................... 103
3.3 Licensing ............................................... 104
VII. Program Recommendations ................. i............. *..0 ..... 105
A. Division of Marine Fisheries Programs .................... 105.
B. State Programs ............ ..... ::106
C. Recommended Legislation ... ........ 106
Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations ................................. 108
A* Terms.-- ............................................. *..108
B. Abbreviations ................................................ 109
Literature Cited .................................................... 111
Appendices .......................................................... 115
I. Commercial and Recreational Questionnaire Results ........ 115
II. Sportfishing Clubs and Commercial Fishing Associations, -
Commissions, and Unions ................................ 131
III. Comments and responses to draft Marine Fisheries Policy
Report .................................................. 135,
IV. Scientific and Common Names of Important Finfis,h, Shell-
fish, Seaworms ....... ;................................... 147
V.- Policy Program public meetings ............................ 150
VI. Agency Policy Meetings ......... I.......................... 151

LIST OF TABLES

Number''Title
Page

1. Comparison of the ten top-ranked states.according to
fish landing.value in 1979, with fiscal year
;981 expenditure for state marine resource programs .......... 8

2. Estimates of the,number.of vessels and p'eople.employed in.
various sectors.of the Massachusetts Fisheriess-1977-1979... 9

3. -Estimated numberof participants in Massachusetts. Marine
Recreational.Fisheries for 1977 to 1979 ........... ............ 10

4. Estimated value of Massachusetts agriculture and fisheries
for 1970-197go ........... .................................... 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 recreationalshellfish harvest and
estimated value for Massachusetts in 1977 and 1918 .... 1 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 197.7 and 1978 ..................................... 19

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

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 1.979 ............... 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 ...................... . 33

Number Title Page

16. Estimated numbers of vessels for selected ports, 1979.......'34

17. Commercial landings at certain Massachusetts ports and
total Massachusetts landings-for 1977 to-1979 ............... 35

Number of processing and wholesale plants and average
employment in Massachusetts from 1970 to 1978..: .............. 53
Estimated imports of fresh, whole, or headed Canadian
groundfish by Massachusetts in 1978 ........................... 54
20. Organizational chart, Division of Marine Fisheries* ......... 59

LIST OF FIGURES

Number Title Page
1. -Massachusetts Commercially Important Ports and Harbors.* ..... 36.37

2. Massachusetts,Territorial Waters ............................. 42

3. Restricted areas for trawling along the Massachusetts
coast ............... .................................... 43.

4. Restricted areas for seining along the Massachusetts,
coast .................................... ............... e-44

5. Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Contamination Areas of
New Bedford Harbor ...................... ................... 45,

6. Ocean Sanctuaries in Massachusetts ............................ 46

7. Jurisdiction area of the Massachusetts Coastal Zone
Management Program ........................................... 47

MEMBERS OF THE MARINE FISHERIES ADVISORY COMMISSION

.(February, 1982)

Thomas Bartlett

Joseph.Brancaleone

Jack F. Conroy

Bernard Costello

Angelo Faro

Morris I. Johnson

Francis Mirarchi (Vice-Chairman)

Elizabeth Stromeyer (Chairman)

Harry Swain

Former members involved with policy development:

Robert S. Barlow

Charles L. Fields

Edward J. MacLeod

David Ryder

Vii

I. 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-
lip 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) all have had a profound effect upon
both the fishing industry and the state fisheries management agency.

With reductions in foreign fishing 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 fisheries has intensified. Limited and poorly
maintained 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 felli

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
Statel@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 Service in managing
the fisheries in the Fisheries Conservation Zone (FCZ). As a participating
Council member, the Division must provide information and review management
plans. As part of a unified management approach the Division must manage
fisheries in state@waters in concert with federal management 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 develop fisheries policies to coordinate agencies and programs to
ass ure long-term stability of the fishing industry as well at wise manage-
,ment of the living marine resources. The first step in policy development
is to define the purposes, means, and responsibilities of the State in
fisheries management, development, and promotion. A fisheries policy
will provide guidance in decision making and stabilize management direction
and philosophies. It will reduce conflicts, omissions,.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 industry 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 Fi:sheries Advisory Commission, composed of members with commercial
or recreational fisheries expertise. It reviewed major fisheries problems
and made 18 recommendations for remedial actions. 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, improve'd,fisheries management by regulation rather than legis-
lation, creation of a permanent Advisory-Commission, creation of local
shellfish constables, participation in the University of Massachusetts
Co'operative Fisheries Research Unit, acquisition of a research vessel,
and provision for a Public Access Board. The recommended establishment
of a Marine Fisheries Fund and and Estuarine Research Program provided
the funds and projects to begin a credible marine research program. Al-
though the latter two recommendations are no longer in effect (the Marine
Fisheries Fund was rescinded in 105 by the Legislature, and the Estuarine
Program was reorganized into Area Teams-in 1977).,the 1960 report was 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, adequate
shellfish purification facilities and research vessel, a south shore
research station, and sportfishing public access have not been satisfied'
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 1979 Governor King issued Executive Order #165 calling for
the Massachusetts Marine Fisheries Advisory Commission to develop a state
fisheries policy. With continued support from the Governor, the Division.
of Marine Fisheries received a Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management grant
in December 197.9.

As a first step, 23 coastal states, the National Marine Fisheries
Servi.ce.(NMFS), and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC)
were surveyed for existing fishery policy reports. Some states had fish-
ery development plans, but onlyAlaska had a written policy outlining
general management guidelines. NmrS and ASMFC had fishery plans and
policies that provided some useful information, but they dealt primarily
with national and international issues and 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
questionna'ire.

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 I). 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 were conducted both for the general public
and for commercial and recreational fishing groups.
A series of meetings'with fisheries related government agencies were
held (Appendix VI) to define agency responsibilities and program coordina-
tion. Discussion centered on coordinating programs in which the Division
participated, 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, the draft policy report was made available for public and
State agency review. After obtaining comments, the draft was revised
and the finalreport 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 fishery issues. These policies are intended
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. However, they do not represent
complete program proposals which would be more appropriate to an Operational
Plan than a Policy Report. Informational sections are presented to provide
the reader with an understanding and appreciation of fisheries and the
agencies involved in marine affairs.

The established policies will be reviewed at least' annually by the
Division of Marine Fisheries and Marine Fisheries Advisory Commission. At
that time, policy implementation will be examined and anyamendments to
the policies made. Policy implementation will be.judged on the basis of
evaluation of agency compliance, policy utilization, enacted legislation,
and program relevance. The Division's internal staff will provide imple-
mentation monitoring. Policy amendments may be made at the behest of the
general public, user groups, industry members, or other agencies and insti
tutions. If major policy amendments are suggested, the MFAC may hold
public meetings before any policy additions, deletions,or alterations.
are made.

II. Massachusetts Fisheries

With commercial landings valued at $175.'5 million in 1979, Massachu-
setts ranked fourth in the nation in value of fish landed (Table 1). Yet,
of the ten largest seafood producing states, Massachusetts spent the least
for fisheries management and promotion. 'In addition, $7.8 million worth
of shellfish wereharvested by recreational'shellfishermen in 1978, and an
estimated $30 million was expended by recreational rod and reel fishermen
in 1979. Fisheries provide income for an estimated 16,200 (Mass. Division
of Employment 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 saltwaterrecreational 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 commercial 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 sta tistics are impressive, they underestimate the real
value of the Commonwealth's marine resources. First, the statistics them-
selves represent the minimum of actual fisheries value. Other data must
be expanded or estimated. As examples, the recreational finfish catch is
commonly expanded from a base of interviews on a very small portion of the
total fishermen. Data on foreign fish imports to Massachusetts are unavail-
able because Federal Customs records imports only by port of entry, not
destination. Therefore, the percentage of imports sent to Massachusetts
from Portland, Maine must be estimated.
Second, landing values are poor indicators of total fisheries economic
impact. The fishery is a primary industry, meaning that unlike other in-
dustries producing a finished 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 far above
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 Island the multiplier for most industries is 1.69i 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 eeofi6mic, multiplier of 4.24, Massachusetts commercial fisheries
landings generated $744 million in economic activity in 1979. Add to this.
the multiplied value of the 1978 inshore commercial shellfish harvest $7.8
million x 4.24 = $33.1 million) and a conservative estimate'of recreational
angling and its support industries in 1975 of $122 million, brings the total
value of Massachusetts fisheriesto almost $900 million.

The history of Massachusettes fisheries is based to a great extent on
the cod. This fish played such an integral part in the exploration of.
America, and the economic, political, and social life of Massachusetts
that the Great and General Court of Massachusetts chose, in'
1784, to hang a representation of the codfish in the House of Represe 'ntatives
as a.memorial to its importance. The cod was important both for it's abun-
.dance and it's storage qualities when salted and dried.

In 1497, John.Cabot discovered the great codfish grounds of the North-,
west Atlantic that would be exploited by Europeans for almost 500-years,
spurring the colonization of America's Northeast seaboard. The first settle-
ments in Maine and New Hampshire were fish curing stations established be-
fore 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 persecution, 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 industry
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 su ply the new rum distilleries in
'p
Newport and Boston. This trade soon evolved into the "Golden Triangle"
trade route which lasted for fifty"years until the Revolutionary 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
with 20 towns cod fishing, 605 boats fishing, 4,175 fishermen, and
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 fishing rights in Canadian waters.
Although John Adams secured the fishing rights, it was not the last dis-
pute over U.S.-Canadian fisheries. Six times from 1811 to 1911, treaties,
convent ions, and international arbitrations attempted to define fishing
rights in Northwest Atlantic waters.

In addition to the direct effects of the war, fisheries suffered
from foreign import duties and fishing subsidies. To aid the fisheries,,
,in 1791 Congressapproved 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 be compensated by a share of the sale of the catch. The act was

repealed in 1866 but the share or lay system of payment still exists.

By the 18601.s, fisheries had stabilized. Although salt cod was
still the most important product, mackerel (salted or pickled) had been
growing in value since 1815. European trade diminished only to be re-,
placed 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 fresh fish
were landed in shorter trips. 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 imports in the 1920's and 30's (Boeri and Gibson, 1976). How-
ever, Gloucester's processing industry survived by processing imported.
salt cod, improving filleting techniques, and developing new processing
methods (e.g., quick-freezing). Improvements in transportation and pro-
cessing 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 from military
contract buying and Europe's 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 im-
proving 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 approxi-
mately 300 large trawlers off ourcoast. 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 top ten ranked states according to
commercial fish landing value in 1979 with fiscal year
1981 expenditure for state marine resource programs.

Millions of Millions of Expenditures in
1 1 1 2
Dollars Pounds Millions of Dollars

Alaska 597.0 898.5 26.3,
California 227.5 728.4 12.1
Louisiana 198.5 19529.1 3.5.
.374.7 1.3
Massachusetts 175.5
Texas 160.2 84.9 2.2
Florida 124.0 163.0 2.3
Washington 116.0. 170.0 67.0*
Virginia 84.6 572.7 1.9
Maine 80.3 232.1 2.7
North Carolina 58.4 390.5 1.7

$55 million spent on salmon research.

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

Finfish 933 3,359 1,170 4,212 1,629 5,664
Lobster2 1,513 1,513 1,560 1 5604 1,674 1,674
Shellfish 6323 3,5963 8614 3:621 NA NA
Charter boat5 125 250
Party boat5 91 283
Bait and tackle
dealer6 - 276
Boat renta16 NA 90
Processing7 6,253 6,040
Mariculture8.

lNumber of vessels is the sum of boat licenses and offshore lobster licenses
issued by DMF. This assumed that most offshore licenses were issued to
boats that primarily fish finfish and catch lobsters incidentally.
2DMF lobster licenses, combining coastal commercial and coastal seas onal
only.

3Kilbride, 1978.

4Anderson, 1979.

5Nicholson and Ruais, 1979.
6Massachusetts Salt Water Fishing Guide.

7NMFS, Fishery Statistics of the United States, 1978, 1979.

8Personal communication J. Michael Hickey, DMF, 1979.

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

1977 1978 1979
Lobster 8,559 8,915 109479
Shellfish 38,7272 38,2222 38,4753
Angling NA NA 776 0004

1DMF license statistics.
2 As reported by shellfish constables of coastal cities and towns.
3The average of the number of shellfish license 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)1 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 168.3 47.0
1971 82.2 76.4 158.6 48.3
1972 84.6 75.1 159.3 56.8
1973 105.0 84.3 191.1 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

lDept. of food and Agriculture, Massachusetts Agricultural Statistics,
1970-1979.

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

Management of fisheries outside the 12 mile U.S. contiguous zone was
the responsibility of the International Commission for the Northwest
-Atlantic Fisheries (ICNAF), organized in 1950. While ICNAF's research was
accurate, management efforts were ineffective. In 1973 a bill,-*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.effofft 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.

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 (this includes many lobster boats that gill net part of the
year), employing 2,789 fishermen in 1977. About 62% of the vessels
were trawlers, 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).

Groundfish or bottomfish is a term to describe a number of commer-
cial species dwelling on or near the bottom. These fish are primarily
caught by otter trawl; however, some are caught by line trawl.
Recently gillnetting has become an important groundfish 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), redfisb, 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 60% of the 1977 catch in the northeast, with
Gloucester being the primary port. This species is usually processed.
frozen for human consumption but is sometimes converted to fish meal
for pet food.

Night midwater trawling foradult sea herring in recent years
has become a profitable new fishery in Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bay.
In addition to non-resident vessels, there were three sets of Massa-
chusetts pair trawlers fishing statewaters and landing their catch
in Gloucester in 1977. Gear conflicts with fixed lobster gear mad 'e
I
it necessary to impose areal and seasonal closures for this gear in
1976. However, from 1977 to 1979j landings have increased 13.1
million pounds and value has almost doubled to $3.&'million.

Menhaden is an oily, unpalatable memberof the herring family'that
is usually 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 fr @@a high of 56 million pounds in 1972, down
om
to 17.4 million in 1977,ahd back up to 48 million pounds in 1978.
Menhaden were second to clod for total pounds landed in 1978.

Atlantic bluefin tuna is a highly migratory species that enter
state waters during 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.
In the early 70's Japanese buyers began purchasing tuna and 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 recreation-
al. In 1977, 3,704 hand gear permits (e.g. handline ' harpoon, or rod
and reel) 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 catadro-
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 to
protect elvers. While no uniform reporting system exists, the best
catch estimate made by Division personnel (E. Amaral, DMF, personal
,communication) is 150,000 pounds landed, worth $90,000'in 1977.

2. Shellfish

There are over 12 shellfish species of commercial or recreational value
.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 shellfisheries,

according to NMFS statistics.

Sea scallops ($48.3 million) accounted for 89%,of total shellfish
landing value, and 28% 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 declinealthough
price per pound continued to increase. -In 1977, 90 vessels and 1,000
fishermen were fishing from 8 Massabhusetts, ports: New Bedford,
Provincetown, Martha's Vineyard, Sandwich, and Chatham reported the
most significant landings. 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 domestic and export fish products has
increased in recent years, The larger sized Illex squid is fished
north of Cape Cod by inshore trawlers. The smaller Loligo squid sup-
ports an inshore spring trawl fishery during its spi4=ng'migration
south'of Cape Cod. While both species support seasonal trawl fisher-
Les, they are considered underutilized and could provide greater
landings and value to Massachusetts fisheries.

The inshore recreational and commercial fisheries for quahog, soft-
shell clam, oyster, bay scallop, razor clam, sea clam, mussel, and
other shellfish, were valued at $8 'million and $9.8 million in 1977
and 1978, respectively (Table 6). Bay scallops (60%) and quahogs
(21%) pro 'vided the greatest value,to the predominantly hand raking
and small boat, scallop dredge fisheries. Numbers of participants
in the inshore shelifisheries averaged 41,560 in 1977 and 1978
(Table 7). In 1977 and 1978, the vast majority of participants in
the shellfisheries (94% and 91%, respectively) were recreational
fishermen. However, these fishermen accounted for only 19% (1977)
and 16% (1978) of landed shellfish value (Kilbride, 1978; Anderson,
1979).

3. Crustaceans

This group of 5 important species contributed a reported 11.5 million
pounds of landings and $17.2 million to the total Massachusetts
fisheries in 1979 (Table 5). The lobster fishery, with its incid-.
ental catch of rock and jonah crabs, is the most 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 70.1s. The Massachusetts
lobster fishery can be 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 $16.9million. This comprised approxi-
mately 25% of U.S. landings (Table 8). The coastal commercial lobster
fishery.is further divided into regular and seasonal licenses. Since
'1975, 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 legislation effective 1981, 130 licenses
will be added from a list of applicants with fisheries experience.
Thereafter,1001icenses will be added each year. Seasonal commercial
licenses are-issued only'to fulltime students (288 in 1979), permitting
them to fish a maximum of 25 pots.-:from June 15 to September 15.
Coastal recreational lobster licenses (Table,9), allow sportfishermen
to dive or fish up to 10 pots for'family consumption, 10479 licenses were
issued in 1979. 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, valued.at $3.6 million (Anderson, 1979). This fishery is.con-
ducted 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 incidental to.trawling operations outside state waters.

Although commercial license holders comprise only 18% of lobster
fishermen, in 1978 they landed almost 97% of the reported lobster
catch, Most of the lobstering.activity occurs in Essex and Plymouth
counties, which accounted for 61% o 'f 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 crabs 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 cooked onboard the.vessels and shucked onshorei 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 sustained a trawl 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 fishery out of Gloucester between 1969 and 1975
annually averaged 6.4 million 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 joi nt management efforts by Massachusetts, Maine,
New Hampshire, and NMFS under the auspices of the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission (ASMFC).

4 Recreational Angling

Recreational angling was always presumed to be a small component
of Massachusetts fisheries. However, recent NMFS estimates infer that
sportfishing accounts for a surprisingly large amount of the edible,
fish harvest possibly 40-50% as much as commercia
1 fishing, MPSt,
which goes unreported.

Because recreational fisheries are so difficult and expensive to
survey, statistics are incomplete and imprecise. In addition, because
fishermen are unlicensed, fish at irregular times, and over large areas,
it is difficult to estimate the real value of sportfisheries. 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 pounds plus one fish) must be licensed. Many,anglers sell
thousands of pounds of fish each year and still consider themselves
recreational fishermen.

In the recent federal recreational fishing survey conducted in 1979
(NMFS,, 1980), an estimated 776,000 people made over 2.7 million salt
water fishing trips in Massachus6tts. Interestingly, 275,000 (35%)
of the total recreational anglers were non-residents, indicating that
sport fishing is an important attraction fortourists (Table 1). In
New England, the average fishing trip lasted 3.9 hours, cost $10.60,
and involved traveling 30.3 miles (Table 11). Incidental expenditures
by Massachusetts fishermen in 1979 was estimated at $30 million. 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 Massachusetts
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 ofrecreational 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
recreational fisheries total worth was an estimated,$122 million, and.
employed 1660 people in 1975.

Money spent by recreational anglers.contribute to the Massachusetts
restaurant, hotel, and tourism industries. Anglers support 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 Massachusetts (Nicholson and
Ruais, 1979). Party and charter boats charge a fee for carrying salt-
water anglers to fishing grounds. Party boats are usually large
vessels with an average capacity of about 51 fishermen. The captain
decides where and what to fish. While they pursue cod throughout the
fishing year, other species fished include: winter 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 choice in the species fished and most commonly seek bluefish
and striped bass in the summer months. These boats are generally . I
smaller and carry six 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 bait 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 eight
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 people and expenditure of money in recreational fisheries
is probabXy large, 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 21.6 3.8 19.7 4.0
Hakes 5.8 0.8 .6.2 9.9 6.4 1.1
Yellowtail flounder 21*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 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 271*3 .62,1 316*5 13*3 329.4 94.5

Lobster 5.1 9.3 7.3 14.4 7.7 16.0
Rock crab 0.1 - 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 crustaceanal 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 0.3 .04.1 0.2 0.3 0.7
Surf 0.2 0.1 - - - -
Conch 0.1 0 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 species 2 319.3 114.0 376.9 152.3 374.7 175.5

lNMFS, Massachusetts landings, 1978, 1979 with Massachusetts supplemental
landings added.. Totals include other minor species not listed above.

2
NMFS, 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 3,224,421 104,267 2,08l.'.*441

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

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

Bay scllop 151,731 2,388,573 2971329 5,978,874

Razor clam @75LJ 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,as reported
by shellfish constables, to estimate the recreational catch value.

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-resident 4,776 3,995

Commercial 2,550 3,621

Other 915 2,973
71,277 41,843

lKilbride

2Anderson, 1979

Table 13. Massachusetts coastal and offshore lobster
landings and values for.1977and 1978 (in
millions of pounds and millions of dollars).

19771 19782,
Pounds Value Pounds Value

Coastal commercial 5,412,421. 10,136,748 6,729,141. 12,748,441

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

Offshore commercial 488,465 967,811 11897,699 3,633,048
6,253,995 11,726,119 8,926,297 16,935,632

lKilbride, 1978
2Anderson, 1979.

Table 9. Number of lobster licenses issued by the Division
of Marine Fisheries from 1976 to 19791.

1976 1977 1978 197 9

Coastal commercial 1,369* 1,37.1* 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 1-6757 -6 i7o78 8-9 12,674

IDIvision of Marine Fisheries license records..
*Moritorium on licenses*

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

Coastal Non-coastal 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

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

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

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

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

lMarine Recreational Fishing Statistics Survey, Atlantic and Gulf Coasts,
1979, NMFS, 1980.

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

Species sought Number
s2ecies 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 1+ 21277

Flounder, summer 3 571

Flounders 3 523

Smelt 3 644

Scup 3 4,581

Total catch all species 44,064**

Exceeds 100% because of multiple answers.

Total includes other species not listed.

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 1,0.93 5
Bl uefish 969 4
Sc'up 949 4

698 3
Tomcod

2
Smelt 521
Herrings 475 2
Flounder, summer 378 2

Black sea bass 330

1Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey, Atlantic and Gulf Coasts,
1979, NMFS, 1980

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

Vessels
or dealers People
Charter boatsi 125 2501

1 1
Party boats 91 283
Bait and tackle dealers2 138. 276*
Boat rental dealers2 45 90*

TOTAL 899

lNicholson and Ruais, 1979.
2Massachusetts Salt Water Fishing Guide.

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

5. Other marin e. resources

In addition to the well known commercial and recreational species,
there are other marine organisms of substantial, but undocumented
value. The bait fisheries supply recreational rod and reel fisher-
men, and party and charter boat operators with seaworms, shellfish,
and finfish for bait. Seaworms are the most valuable bait species,
and bring 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 pro-
vide biat 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 food purposes. In Canada
dulce is gathered 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, makeupand other products. Irish moss
harvest in 1978 was reportedly valued 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 indicated
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.

6. Marine Habitats

The coastal areas of Massachusetts contain numerous natural habitats
that provide spawning, nursery, and feeding areas for important forage,
sport, and commercial marine species. Massachusetts has tried to main-
tain the delicate balance between man and nature by the passage of
legislation to protect these habitats.

In 1963 Massachusetts enacted and implemented one of the nation's
first wetlands protection laws. The Jones 'Act (M.G.L. c. 130, s. 27A).
prohibits alteration of saltmarshes, tidal flats, and banks bordering
on coastal waters without approval by local authorities, the State

Department of Public Works, and the Director of the Division of Marine
Fisheries. In 1965, an act for the Protection of Coastal Wetlands,
(c. 130, s. 105) was enacted authorizing the Commissioner of the Depart-
ment of Environmental Management to restrict certain uses of coastal
wetlands. In 1972 M.G.L. c 130, s. 27A was repealed and combined with
its inland wetlands counterpart the Wetlands Protection Act (Hatch Act),.
Collectively they formed section 40 of Chapter 131 which prohibits*
removing, filling, dredging, or altering any bank, beach,-dune, river,
pond, lake, or coastal wetland without approval of local conservation
commissions. Other habitat protection legislation include the water-
ways program (M.G.L. c. 91), Ocean Sanctuaries (M.G.L. c. 132A, s. 13-17)
and water quality certification program (M.G.L. c..21).

a. Saltmarsh Areas - Saltmarshes play an important role in the biological
productivity of adjacent coastal waters. They stabilize the shoreline
and are rich in organic nutrients. It is well documented (Odum, 1961
and Teal, 1962) that these areas are the most efficient primary pro-
ducing environments on earth and provide natural spawning, feeding, and
nursery areas for forage (herring,smelt), sport (striped bass, blue-
fish)" and commercial (winter flounder) marine species. Sheltered
waters and grasses also provide important nesting and feeding areas
for numerous species of waterfowl, and invertebrates. In Massachusetts$
an estimated 25,470 plus acres are protected under Chapter 130, section
105 and Chapter 131,section 40. The largest is the Parker River-Plum
Island area where an estimated 8,410 acres of saltmarsh are protected.
Other areas that have sizeable acreage of protected saltmarsh include
the North River estuary, Essex Bay, Plymouth-Kingston-Duxbury Bay,
Pleasant Bay, and Barnstable Harbor-Sandy Neck area. Smaller salt-
marshes include Annisquam River, Lynn-Saugus area, Dorchester and
Hingham Bay, Wellfleet Harbor, Westport River, Waquoit Bay-Eel Pond,
and.Bass River.

Although some of the saltmarsh areas are privately owned and subject
to local taxes, very little direct economic benefit is derived other
than the harvesting of high water cord grass known as salt hay. In.
colonial times hay was extensively used for thatching roofs and for
cattle bedding and fodder, however small amounts are harvested today
for garden mulch and insulation. The majority of salt hay comes from
the Parker River-Plum Island area where in 1965, 439 tons at a revenue
of $10,975 were harvested (Jerome, Chesmore, Anderson, 1968). In
addition, 20 acres of salt hay selling for $750. was harvested in
the Mount Hope Bay-Taunton River area in 1974 (Curley, Lawton, et al.
1974).

b. Shellfish Beds and Areas - Productive shellfish areas exist throughout
the coastal area. It is estimated that over 25,000 acres of estuaries,
bays, intertidal areas, and beaches provide niches for valuable com-
mercial and recreational shellfish such as soft-shelled clams, quahogs,
bay scallops, razor clams, and oysters. Unfortunately a majority of
productive areas are closed due to sewage contamination. Boston Harbor,
Quincy Bay,and Hingham Bay have extensive contaminated soft-shelled

clam beds which are closed to all harvesting except for some areas open
for depuration. While areas on the South Shore such as Cohasset, cer-
tain parts of Plymouth Bay, Mount Hope Bay, and New Bedford Harbor are
closed to most shellfishing,.primarily for quahogs. Substantial soft-
shelled clam populations exist in the Annisquam River area, and Plum
Island Sound estuaries of the towns of Essex, Ipswich, Rowley, Newbury,
and Newburyport. Portions of these areas are also closed because of
contamination. The South Shore and Cape and Islands areas contain
major populations ofuncontaminated quahogs, bay scallops, and oysters.

Extensive beds of quahogs can be found in the bays and estuaries of
Westport, Bourne, Barnstable, Wellfleet, Pleasant Bay, and Nantucket
Harbor. Bay scallops tend to inhabit protected estuaries and bays.
Bourne, Lewis Bay, Pleasant Bay, Nantucket Harbor, and Wareham in
the past have all reported substantial landings by commercial and
recreational fishermen. A large oyster population has been documented
in Wellfleet Harbor while minor populations are found in Wareham,
Bourne and the great ponds on Martha's Vineyard.

Surf clams.provide a small but growing commercial dragg er fishery
located around Cape Cod and the Islands. Large beds are fished in Cape
Cod Bay off Sandy Neck, Barnstable and from Provincetown to Wellfleet
in the Billingsgate Shoal area. Other surf clam areas include the
south side of Martha's Vineyard, outer Cape Cod, and Horseneck Beach,
Westport.

Mussels have recently gained inpopularity as a desirable food item.
They are found attached to rocks, piers and other stationary objects.
Large beds have been found in Sandwich and Barnstable Harbors, and at.
the mouth of the North River.

c. Anadromous Fish Runs - Anadromous fish species such as alewives, smelt,
and shad are important to the sport and commercial fisheries of
Massachusetts. In 19i5 the Division of Fish and Game initiated a
program of fishway construction and maintenance to allow the passage
of alewives around dams and other obstacles during their spring runs.
When the Division of Marine Fisheries was established in 1943, it
assumed anadromous fish restoration responsibilities. The Division
maintains and has enhanced or constructed approximately 95 fishways,',

The alewife or "river herring" are the most abundant anadromous
fish.in Massachusetts. They spawn from April to May when water tempera-.
tures range from 55-660F. An estimated 90 riversi ponds, and brooks
support spawning runs. Major runs exist in the Parker, Charles, North,
Town Brook, Herring (Bourne), Stoney Brook, Agawam, Nemasket, and
Palmer Rivers, with most being town regulated. After spawning, adults
return to the sea leaving the fertilized eggs to hatch later in the
spring. Young, 2-411 herring spend summer in the ponds then migrate
downstream to the sea in the fall. Adult herring are valuable as
prey or forage for sportfish and are a source of bait for lobster
and recreational fishermen.

Blueback or summer herring are usually managed as if they were ale-

wives, but are actually a separate species. They spawn in many of the
same rivers as alewives but later when temperatures reach 70-75F.

An estimated 12 rivers in the commonwealth support shad spawning
populations with an active sportfishery in the Indianhead River tribu-
tary of the North River, the Parker River, Palmer River, and Connecticut
River. Shad are also occasionally caught in the Merrimack River, South
River (Marshfield), and Runnings River (Seekonk). In addition, the
Division is restoring populations in the Charles and Taunton River, sys-
tems. Shad are the largest of the herring family attaining an average
adult weight of three pounds. They spawn somewhat earlier than ale-
wives when water temperatures reach 50F, then return to the sea. The
eggs hatch on sandy substrate in 12-15 days, and the young migrate to
the sea in autumn.

Rainbow smelt occupy an estimated 25 rivers and streams during the
early spring spawning period when water temperatures reach 40F.
They ascend streams for short distances to lay their eggs in clusters
on gravel bottom. The young hatch in 10-13 days and move back out to
sea during the summer. Smelt are highly prized as a food fish, and a
substantial fall and winter fishery exists in many bays and estuaries
during the June 16 through March 14 open season. North of Boston,
the Parker, Rowley, Essex, Mill, and Annisquam River estuaries provide
the best fishing while to the south the Weir, Jones, Agawam, and
Weweantic Rivers are the most popular.

d. Beach types - Miles of barrier beaches, rocky shore lines, and open
ocean beaches comprise a substantial area of Massachusetts coastline.
Rocky shorelines to the north of Boston include the coasts of
Swampscott, Marblehead, Beverly, Rockport, Gloucester, and Manchester
ending at the barrier beaches of Plum Island. The rocky areas pro-
vide valuable habitats for lobsters,, mussels and various sessile
(i.e. bottom attached) animals. The bedrock, tidal pools and kettle
holes house a variety of marine life such as periwinkles, limpets
and sea urchins while numerous amounts of Irish moss and rockweed
grow throughout the area.

terrain gradually becomes sandy
Toward the South Shore the rocky
beach interspersed with barrier beaches. Barrier beaches are sandy,
low, sparesly vegetated peninsulas or islands that protect a saltmarsh
from the sea. Barrier beaches are ever-changing due to the action of
waves and wind. The beach areas of Scituate, Marshfield, and Plymouth's
Long Beach have been altered by erosion and residential development
which has disrupted the large colonies of terns and gulls that tradi-
tionally nest there. High, sandy bluffs stretching from Plymouth to
Sagamore are eroding at a rate of approximately 2-3 feet per year.
Lobster and surf clam populations are quite dense in this area just
off the beach and heavy fishing effort is conducted.

Southern areas facing Buzzards Bay from Wareham to the Rhode Island

border are densely residential and industrial regions with. the major.
p
ts of New Bedford and Fall River. Large portions are rocky and
or
gravel but some small beach areas can be found. A large barrier. beach;
is located in Westport at Horseneck Beach. This area receives.extenbive:-
recreational use and provides good surfcast fishing.

Cape Cod accounts for over 300 miles of the total 1,200 miles of
Massachusetts coastline. In Cape@Cod Bay -there are numerous b .arri er
beaches such as Sandy Neck (Barnstable), Chapin Beach (Dennis),
Wellfleet, and the Provincelands. The Cape Cod National Seashore and.,
Monomoy on-the outer side,, and ocean beachs of Chatham, Harwich,
Yarmouth, Mashpee, and Falmouth on the southside comprise many miles
of coastline primarily used for recreational purposes. :Surfcast
fishing has been an active recreational pursuit on most of the.Cape
beaches and migratory fish such as striped bass and bluefish can be
caught from the shore and jetties.

South of Cape Cod, the islands of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket,*
and the Elizabeth Island chain form the remaining areas of Massa-
-chusetts coastline., Martha's Vineyard has approximately 50 miles of
varied coastline from the unique clay cliffsof Gay Head and rocky
terrain of Chilmark to the sandy beaches of the southside of the Island.
Chappaquidick and Cape Poge to the east of Martha's Vineyard contain
approximately 15 miles of open beach and dunes on the eastern part
of the Island and are*prot6cted by 4 wildlife trust. Wasque Beach
is a popular site for sportfish surfcasting. Shifting sands and
erosion along the southern beaches have greatly altered the coastline
affecting sizeable populations of,nesting terns. Nantucket Island
consists mainly of sandy bluffs and exposed beaches. Due to its.
location on the eastern seaboard, it is vulnerable to storm damage
and extensive erosion has occurred in many areas. The Elizabeth
Island chain separates Vineyard Sound -to the southeast from Buzzards
Bay to the northwest. Fifteen islands totaling over 8,300 acres are
mainly rocky with a few small sandy beaches. With the exception of
Cuttyhunk and Naushon, the islands are privately owned and have
remained in a more natural state than most coastal land in Massachusetts.

e. Subtidal area - The territorial waters of Massachusetts have the dis-
Unction of providing two marine environments markedly differing in
physical, chemical, and biological factors resulting in diverse marine
fauna. Divided by the land masses of Cape Cod and Nantucket.Shoals,
the waters of Cape Cod Bay and Massachusetts Bay.are characterized by
cold water and strong tidal currents while the southern areas in-
fluenced by the Gulf Stream are warmer, less current affected: and
support different species. Temperature and salinity varies with depth,
bottom type, and.current Overall surface water temperatures in both
areas range from -10C in*February to 250C in August (Bumpus, 1973).
Salinities range from 24-35 0/00 depending on the proximity of estuaries.,
salt ponds, and spring to early summer runoffs (Bumpus, 1973). Depths
vary, with the north shore areas averaging from 9 to 55 m and predomi
nately rocky, to major portions,of Cape Cod Bay averaging from 18 to

35 m with a botter of relatively smooth sand and mud. Vineyard and
Nantucket Sounds have primarily sandy substratum marked by numerous
shoals and depths averaging 9 to 18 m. Buzzards Day, also shallow
(9-18 m) is mainly rocky and uneven (Howe, et al., 1979).

Non-tidal currents along the coast flow in a southerly
direction turning westward southeast of Nantucket island (Bumpus and
Lauziar, 1965). A branch enters Cape Cod Bay along the western shore,
circulates counterclockwise, and rejoins the main flow. Within Cape
Cod Bay tidal currents are parallel to the coast, while in Massachusetts
Bay they are perpendicular (Bumpus, 1974). Nantucket and Vineyard
Sounds show strong (almost 3 knots) tidal currents with a net easterly
drift, while a counterclockwise drift appears to exist in Buzzards Bay
(Bumpus, 1973).

Water temperature and bottom type are two Controlling factors that
determine distribution and seasonal abundance of marine fish and
crustaceans. With the two distinct bodies of water existing in
Massachusetts' territorial sea a great diversity of species of fish can
be found. Information from recent groundfish surveys conducted by the
Division's Resource Assessment Program showed that some species are
specific to an area or bottom type. Grey sole are caught in state waters
only on smooth bottom, whereas winter flounder are found throughout
Massachusetts waters at m any depths and on virtually all. bottom types.
In contrast, tautog are most abundant south of Cape Cod in shallower
water (less than 18 m) and inhabit broken bottom near rock outcroppings
(Howe et al.,1979). Resident species such as cod, the hakes, ocean
pout, longhorn sculpin, yellowtail, winter flouder, American plaice,
skates, lobster, and rock crabs are widespread over inshore grounds in
early spring. As water temperatures warm these species intermingle
with migratory f1sh such as scup, black sea bass, summer flounder,
herring, mackerel, butterfish, and dogfish sharks which have moved
shoreward and northeasterly from wintering grounds. Sportfish such
as striped bass and bluefish are also included in this migratory group
but tend to have a near shore movement (Howe et al. , 1979). As water
temperatures rise,, migratory species advance northerly, some only into
Cape Cod Bay and others into the Gulf of Maine. Resident species tend
to disperse into deeper, cooler water (Howe et al., 1979).

The subtidal area serves as an important spawning ground for a
great many species, parqll. awn in Buzzards Bay-Nanuckat Sound
great many species, particularly from April to September. Loligo squid,
scup, black sea bass and searobin spawn in Buzzards Bay-Nantucket Sound
in the spring. In Ipswich Bay, herring spawn in spring and northern
shrimp hatch out their eggs in winter. Many eggs and larvae drift

southward from the Gulf Of Maine and young of the year fish move from
the estuary nursing grounds into nearshore areas.

Ports: Gloucester, New Bedford, Boston, Provincarona, and Sandwich. Other
ports of importance are: Chatham, Plymouth, Soltuate, Hyannia, Martha's
Vineyard (four harbors), Hantucket, Newburyport, and Beverly-Salem. Each
port differs in number and types of vessels, processors, port facilities,
and species landed. Within each port, the catch caries with fluctuations
in fish prices and season fish migration. Addition of new boats, trans-
ient, nature of the fleet, and season gear changes (e.g. from lobstering
to gill netting) make it diffucult to categorize the numer of types of
vessels in each port. According to DMF estimates, these 11 ports in 1977
accounted for 252 million pounds of fish (not including sea scallops, shell-
fish, and lobsters), valued in excess of $55 million, employing an estimated
2258 fishermen on 565 finfish boats (Table 15). In 1979, the number of fin-
fish boats in these 11 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 harvesting, and fresh and frosen fish pro-
cessing port. It has consistently been the leading New England port in
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
numbers 243, and cinsisted of offshore and inshore traveleres, gill-
netters, seiners, herring pair trawlers, and Danish Sainers. 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 include the
Golf of Maine and Georges Bank.

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

2. New Bedford

New Bedford has the highest catch value of any east coast port and is
noted for both fresh fish and scallops worth over $40 million in 1977.
Scallops accounted for $20.2 million or half the value of the total
catch. The 164 finfish, 50 scallop, and 17 lobster boates, 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 employed
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, haddocki flounder, and redfish.

The 37 finfish vessels range.from small gill net boats fishing out-
side 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 improvement.
Massport.(Massachusetts Port Authority) 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 whblesale 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. This represents an increase of over
5 million pounds since 1977. Many Boston and New Bedford vessels,con-
tribute 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 starage.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. When recreational boats
leave the basin at the east end of the Canal, 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, buys mackerel, menhaden, and sea herring.

6. Other Ports

Many of the Plymouth and Scituate vessels 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.

Chatham has a unique fishing fleet because of the harbor's physical
characteristics., A shallow sand',bar at the entrance to Pleasant Bay
limits the 88 vessels (1977) to 30-50 feet in length. In 1977, most
of the smaller vessels (20) jigged for cod, while the larger 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), because of competition from recreational vessels 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.

@Marthals Vineyard has four ports: Vineyard Haven, Oak Bluffs, Edgartown,
and Menemsha. Menemsha is the main commercial port for the Island's
finfish, scallop, lobster, and swor'dfish.fisheries. The Island has
four buyers, one in Vineyard Haven,, two in Menemsha, and one in Edgartown.*
Except for Menemshaj 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 local scallop and finfish fleet swells to over 32 in summer during
the squid and fluke season, putting a further strain on dockage fdcili-
ties. There are three buyers on Nantucket, but fish are shipped to the
mainland and.most of the locally consumed fish is' shipped in from Hygnnis.

C. Resource Management Zones

Fish distribution, bottom typo, vessel size, and gear type are all factors
influencing where fishing is conducted. Other factors arethe resource
management areas controlled by federal, state, and local governments. These
areas are primarily controlled for environmental and resource management
purposes, however, some are restricted due to contamination. The followin Ig
is a discussion of regulated resource areas affecting Massachusetts fisheries.

1. Fisheries Conservation Zone (FCZ)

The federal Magnuson Fisheries Conservation and Management Act (MFCMA)
of 1976 (200 mile limit) established federal authority over management'
of fisheries from state territorial seas out to 200 nautical miles.

Table 15.' Massachusetts fishery statistics
for selected ports.1

Total pounds Total Total Total
landed value boats fishermen

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

.New Bedford 62,219,000 22,232,697. 124 .750.
Boston 22 251 ..,2 98 5,960,077. 37 175
Provincetown 8060,000 2,686,040. 44 174

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

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

Plymouth 1,770,000 5218,000. 14 50

Scituate 77,51000 282,000. 22 80

Hyannis 613,6W 191,000. 7 12

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

Nantucket,', 19,'903 9,177. 12 41

Totals 2.51,985,296 $55,738,746.-' 565 2,258

lsource: 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 t I
126 coastal lobster 81 coastal lobster

New Bedford @.Scituate

164 finfish 19 finfish
50 sea scallopers 12 coastal lobster
17 co astal lobs.ter

Boston Hyannis

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 finfish boats for above major ports Martha's Vineyard an d
Nantucket estimated).

Estimated total for all Massachusetts ports, 1979.

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

Source: Division of Marine Fisheries, 1980.

Table 17. Commercial landings at ce .rtain Massachusetts portql
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 28.9 160.2 29.7

New Bedford 75.5 43.2 71.9 54.6 86.0 67.4

Boston 2,2.2 6.0 27.3 8.1 30.3 10.7

@Provincetown 17.9 6.9 19.9 9.1 23o4 10.3

sandwich 15.3 5.0 17.5 9.8

Total Massachusetts 319.3 114.0 376.9 152.3 374.1 175.5

Not reported to avoid disclosure of private enterprise.
1NMFS, Fisheries of the U@S. 1977, 1978, 1979.

Figure 1. Massachusetts commercially important ports and harborse,

l.- Newburyport-Salisbury 27. Pamet River

2. Newbury
28. Provincetown

3. Ipswich .29. Nauset Town Cove

4. Rockport, .30. Chatham

5. Gloucester 31. Stage Harbor

6. Manchester 32. Saquatucket Harbor

7. Bever.ly-Salem 33. Wychmere Harbor

8.' Marblehead 34. Allens Harbor

9. Swampscott 35. Bass River

10. Lynn .36.1 Hyannis

11. Nahant. 37. Cotuit

12. Saugus 38. Green Harbor

13. Winthrop 39. Falmouth Inner Harbor

14. Boston 40. Woods Hole

15. Hull 41. West Falmouth

16. Quincy-Hingham 42. Little Bay

17. Cohasset 43. New Bedford

18. Scituate 44. Westport

.19.1 Green Harbor 45'. Cuttyhunk

.20. Plymouth 46. Menemsha.

21. Ellisville 47. Vineyard Haven

22. Sandwich 48. Oak Bluffs

23. Barnstable 49. Edgartown

24. Sesuit 50. Madaket

25. Rock Harbor 51. Nantucket

26. Wellfleet 36

Figure 1. Massachusetts commercial
and harbors.
important ports

2
N.H. 3

MEN,
-m g

. . . . . . . . . .....

let
15

'20 27
a, MM@

X, il
21

29
Mg 25
.11 am 22
24
23

W
K
W@

iIIO
.... . ........ I.M.-
0
3
35
41 @*,A

40
39
4 4
48

Primary ports 50
Secondary ports CO . . . . . . . . . . .
0 3
Ports & Harbors U--A.-
Scale in Mi.les North

317

With regulations promulgated by the New England Fisheries Management
Council (NErmc), 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 the possibility of pre-emption of management authority by the
Secretary of Commerce.

The New England Councilhas 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).

2, Massachusetts Territorial Wate rs

The Massachusetts territorial sea extends three miles (amended from
three nautical miles) from the mean low water mark covering over 1,200
miles of coastline and over 1600 square nautical miles of ocean. 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 por-
tion 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 Fisheries
Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Control over shellfish
(in uncontaminated 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 extends 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 unenforce-
able. Under M.G.L. c. 130, s. 17A (approved 1962) the Director of the
Division has the power, with approval by the Marine Fisheries Advisory
Commission, to specify the manner, size, quantity, season, hours, and
areas by which fish may be taken. The Attorney General's Office is of
the opinion that regulations promulgated under authority of s. 17A
(10) supercede conflicting special acts. Founded in 1960, the nine
member 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 marine
fisheries. The Commission reviews, commenteand votes on regulations
affecting Massachusetts marine fisheries; . discusses fisheries pro-
blems 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.

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 statutes and regulations have evolved
to form a patchwork of regulated areas to discourage gear conflict,
protect the resources, and avoid navigational 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 Hampshire border
along the coastline to Provincetown, off the eastern coast of Chatham
and Orleans, and the eastern coastline.of Nantucket 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 specialpermit as a
means to control fishing effort, reduce gear conflict, and obtain . I . I
management information. By issuing or revoking special permits, the
number of fishing vessels in an area can be con-trolled and fishing
regulations effectively enforced.

3. Contaminated Area Restrictions,

Restricting resource harvesting in coastal areas for certain public
health reasons is a responsibility of the Division of Marine Fisheries.
The Shellfish Sanitation Program within the Department of Environmental
Quality Engineering (DEQE) works under regulations established by the
Department of Public Health and guidelines established by the U.S. rood
and Drug Administration. They conduct frequent tests of the waters over-
lying shellfish beds and issue notices of reclassification. Upon noti-
fication, the Division issues area opening and closure notices. Pri-
marily, these closures are the result of sewage pollution, but seasonal
closures for paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) and long-term closures
for toxic substances have also occurred.

a. Contaminated shellfish areas

From Boston Harbo r north, an estimated 6,250 acres of productive shell-
fish bottom with an estimated annual potential harvest of 73,450
bushels of soft-shelled clams are contaminated by sewage waste to such
aWextent that shellfish harvesting must be restricted. South of
Boston, additional shellfish areas, primarily containing quahogs, are,

restricted. The Shellfish Sanitation Program classifies these areas
adcording to the MPN (mean probable number) of Escberichia coli (E.
0 N
coli) bacteria per 100 ml of the overlying waters; 70-70 ing
moderately contaminated and above 700 grossly contaminated. E.
coli is a harmless bacteria, commonly found in mammalian inte7stinal
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 bi-
valve 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 adductor muscle or eye of the
scallop is eaten,.they do not pose a health hazard.
Some of Massachusetts most productive shellfish areas are contami-
nated. Of the 6,250 acres of contaminated productive shellfish
bottom on the North Shore, 49% are classified as moderately contami-
nated. 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 Administration issues Master
Digger Permits for the harvesting of soft shelled clams from moder-
ately contaminated areas. These'clams must be purified at the
Division operated Newburyport Shellfish Depuration Plant prior to
sale. After holding the clams in sterilized waters for forty-eight
hours, the result is a clean, high quality product.
The Division's Shellfish Relay Permit program allows the transfer
of shellfish from contaminated to clean areas for natural purifica-
tion- 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--@celled dinoflagellate,
@nau@lax tamarensis, have appeared in Massachusetts waters.
Gonyaulax will bloom when sunlight and nutrient Conditions are just
,right, U-sually in:tthe spring and fall. Rarely does it occur in
sufficient quantities to discolor the water, howevers the 1972
bloom was so massive that the colorful but misleading nickname "red
.-tide" was applied. '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 contaminated shellfish, the
Go@zaulax releases a powerfulchemical poison, called a neurotoxin,
which attacks the human nervous system. Effects range from slight
tingling sensations to severe respiratory arrest and, very rarely,
death, depending on the amount of toxin ingested.

.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 notificationof
shellfish area openings and closures.

c. Toxic substance closures

The accumulation or spilling of toxic substances such as Polychlori-
nated biphenyls (PCB's), oil, or mercury has forced resource clo-
sure6 of certain harbors in Massachusetts. PCB's discharged from
two plants 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, from
marine,,anti-fouling paint, resulted in shellfish closures in small
areas of upper Sippican Harbor and Falmouth Inner Harbor., -Oil
spills or leaks have closed Great.Harbor, Falmouth and Red Brook,
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
federal and state levels. The U.S. Department of Commerce may desig-
nate areas as Federal Marine Sanctuaries (16 USC 1431-1434). Under
M.G.L. c. 132A, s. 14 and 15, the Massachusetts Department of En-
vironmental 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 sanctuaries any act which
disturbs,the seabed, such as drilling, dumping industrial wastes,
building structures, or removing sand and gravel -is prohibited. Fishing
activities are not restricted under Massachusetts Ocean Sanctuary
provisions.

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 agreed that if central Nantucket Sound was
designated a federal marine sanctuary, Massachusetts would relinquish
its claim provided (a) no additional federal regulations governing

7--

Figure 2. Massach@ktts tetrgorial waterg

H.,
"I Halibut Pt.

HER

Eastern
pt@

M
m
E
Massachusetts
n.
Bay
Strawberr
Pt.
OW
N

e
Line Of the CO
Brant
Race Pt.
ME

R.I.
ce
-be co
. . . .....
Say
IN M. no

..mpllg
gg, g
W nm @,@F

3v
Q,

. . . . . . . . . .

av Pit.
CO. Nantucket Sound
uttyhunk,p Cape Pogo

Gay H
Light,

0 3 6 9
N.
r;7m

Scala in Miles North state waters, subject.to federal challenge

Figure. 3. Restricted areas for. trawfi2g
along the Massachusetts coast.

NA. 6 H' but
M A.
x, Open all year
5 W Closed alt year
I Closed Aprit Ist.-30th.
2 Closed May 1 -n, October 31.
3 Closed April 1 - October 31
4 Closed April. 1 - December 31
*5 Closed April 1 - November 14
06 Closed April 1 - June 14 and
October 1 -january 31
Massachusetts
say

Inshore net permit required for trawling
in-all bays. harbors, and estuaries
3

@ttw
Ft" M
k
W@j
:1. M.N.M 1:1
g:
ME:
.1 POW
R.I. Point

@c
2

rifle"
int

:t
Nantucket Sound
0

point
*Special permits needed for areas
011,

C
10
0 3
------ L-9 X area may be subiect
scaie in wee North revised 4182 - to local control

Figure 4. Restricted areas for seini2g
along.the Massachusetts coast.
N.H.
M A.
lot
Closed all year
Special permit required for
Scottish, Danish, and Pair
Seirting *and purse seining.-
Closed for the taking of
Flounder and Groundflah
No Line Trawling, Netting, or
Seining in main. shipping
channels
Massachusetts
Bay
Inshore net. permit required hir seihling- and.
gillnetting-in Q11 6ays, harbors, and-estuaries.'

R. 1.

Cape Cod
Bay

W.
..tOcket Sound
Cape

AWO!
I1"t
ht
-rc Nantucket waters subject to I %Z@Eevpoint
town regulations Smith
Point

0 3 6 9
6 1 1 1 Af@-
scale In Miles North revised 4/82

M."

Clarks
Point
Rock
Poi I
Wilbur ln
Rickersons
Point
Point

Mg
Negro.
Ledge

ow Ne&
Areas Subject to PCB Cl h'
Waters closed to all fishing activitwi@11,1.1.
2 waters closed to the taking of lobs 141
9
f loundets, scup, and tauto
3 Waters closed to lobstering only
Mishaum Point
ON

A
Figure 5. olychlorinated Biphenyl -(PCB) Contamination rea@.,'
Of
-New Be ord Harbor.
@45

Ocean Sanctuaries In
Figure 6.
Massachusetts.
0

z @ @ @M 1.

North Shore
Ocean Sanctuary

. . . . . . . . . .
South Essex
0
cean Sanctuary

massachuses&-
a
J Bay

Cape Cod Ocean
Sanctuary..

* " W, ]i
X 'i,@:7
e.

.. . .......
k @,W:

m-w

........... .
g

Nominted Federal
1@ "I -n,

..... ... ...... .--I:..I"I..:.'I.:i:-.:V
Marine Sanctuary
. .. .....
(Central Nantucket Sound)
& Isl nds
0 Ocean Sanctuar
6U -All- --l'Im"':.. `,@-': . .
Scale in Miles North

4-6

a o -th*
W
Figure 7.
Jurisdiction are f e
W
U;
@,@ ". 0I;x 0
"I'M - I Massachusetts C astal, Zoe
Management Program
N.H.-
M -A.

Massachusetts
... . .......
Bay

"IFN
xx-

M,
W

gg,

MUM ,gx
i- Ast,

ket Sound
Nanfuc

IRK,
.'M
01:

0
Area protected by t-
MCZM Program

0 3 6 9

Scale in Milos North

fishing activities be imposed, and (b) that federal marine sanctuary
rules conform with regulations of the Massachusetts Ocean Sanctuary 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, beneifcial 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" (Figure 7).

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,1977). The
Massachusetts value of processed products increased to $358 million
in 1977, with 123 plants employiiig 4,454 people on a yearly basis and
5,302 seasonally (Table 18). ITi addition, 86 wholesale plants, em-
ploying 951 people, purchased and@marketed processed fish to 845 retail
markets (from DMF licensing statistics). Using the,,-e 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 general types of fish processors in Massachusetts. Of
the 123 processing firms in 1977, forty-one percent, primarily filleted
fresh finfish. They handled about 22% of the processed fish product
value, employed 27% of the processing work force, and averaged $1.8
million in sales. They largely processed Massachusttts fish, but a
significant amount was imported from other states, Canada, and other
countries.

Although reliable figures are not available, as much as 90% of the
fish supply for the 13 large finfish processors originated from for-
eign imports in the form of frozen fish blocks. Processors, located
in Gloucester and New Bedford, produced unclassified (i.e., not identi-
,,fied by species name) frozen fish portions, sticks, dinners, and other
products for a nationwide market. Although small in number, they pro-
duced 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 shellfish supplied 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.

Three industrial fish processors averaged $3.6 million in sales
(1977), employed 12% of the work force, and produced 3% of the product
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.

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
major 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 Newport, R.I., cod, haddock, pollock, and
ocean perch landings and 90% of the flounder landings were shipped to
Massachusetts for processing.

In the wholesale 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 catch can sometimes
increase profits by eliminating a layer in the marketing process.
The cooperatives assist fishermen by purchasing fuel, ice, and fishing
gear at lower bulk rates. All six 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. Imports

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 lobsters,
and shellfish). It is nearly impossible to obtain statistics on for-
eign imports into Massachusetts. Federal import statistics 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 fin-
fish worth $3.1 million (Kellogg, 1980) were imported into Massachusetts,
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 million pounds of
lobster meat to the U.S. in 1978. An unknown quantity of imports from
Canada, estimated at 25% (Brown, 1974), originate 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 direbtly compete with fresh fish, the main-
stay of the New England fisheries. However, the import of primarily
Canadian fresh finfish, lobsters, and shellfish suppress ex-vessel
prices paid to Ma ssachusetts fishermen. Canadian federal and provincial
subsidies to the fishing industry provide Canadians with an advantage
in U.S. markets. Government subsidies on vessel purchase, construction,
repair, and conversion; fish handling-and storage; processing plant con-,
struction and expansion; boat insurance and fuel have reduced the
Canadian imported fish prices by an estimated $ .30/pound (Capalbo et
.al., 1977) and lobster prices an estimated $ .33 to $ .44/pound
(-Hasselback, 1979). Concern over 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 maintaining international
relations and keeping fish prices to consumers low.

F. Mariculture and Fisheries Enhancement

Hariculture is defined as the propagation and husbandry of marine
animals or plants by private industry for commercial reasons. For
purposes of this report, fisheries enhancement 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 should be tempered by the
knowledge 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 understood. In addition
to facing local opposition to seashore use, a mariculture operation
may need as many as five-stat6 permits (three from DEQE, one from DEM
and one from DMF), two federal permits (EPA and Army Corps of EnginZ;s),
and three local permits (from the Zoning, Conservation and Shellfish Commissions)

Depending on techniques used, mariculture (and fisheries enhancement).
can be intensive or extensive. In.intensive mariculture most or all
of the animals life cycle, feeding, and grow-out is under complete
control. Production is high, as it labor and capital costs, but a
high quality productlis 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 mortality is greater
in the open ocean than in a controlled environment. Anadromous fish
can be raised in this manner, but legal questions exist on ownership
of fish when they return to the river.,

The most common form of mariculture in Massachusetts is the private
shellfish grant. Under M.G.L. c.330, s. 57, municipalities,.after
Division inspection, may grant private individuals exclusive rights
to the sea bottom for shellfish mariculture for periods not exceeding
10 years In addition, M.G.L. c. 130, s. 68A allows municipalities
to license off-bottom shellfish culture using rafts, racks, or floats.

As of 1980, a total of 50 grants in 13 towns were issued encompassing
atotal 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 in-
volved 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 aqua-
culture operations in Massachusetts. A commercial prawn (Macrobrachium)
growing farm in New Bedford, a commercial operation in Salem growing
invertebrates and finfish for sale as marine specimens and food
respectively, 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
Connecticut River Anadromous Fish Restoration Program. The Division is
involved in the Merrimack River Anadromous Fish Restoration Project
and various local shellfish enhancement programs. Other publically
funded marine enhancement 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 mari-
culture 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 flants 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

107 4,482 3,876 99 942 851 206 5,424 4,727

1973 104 4,875 4,208 9.7 652 751 201 5,707 4,959
1974 117 43739 3,885 92' 849 746 209 5,588 4,631
Ln
1975 120 4,638 3,845 91 885 787 211 5,523 4,632
197@ 114 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: Fishery Statistics of the U.S. 1978, 1919.

Table 19. Estimated imports of fresh, wholes or headed-
Canadian groundfish by Massachusetts in 1978.1

Quantity C.I.F. Value,
(thousand-lbs) (thousand dollars)
Cod 1,461 487
Haddock 5,341 2,166

Flounders 1,491
Ocean Perch 13 8
Pollock 0 0
Whiting 0

Note: All imports of*fresh, whole, or headed fish classified as
cusk, haddock, hake,or polloCk are assumed to be haddock..
'Source: Massachusetts Imports of Canadian Fish Products.
C. Kellogg, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, 1980.

1117 Division Of Marine Fisheries,''
The Division of Marine Fisheries within the Department of Fisheries,
Wildlife and Recreational Vehicles under the Executive Office of Environ-
mentalAffairs 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 Massach'u-
Setts. Functioning -under the statutes of M.G.L. c. 130 and regulati
ions
approved by the Marine Fisheries AdvisoryCommission, 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 e
ducational material, constructs fishwayss,
Purifies shellfish, and propagates fish and curstaceans. Division person-
nel interact with many federal, interstate, state, and local management
agencies and various Private fisheries related organizations in conducting
agency functions.
Prior to 1942, responsibility for marine fishery management rested.
@within a bureau of the Division of Fish and Game. In 1943 the Division
If 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 sinall organization until twc events occurred: the formation of
the Marine Fisheries Advisory Commission 'in 1960 -to study fishery problems
in Massachusetts'g and the enactment of the Commercial Fisheries Research
and Development and Anadromous Fish Act (P.L. 89-304). The Commission re-
commended establishment of a Marine Fisheries Fund, fishery research pro-
graMss construction of laboratory facilities, and purchase of a research
vessel. P.L. 88-309 provided federal funding to realize many of these
recommendations.
Presently, the Division has a staff of sixty-nine including admin-.
istrators (8), biologists (27). bioiogical aids and laborers (16), market-
ing and extension specialists (6), clerical (10), laboratory pr--rsonnel (1),
and a lawyer (1). In addition to its Boston office, the Division maintains
five facilities: the Newburyport Shellfish Purification Plant; Cat Cove
andwich);
and a lobster hatchery (Martha's Vineyard), An Anadromous Fish Hatchery
Marine Laboratory Oalem); two offices for south shore personnel (S
and Rearing Station to be operated jointly by the Division of.Fisheries
and Wildlife and Division of Marine Fisheries, is under construction in
East Sandwich. A 521 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 soutfi shore personnel and'replacement of the
existing-research boat with a.larger, more seaworthy, and versatile vessel.
Before 1975, Division program, admiinistration@,.,, an.4 operating costs
.were appropriated froni,the Marine. Fisheries Fund. The Fund wa's est-a.1- J'.Ished
in 1962 from reve
nues receive M l'icensis, 'fees and-.a.,Iportion of the
unrebated gas tax propor ion ' 1, u " 4 e of f ishing,:bpats,'. With State
t al to fue sag@

ed and Div*
reorganization in 1975, the Fund was repeal ision revenues
reverted to the General Fund. The Division's budget for Fiscal Year
1979 was $1,703,609 of which $493,629 was received from federal grants.
and private trusts. Although $1,209,980 was appropriated 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 purification plant and fines.
In addition, $402,900 was received from federal FY 79 reimbursements.
The net actual cost to the state for managing and developing its fish-
eries was $233,103.

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, $250,000 was distributed to local communities to
p.artially reimburse (up to 50% depending on the amount appropriated)
them for shellfish management work in rY 1979.

The Director of the Division oversees the Marine Fisheries Advisory
Commission, Council Liaison to the New England Fishery Management Council,
Legal Counsel, and four bureaus. The Council is responsible for all
legal/legislative aspects of Division operations. Council Liaison partici-
pates 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 compatibility with management and
enforcement practices. Four bureaus, each with an Assistant Director,
govern various research, administrative, and management of sport and com-
mercial fisheries programs (Table 2b)..

The Bureau of Administration and Operations coordinates and admin-
isters all fiscal activities of the Division. This includes budget pre-
paration, 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 maintenance of the
Division's physical facilities. Cat Cove Marine Laboratory provides the
Division with comprehensive, accurate, and timely laboratory services
including testing for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB's), heavy metals,
pesticides, and Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning (PSP). The Shellfish
Depuration 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-larval 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 vesselutilized. 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.regula-
tions.

The Bureau of Research provides information which will result in
improved fishery management', enhancement 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, provid-
ing liaison with other states and federal agencies on marine research
..matters. Seven 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. They
recommend management strategy for wise utilization of coastal respurces
to commercial and recreational fishermen, state and federal agencies-'
Coastal' ster Investigations Program is
and resource user groups Lob
responsible for managing coastal 1,obster resources. Through catch sam-
pling and tagging studies, an indication of resource condition can be
estimated. Within the same lobster account, biologists at the Lobster
Hatchery on Martha's Vineyard, mate adult lobsters, raise the young to
the fourth stage, then release them to the wild. Attempts to produce,
blue or red lobsters as a natural tag are ongoing as well as other studies
to test the fesability of.culturing lobsters on a commercial basis. 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. As part of Resource Assessment the
Cod Ageing Program assists the National Marine Fisheries Service in evalu-
ating 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 know-
ledge accumulated adds to the large data base necessary to predict, asses4,
and guide operation of the existing unit and possible future units. The
Division's Policy Program is also within the Bureau of Research.

The Bureau of Sportfisheries is concerned with management of sport-
fish and development and maintenance 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,

t'-@ 7- -,7

rearing and stocking a strain of Massachusetts Coho Salmon@ e*.
to stab
lish a recre'ational fishery during low cycles of native sportfish. Popu@-.
lations. The Anadromous Fish Management Program restores, maintainsr.
and enhances existing fish runs and manages the various anadrombus fish,
species.

The Bureau of Commercial Fisheries is responsible for management
of the State's commercially important marine resources and supports
development of the Commonwealth's commercial fishing and seafood industr-,
ies. Four projects, each dealing with specific aspects of commercial
fisheries are incorporated in this Bureau. The Fisheries Extension Ser-
vice provides the commercial fishing industry with technical assistance
@;Y
workshops 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 speciess
promote domestic and foreign expansion of Massachusetts markets, and
encourage institutional use of state fish products. The Shellfish Tech-
nical Assistance Project aids local shellfish and the shellfish industry
in management,and enhancement of shellfish resources. The Fisheries
Statistics Project collects, compiles, and distributes' landings and
e
conomic data for Massachusetts marine resources.

Table 20. Organizational chart, Massachusetts Department of Fisheries, Wildlife &
Recreational Vehicles, Division of Marine Fisheries

'Marine Fisheries
Advisory Commission

Counsel II Director' Fisheries
Jurisdiction

ADMINISTRATION & OPERATIONS RESEARCH SPORTFISHERIES c MMERCIAL FISHERIES
Asst. Director Asst. Director As.st. Director Asst. Director
F-O

Administration Coastal InvestigatfonS Anadromous Fisheries Extension
Fishery Management Service AM
LO
Licensing Lobster Investigations
Salmon Fishery Shellfish
Development Technical Assistance
Operations Re ource Assessment
lOffices & Laboratories
Operations Coho Salmon Fish Seafood Mark'eting
Research Vessel' Hatchery & Rearing
-4 statisti
station
CS
Pilgrim Power Plant
Shellfish Purification

C
d Ageing
o Plant

CZM Program for
Marine Fisheries Research

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 by 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. Although the U.S. is not a member,
NMFS shares data with NAFO, and sends an observer to meetings.

A. National

1. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)

''The National Marine Fisheries Service is part 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 19 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, andit 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, Habitat Protection, 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

7 V7
4,

j
the Anadromous,Fish Conservation Act (P.L. 89-304) NMFS' proVJ@dds
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 Cod Ageing Program is funded under a
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 Ladromous Fish Restoration Program
and the Connecticut River Anadromous Fish Restoration Program funded
by USF&WS under the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act (P.L. 89-3.04)@.
Together with, the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife,
-other state wildlife agencies, the USF&WS and the Division are
attempting to restore Atlan 'tic salmon and shad to certain rivers.
The Division also reviews and comments on coastal alteration projects
under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (P.L. 85-264).

3. New England 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 Coundil is responsible for developing
management plans for species in the New England region of,the-Fiish-
eries Conservation Zone (FCZ). Seventeen voting members,serVe on the
council, including 10 Governors' nominated members serving 3-year
terms, (one from each state and six at-large), the fisheries adminis-
trators of the five coastal New England states, and the Regional
Director of NMFS. Non-voting members are representatives of,u.s. Fish
and Wildlife Service, United State Coast Guard,
and Department of
State and the Executive Director of the Atlantic States Marine Fish-;-
eries Commission.

Massachusetts is represented on the-Council by the Director,of
the Division. He is assisted by the Council Liaison. Other Divl*-.:
sion personnel participate in meetings, oversight committeesi,4nd
the Scientific and Statistical Committee to provide state input%in
the management,of the New England fisheries.

4. Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM)

Created by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (P.L.'92@583)-
t
he office provides funds to coastal state governments for deve oping*4*
and,conducting Coastal Zone Management programs (refer to Ma6sacbu-'..',.
setts Coastal Zone Management Program).

.Aw_

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 coastal zone areas. It provides grants to
public and private universities, institutes, laboratories, and other
agencies.

OSG is involved in such areas as technology development,identifying
underutilized resources, socio-economic and legal studies.and marine
advisory programs. Programs are funded with a maximum of 66 2/3%
federal monies. In Massachusetts, the Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution and MIT are Sea Grant institutions.

6. United States Army Copps of Engineers

The Corps approves applications for construction in coastal zones,
They inspect and approve construction.pro-
rivers, and waterways.
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,on ocean disposal sites for
dredge spoils.

7. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

Working under the Department of Health and Welfare, the major respon-
sibility 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, swordfish 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 operated 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 provides 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, and has Assisted in developing interstate
fisheries management 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)

Under the direction of the commissioner, the DFWtRV manages and
studies inland and marine fish, wildlife resources, and licenses
marine and recreational vehicles. The following Divisions act
directly under this Department:

(1) Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF)

See Section III.

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

This Division is supervised by a seven-man advisory board appointed
by the Governor, and is responsible for the management, protection,
and enhacement of all wildlife and freshwater fisheries of the
State. Their fisheries jurisdiction 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 research, promulgates
regulations, and issues licenses for freshwater recreational fish-
ing. It stocks and manages'such sportfish as trout, largemouth
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 part"
icipate in the:program for restoration of Atlantic salmon and shad
in the Connecticut and Merrimack Rivers.

(3) Public Access Board

This Board purchases land, designs projects, and funds construction
of access facilities to forests, ponds, and sea shores for

recreational 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 a head Administrative
Assistant and is composed of one member from each of the following
agencies:. DMF, DF&W, Division of Waterways (DEQE), Division of
Marine and Recreational Vehicles, and Division of Forest and Parks
.(DEM).

(4) Division of Law Enforcement (DLE)

The DLE was recently transferred back to DFW&RV from under the Secre-
taries supervision. In addition to enforcing the rules and regula-
tions relating to marine fisheries (M.G.L. c. 130), the Division of
Law Enforcement performs similar service for the Division of Fisher-
ies and Wildlife (M.G.L. c. 131), Division of Forest 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 (1 officer per district) and an enforcement vessel to patrol
approximately 1,200 miles of coastline.

b. Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management (MCZM)

This 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
'port 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 moreassured, 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.

c. Department 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 municipal and industrial waste disposal.
It monitors contaminated shellfish areas, and air.and water quality.
Several Divisions operate under the jurisdiction of DEQE: the
Division of Land and Water Use administers the Wetlands Protection
Act (M.G.L. c. 131, s. 40), the Waterways Program (M.G.L. c. 919
s. 1-59), and the Community Sanitation Program (M.G.L. c. 111).'

The Division of Air and Hazardous Materials is responsible for
monitoring sources 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).

The Division of Marine Fisheries reviews proposals for coastal alter-
ations under -the Wetlands Protection 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).

d.
@partment 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. 132A.
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 expanison of indus-
tries in Massachusetts. It provides industries with local statis-
t.ics, aids in site' selection, imparts 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 Drugi the DPH oversees and inspects
seafood processing plants, implements health and sanitation regula-
tions relating to fish and shellfish, and is responsible for PCB and
mercury closures; .'Food and Drug inspects trucks) shunking houses, and
retail busines@ses dealing in seafood before the Division of Marine
Fisheries issues permits., The Shellfish Sanitation Program-of DEQE
operates und:er 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 (.Anherst)g
Department of Forestry and Wildlife Management and is jointly funded
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Division of Marine Fish-
eries, Division of Fisheries and Wildlife and the University.. The
Unit Leader and Assistant Leader conduct research and advises grad-
uate students conducting fisheries research. In recent years the
Unit has concentrated on anadromous fish research. The Univers ity

has a small coastal research facility in Gloucester.

2. Massachusetts Maritime AcadeTy

In 1978 the legislature established (Chapter 428) the Marine Fish-
eries Education and Training Program at the Massachusetts Maritime
Academy. In conjunction with the Department of Fisheries,Wildlife
and Recreational Vehicles, the Secretary of Manpower Affairs and in
cooperation with the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Academy
is empowered to: develop and implement a fishery,training program;
identify potential manpower shortages in the fisheries; and develop
and implement an extension program to train fishermen in sound bus-
iness management practices.

Courses are conducted at the Buzzards Bay Campus, Essex Agricul-
tural School, and onboard the training vessel MARITIME QUEST. In
the future the Academy may introduce a Navigation and Safety Train-
ing program which will certify fishing captains in proper vessel
handling.

3. Massachusetts Cooperative Extension Unit

This unit serves as a public information and ecuation 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 Pesource 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.,_
4. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sea Grant Program (MIT Sea Grant)

The Sea Grant Program at MIT is an integral part of the university.
In addition to supporting fisheries research, education, and advisory
projects through grants, the program also supports studies of ocean
and coastal usage and development. Their resources include facilities
and faculty in marine science and engineering, a research vessel, a
Marine Resources Information-Center,and fisheries engineering and
marketing advisory personnel.

5. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI)

WHOI is a non- profit research and education institution. While their
interests cover a wide spectrum of-chemical, physical,and biological
oceanography,.many important studies on finfish and shellfish have
been conducted at this institution since 1930.

The WHOI Sea Grant Program has conducted studies and workshops on
marine resources. Recent projects include studies on'the biological,

'66

physical,and geological aspects of the coastal zone; chemical processes
and pollution; aquaculture; and marine policy.

6. Other Marine Related Institutions

While not primarily directed at fisheries, there are other Massachu-
setts institutions that make important contributions to marine
science. The Marine Biological Laboratory (MBL) at Woods Hole, Massa-
chusetts, is a marine research and education center cooperating with
a number of New England colleges. The Boston University Marine Program
(BUMP) operates out.of MBL. Northeastern University, Southeastern
Massachusetts University, and Cape Cod Community College offer marine'
science programs. The New England Aquarium's Marine Mammal Salvage
Program is funded by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the
Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies is a non-profit marine inform-
ation and education organization.

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 shell-
fish poisoning (PSP) or toxic substances,.control remains or reverts to
the state. However, local management control over contaminated shell-
fish 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 funds
annually appropriated by the legislature (M.G.L. c. 130, s. 20A). The
board of selectmen or city council may issue grants in coastal waters
to private individuals 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, the 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. However, they do not have
management responsibilities over fisheries. The area of purview ex-
tends to 100 feet beyond either the 100 year flood plain or the land
ward edge of a wetland, whichever is greater.

3. Regional 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 Planningand
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 XEFDF 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 dommercial 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-

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 and Other Organizations

A number of organizations have been founded to bring together
fishermen and/or processors with common interests and problems
(Appendix II). 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 plan with safety
guidelines for its members. Other organizations (Appendix II)

such as the Interstate Party Boat Association, Cape Cod Charter
Boat Association, Massachusetts Striped Bass Association, Massa-
chusetts Sportsmen':s Council,-and various sportfishing clubs have
activelyserved recreational fishermen by promoting and protect-
ing 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.Off,icer'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 mamagers.

V. Public-Poncerns

In developing a comprehensive marine fisheries policy, a necessary
and important part of the process is the involvement of the public. Be-
fore the pol'icies were drafted, the general public had the opportunity
to air their concerns to 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 on topics affecting their livelihood and/-
or recreational enjoyment.

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 high priority and was accomplished by direct mail,
newspaper ads, television and radio interviews, and posters. While
meeting attendance ranged from excellent to poor, most meetings provided
a good forum for the exchange of ideas. Issues dissussed included port
and harbor facilities, licensing, gear conflict, distribution of fisheries
information, boat insurance and loans, law enforcement, fisheries regula-
tions, h'abitat protection, and topics pertaining to state fisheries manag e-I
ment or lack thereofi

In conjunction with public meetings, two fisheries questionnaries
were distributed (see Appendix I). One addressed problems in the commer-
cial fisheries sector including finfish, lobster, and.sh.ellfish. The
other, a recreational questionnaire, concerned problems facing rod and
reel fishermen, recreational shellfish and lobster fishermen, 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 commercialIquestionnaire was prepared and
distributed in New Bedford. Letters were sent to sportfishing organiza-
tions 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 basisi
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, Bull, Beverly, and Nantucket. Conditions
cited by fishermen were deteriorating docks, congested offloading and

:7@ 711L

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 highl visible industry in small ports, it
y
is difficult to convince local.officials of its economic value.
Coastal communities,with fiscalconstraints are not willing to allot
money to improve facilities that only benefit a small percentage of..
the population and tax base. Newburyport, for example, expends a great
deal of effort and mone for downtown and waterfront'restoration to
y
induce tourism and pleasure craft usage and very little on their com-
mercial fishing industry.
The public suggested the following courses of action. 1) The state
should assist the fishermen by providing economic studies documenting
the importance of commercial fishing in each port. Fishing generates
a lot of unnoticed dollars back into the community by way of employ-
ment, fish processing, marketing, boat supplies, boat maintenance,
taxes, and tourist interest. 2) Massachusetts should initiate a state-
wide Port and harbor development program. Division extension agents
Should survey areas, solicit opinions, and make preliminary recommend-
ations on projected port facility needs. The state should provide port
and harbor development funds or act as liaison to find federal develop-
ment grants for local communities. 3) The state should assist communi-
ties with the technical aspects of applying for grants, obtaining per-
mits, and designing facilities. A 'comprehensive state wide program
would be more efficient than each individual community organizing, plan-
ning, and funding port development-projects on a piecemeal.basis.

B. Gear Confli
ct

The traditional conflict between stationary and mobile fishing gear
has been well documented in the past. In 1977, the Division organized
an ad hoe 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 become valuable, new gear is employedl the intensity
and scope of fishing activities change and new conflicts are created. .
This is particularly true in the rapidly developing gill net fisher-
ies on the North Shore, South Shoreand outer Cape Cod. It is easy to
enter the gill net fishery because of the small capital outlay necessary
for gear and boat. There are no restrictions on net numbers, mesh size,
Or length. As a result the fishery is undergoing a large influx of
inexperienced and part-time fishermen unfamiliar with proper net setting
and marking techniques. Nets are sometimes set perpendicular to shore
or without adequate markings or radar reflectors. In addition, lobster-
men are fishing gill nets in winter, while many longliners have switched
to gill-nets. The general increase in gill net numbers result in encroach-
ment 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 stocks,and recreational fishing. Fish
quality is poor if fish remain in the net for 24 hours or more. 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 shoals present hazards to navigation. Gill nets may con-
tinue 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 tradit ion al hook and lin e 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 were 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
constraints 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 constrains, and numerous
responsibilities. officers find it difficult to enforce both marine
inland laws within the large coastal enforcement districts.
The lack of effective enforcement was expressed at most meetings and
was rated a severe problem on a high percentage of the questionnaries.
Many abuses were mentioned in the lobster fishery such as: violation
of the ten pot limit by recreational lobstermen; improper marking or

The DLE was transfered into the DFW&RV shortly before this report
was printed.
72

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 hauling pots at night.

A solution suggested at a number of meetings was to incorporate law
enforcement directly into the resource agency.it primarily serves and/or
create a marine law enforcement unit. Commercial lobstermen suggested
using smaller and less conspicuous vessels to enforce lobster laws. In
addition, this would facilitate the laborous task of checking licenses,
gear markings, and escape vents. Increasing the authority and/or train-@
ing 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 regulations
were already in effect and were impossible to enforce even with more
officers. They favored institution of mesh regulations rather than closed
areas and quotas. Enforcement of mesh 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 concern might be to provide
seminars and courses in gear and fishing techniques for the officers.

Other topics of discussion were problems related to prosectuion 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 viola-
tions. Many convicted resource violators rieceive little or no punishment .

D. Licensing

The major concern involving licenses was abuse of the $5.00 rod and reel
permit's 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 different markets or distribut-
ing fish to friends for them to sell. These violations commonly occur in
the striped bass sportfishery and results in the loss of valuable manage-.
ment statistics.

In a related issue, the definition of a commercial versus a non-commer-
cial sportfish fisherman was discussed. This was of particular concern

@73

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 licnese
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 reg-
ulation and cost.

There appeared to be few problems with procedures for submitting
catch reports or processing license applications. However, the public
did suggest that licenses be issued at Division field stations in addit-
ion 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 obtain-
ing 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 license's 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. Withtraditional fish and shellfish such as cod, haddock,
flounder, scallops, and lobster fully utilized and increasingly regulated,
fishing communities have to look for other types of fish with market poten-
tial. Consequently, consumers must be made aware of the many nontradi-
tional 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 sat-
isfy foreign market standards. They needed information on modern stor-
ing, offloading, and processing techniques to maintain fish quality.
Fishermen indicated the need for consumer information programs to educate
the public in the availability and preparation of nontraditional fish.
Fishermen urged the greater use of Massachusetts caught fish in state
institutions, school lunch programs, hospitals, and nursing homes.

Fish quality, fish prices, and 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 similar
to the U.S. Department of Agriculturets system for meatand poultry.
Other marketing suggestions included promoting "Massachusetts caught fish"

__AL

following the idea of "Massachusetts grown vegetables" Advertising
"Massachusetts lobster" rather than the commonly used ;Maine lobster'
was also suggested. Competition from foreign imports, particularly
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 fish-
ermen and fishing organizations that are interested in a joint venture.
In this way the U.S. fishermen-could make their own negotiations and
insure a quality product at a fair price.

F. Information and Education,-Gear Technol2a

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

.The Division's Fisheries Extension Program was appreciated by those
that have utilized it. However, s6me fishermen said the agents, while
knowledgeable about traditional gear, needed more information on new
techniques and large boat gear (40 feet +). While the extension agents
were helpful, they did not provide experienced fishermen with new inform-,
ation. In realizing that there were just three agents and one coordin-
ator, 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 participants have
received instruction and training in fishing gear, marine engines, elec
tronics, net mending, navigation, and business management. People who
took the courses remarked that they were informative, but were geared
to novice fishermen or to persons engaged in part time fishing. In the
future they would like to see a more intensive curriculm for the exper-
ienced fishermen, held evenings at local high schools. Although the MIT
Sea Grant funded the fisheries Training Program, fishermen felt that Sea
Grant had done little else to help commercial fishermen.

Recreational fishermen believed that sportfishing information could
be best distributed through the local Chamber of Commerce. This would
help both the vacationer and novice find where to fish and what.to catch.
The Division should supply brochures and booklets describing fishing

areas, access areas, and state fishing regulations. The Division should
further educate the novice in fishing techniques and inform 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 deduct-
ions as incentives for installing special safety gear, on vessels (e..g.
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 believed that financing and loans for new boats, gear ., and
electronic equipment are best handled by the individual, even though
banks are not inclined to loan money to repair older vessels. Some fish-
ermen 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 pew 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 past catch reports.

H. Shellfish

At meetings in Ipswich, Bourne, and 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 shelifishermen 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. Although
seed stock is available from private sources, the seasons or amounts
available are not adequate for local shellfish propagation needs. While
a public facility may satisfy the town's seed shellfish needs, the hatchery

could also be used as a training center, possible affiliated with a
university. An additional hatachery 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 suggestedthat the Division provide path-
ological inspection 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

demand, shellfishermen recomends expanding the
existing facility and, buing additional facilities, encouraging con-
struction of private depuration facilities, or decreasing depuration
time from 48 to 24 hours. In addition, shellfishermen felt that more
coordination between the DepartMent of Environnnental Quality Engineering
(DEQE) and the Division of Marine fisheries necessary in conducting
the Shellfish Sanitation Program. Delays in opening areas, early area
closures and bureaucratic red tape were cited in control of Paralytic.
Shellfish Poisoning (PSP) and contaminated shellfish. Unnecessary delays
in opening and closing not notification resulted i loss of valuable fishing
time or confiscation of PSP contamimated shellfish after purifcation at
the Depuration plant. Another aspect of the contmanated shellfish issue
is the use of neglected resouce for bait .A North Shore party boat
owner said a Large population of contamnated shellfish off Newburyport
cannot be harvsted, and used for bait because of the inability o resolve
interagency problems over regulaion and enforcement. Some believe hat
when bait fishing was allowed a portion of the shellfish were illegally
sold for consumption.Therefore The whole area wes closed to any shell-
fishing.

The public recomneded the Division take action on a number of fronts.
The Division should implement shellfish resource assessinent program to
define the extent and value of inshore offshore shellfish resources

and aid in state and local shellfish management. The Division should
provide more. marculture technical assistance including information on
culture techniques, species selection, proper equipment, and cost estima
tion. Finally, commercial. shellfisherman claimed that local. shellfish
regulations discrinated aganst them in favor of recreational shell-
fishermen, and they asked for Division support.

I. Sportfishing Access

Decreasing availability of coastal fishing sites and launching ramps was
a major concern at all recreational fisheries meetings. With increasing
numbers of sports fishermen, the limited number of ramps and piers, and
the closing of other access sites, the public's ability to enjoy recrea-
tional fishing has diminished. Although the State Public Access Board
has provided over $667,000 for repairing 315, and building 160 additional
coastal parking lanes since 1980 and. has 351 more lanes planned, the
Board's funding, and thus Its construction has decreased, in recent
years. This funding decrease is compounded by the rapid increase in
acquisition and construction costs.

other factors are causing reductions in sportfishing access sites.
Some state and town ramps are in poor condition due to vandalism and
lack of maintenance. A number of proposed ramp construction sites are
being opposed by local residents who claim the ramps would cause en-
vironmental degradation. Similar problems exist with shore fishing sites
Many beaches and shoreside parks are closed at'night because of 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 of the Public Access Board. The Board must look for funding
sources in addition to state capital outlays; implement long-range plans
by acquiring future access sites; and publicizececonomic and sociological
justification for new ramps and piers. In addition, either the Division
or the Board must update 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 recrea-
tional 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
focused on how, if at all, would a recreational license benefit the fish-
ermen? Wc;uld 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 wo uld
favor a license, otherwise they were against it.

Other aspects of the recreational license question were the need for
recreational catch statistics and the possibility of Massachusetts in-
creasing its share of Federal Dingell-Johnson funds. Without a license
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 manage-
ment 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 li-
censes issued and 40% on land area. An estimated $280,000 was alloted to
Massachusetts in 1980. Because Massachusetts has no saltwater 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 sport-
fish programs revenues could support.

VI. Principles, Policies, and Proposed Actions

A. Statement of Principles I

1. Massachusetts fisheries are renewable resources that are of Toajor
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 maint ained 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.
The living marine resources of the Commonwealth are common property.
They shall be utilized to the greatest benefit of the public.

3. 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 environ-
mental alterations have negated this premise. Therefore, it is clearly
necessary that the Commonwealth protect, manage, and enhance marine
resources for continued benefit and enjoyment by present and future
generations.

4. Those who derive benef it from a public resource must share the responsi-
bility for management. They must participate in the regulatory process,
comply with regulations, contribute necessary information, and share in
management costs if management is to be successful.
5.- The Division of Marine Fisheries i's 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 Man gement - Management of living resources requires a
delicate balance be tween 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 optimum utilization of living inarine resources for the hene-
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; overall benefit to the public
and 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 whose management
responsibilities affect stocks utilized in Massachusetts
fisheries: 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 including:

(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.

(4) improve statistics (sec. 3.1) and licensing (sec. 3.3)
programs to obtain better economic and sociological
data.

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 eliminate local control of surf clams,
sea scallops and ocean quahogs;

E. propose legislation to change the shellfish local aid fund
reimbursement systems t6 a grant system that will provide
towns with incentives to prepare management plans to facili-
tate full development of their shellfish resources;

F. integrate all aspects of the Shellfish Sanitation Program into
a single agency.

G. examine the eel resources to determine the appropriate manage-
ment and jurisdictional responsibilities.

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;

I. support efforts to implement the state-federal management
program under the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
in order to'fully develop fishery management of species 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 maintain and increase resource abundauce. 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 fishing 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 P; @oosed 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 marine 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 managemei-ft 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. Other factors to consider in designing regulation are energy
conservation, safety, fish quality, and market demands. Each regula-
tion 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:

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

2. utilize Division adjudicat6ry 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 management needs for enforcement of state resource and
environmental laws;

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

4. initiating a marine fishexies enforcement training program
for Division of Law Enforcement officers, and encourage
deputization of Division of Marine and Recreational Vehicles
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 capes 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.

Priority will be given to restoration efforts involving fish
passage facilities which achieve maximum benefit at-minimum costs.
The Division'will discourage. development of alewife populations in
drinki'ng water supplies where stream flows are generally inadequate
to support fish passage on a sustained basis.

Introduction of fish species not native 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 sub-
stantial natural cover is absent; hydrographic conditions, materials
used and construction methods employed will. ensure long-term useful-
ness; the physical and biological oceanographic conditions will
support reef type fish; and where it will not adversely affect other
fisheries.

In light of the existing energy situation, many tidal rivers
and 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 assisting towns in managing
existing runs, removing 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 roastal 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 that provide
seedstock to towns,support development of cost-effective
public shellfish hatcheries to supplement nautral reproduction;

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

F. examine the feasibility of private shellfish depuration.

-87

1.5 Mariculture - The Commonwealth encourages and supports mariculture
as a potentially valuable method of increasing the supply of sea-
food products and employment. 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 Proposed Actions

The Division will:

'A. prepare a Massachusetts mariculture plan to detail methods,
programs, and legislation necessary to improve the status
of 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 Proposed Actions

The Division will:

A. support existing policies established by the Coastal Zone
Management 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. (661-66 ) 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 Protective 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 reserves, promote maintenance
dredging of fishing pools, and Prevent hazards to
navigation;
84

(3) Water Pollution Control Certification Program (M.G.L.
C. 21, 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
alteration proposals and that EOEA develop a rational policy
and program for disposal,of dredge spoils in Massachusetts.

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 coordiantion and nonduplication of fishery
related programs conducted by federal, state, and local government
agencies, the academic community, and private industry. The . I
Division will actively participate in and/or advise regional, inter-
state, and local management entities so that the interests of
Massachusetts fisheries are represented and protected.

1.7 LL020-sed A tions

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's fishermen's Navigation
and Safety Certification Program;

D. coordinate with the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife in
the management of diadrom6us 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 are already linked individually by 'various grants
and agreements. The Division shall develop cooperative programs
and shall share facilities and information to improve fishery
knowledge at-no increase in Commonwealth spending. The'follow-
ing is a partial list of resources that may be useful to other
institutions, and is not intended to describe all available resources:

(1) Division of Marine Fisheries - research lab, research

'91

vessels, and professional fisheries personnel;

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

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

(4) University of Massachusetts (Amherst) Cooperative
Fisheries Research Unit - fisheries research faculty,
facilitiesand 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 Development '' - 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 access 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 A tions

A. The Executive Office of Environmental Affairs should establish
and coordinate a multiagency port development task force consist-
ing of members from appropriate agencies. DMF will serve in a
technical and advisory role. At a minimum this task force shall
adhere to the following cr iteria:

Criteria

(1) programs will be directed at rehabilitating facilities
in existing fishing ports;

(2) no program should be approved with 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

(1) new docking facilities for ports 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:

(1) continuing to develop criteria for siting, estimating
size, and setting priorities for 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 acc ess 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;

(5) obtain additional fund ing by re-establishing a dedi-
cated fund and acquiring federal monies.

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-
ine and utilization of fishery products. It is the,responsibility
( M.G.L. C. 130, s. 17 ), . 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 Commonwealth will assist the fishing industry in improving
both foreign and domestic markets in the 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 prpducts;

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

(3) Massport's European and Japanese offices will 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. The Commonwealth will assist the fishing industry in improving
fish quality in' the following ways:

(1) the Commonwealth will 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;

(3) 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 possible effects on fish
quality of any proposed management regulation.

2.3 Fisheries Assistance - Assistance to the fishing industry can be in
the form of financiW1, 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 should consider the following assista nee pro-
grams for the fishing industry:

(1) seek support and alternate programs for fishermen
deprived of harvesting a resource due to natural
(e.g. paralytic shellfish poisoning) or chemical
contamination (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
where harvest or revenue would be lost;

(3) expand or implement the Commonwealths;

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

W fisheries marketing program (see sec. 2.2);

B. The Commonwealth should not consider the following assistance
programs:

(1) vessel construction and loan programs. This would dupli-
cate a federal program and possibly increase effort on
overexploited fish stocks;

(2) vessel insurance Irogram. This is a role more appropriate
to private 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) commercially licensed fishermen should remain exempt from
sales tax on fishery related purchases;

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

(4) excise tax revenues on recreational boats should be
directed to improving public accdss.

2*4 Research - The basis for sound fishery management is a strong and con-
7-
in@
uing 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 matine 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-
P,iate 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) attempt to develop and implement techniques for resource
assessment of lobster, pelagic finfish, recreational
zpecies, and anadromous fish in State territorial waters;

B_ Perform commercial fisheries research as needed to judge effects
Of management plans and regulations;

C. conduct marine environmen tal 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.

100

E. increase support facilities for conducting research by:

(1) constructing a research station on the South Shore 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 in conducting
basic fisheries research. Support the Unit's efforts to
obtain research funds, and construct a coastal research
facility. Share existing Division research facilities with
the Unit.

101

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 written*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 providing penalties ranging from fines to
license suspension or non-renewal for not reporting or mis-
reporting existing statistical reporting requirem.ents. Legisla-
tion will 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 derived therefrom.

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

3.2 Eroposed 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 dis-seminate 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 operators,and 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
species, and other educational material of public information.

103

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. integrate the statistics and licensing functions into a single
computerized system;

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

C. initiate a legislative study resolve on the feasibility of
establishing a Marine reareational fishing license in
Massachusetts;

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

104

VII. Program Recommendations

A..Division of Marine Fisheries Programs

1. Construct a research station in the vicinity of the Cape Cod Canal
[2.4, E.,

2. Purchase an adequate coastal research vessel [2.4, E., (2)].

3. Integrate the systems for issuing licenses and gather statistical
data into a unified computerized system [3.3, A.].

4. Expand capabilities to gather biological, sociological, and eco-
nomic data necessary for fisheries management, including:

a. obtaining adequate funding for New England Fisheries Management
Council liaison position to review fisheries management plans
[1.1, B., (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 12.4, A., (1)1;

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

5. Increase the ability of marketing programs to promote seafood in
the local, regional, and international markets [2.2, A., (1)].

6. Implement an Information,and Education Program to prepare and dis-
tribute 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
[1.51 D.I.

9. Prepare a Massachusetts Mariculture Plan [1.5, A.].

10. Expand Anadromous Fish Restoration and Enhancement Program to in-
crease the number and size of native anadromous fish runs [1.4, A.].

105

B. State Programs

1. Establish a task force to modernize and improve fishing port and
harbor facilities [2.1, A.].

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

a. transferring DLE into the Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and
Recreational Vehicles [1.3, B. W];

b. establishing a DLE counsel (lawyer) position to prosecute resource
violations [1.3, B., (6)1;

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

d. creating a Law Enforcement Policy Board [1.3, B., (2)1;

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

3. Examine the eel resources to determine the appropriate management
and jurisdictional responsibilities [1.1, G.I.

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 of this license would require a rod and reel fisherman
to purchase an individual Commercial Fisherman's license ($25.00) to
sell any fish [3.3, B.I.

2. Petition the Legislature for study resolve funds to explore feasi-
bility, format, benefits,and costs of establishing a recreational
fishing license [3.3, C.].

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. and 3.1, B.I.

106

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

a. provide for a confidential statistics reporting system mutually
acceptable to the Division, National Marine Fisheries Service,
and New England Regional Council to allow reciprocal access to
fisheries statistics [3.1, 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.].

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 [3.1, B.1;

b. propose legislation to eliminate local control of surf clams, sea
scallops,and ocean quahogs [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)].

B. 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 [1.7, E.I.

9. Propose enabling legislation to adopt Amendment I of the Atlantic
State Marine Fisheries Commission charter [1.1, J.3.

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 permit
process [1.5, B.I.

12. Propose legislation to integrate all aspects of the Shellfish Sani-
tation Program into a single agency (1.1, F.I.

107

GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

A. Terms

Allocation the setting'apart and apportionment of a resource amongst
its users.

Anadromous - fish that leave the ocean and ente r r ivers and streams.
to spawn (e.g. salmon, alewives, and shad).

Catadromous fish that leave fresh water to spawn in the ocean,
(e.g'. eels)..

Commonwealth the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, also referred to as
the @ [ft-ate".

Crustaceans - primarily marine animals, usually having the body covered
with a hard shell or crust, e.g. lobsters, shrimp, crabs, barnacles.

Demersal fish that live on or near the bottom.

Diadromous - fish that migrate between fresh and saltwater (i.e.
aniidromous and catadromous fish).

Division - the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, Department
of Fisheries, Wildlife and Recreational Vehicles.

Enhancement - adding to the numbers or improving the habitat and
environmental conditions of an existing natural population. In
this report enhancement is used to distinguish public funded from
private funded mariculture.

Fish any animal life inhabiting the ocean or its connecting waters
including any marine fish, whether free-swimming or free-moving, and
any.shellfish or sea worms, whether or not imbedded in the soil.
Fish stock a part (usually estim. ated by weigh t) of a fish popula tion
that Can be treated as a management unit. A stock is differentiated
from other stock of the same species by separate spawning grounds
and migratory patterns.
liiving marine resources - any marine animal or plant with existing or
Potential commercial, recreational, or aesthetic value.

Mollusks - primarily marine invertebrates with one shell (periwinkle,
welk,-conch); two shells (oyster, scallop, soft-shelled clam); or
no shell (squid, octopus).
Ovgc@pitalization - when the value of the boats and gear used in a
fishery exceeds-the amount necessary to fully utilize the resource.

Overexploitation when the amount of resource havested exceeds the
amount reFlaced by growth and recruitment to the fish population.

108

GLOSSARY (continued)

Pelagic organisms which inhabit thewater column.

Utilized fish stock utilization is the degree to which a fish stock
is harvested compared to its rate of replacement. Replacement
occurs through growth of-small fish and spawning success.. In a
fullv utilized fishery, the harvesting and replacement rates are
about equal. In an overutilized fishery, more fish are removed
than replaced and the stock size may decline, whereas an under-
utilized fishery is not exploited to its full potential an-dfish
that could be harvested die from natural causes.

B. Abbreviations

ASMFC Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act implemented by the Office of
Coastal Zone Management, Washington, D.C. and the Massachusetts
Coastal Zone Management Program.

DEM Massachusetts Department of Enviro nmental Management.

DEQE Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering.

DLE - Massachusetts Division of Law Enforcement.

DMF - Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries.

DPH -.Massachusetts Department of Public Health.

EIS Environmental Impact Statement.

FCZ Fisheries Conservation Zone (i.e. 200 mile limit).

MUM Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management

MEPA Massachusetts Environmental Protection Act.

MFAC Massachusetts Marine Fisheries Advisory Commission.

MFCMA Magnuson Fisheries Conservation and Management Act.

MGL Massachusetts General Laws.

MGLA Massachusetts General Laws Annotated.

MMA Massachusetts Maritime Academy.

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act.

NEFMC New England Fisheries Management Council.

109

GLOSSARY (continued)

NMFS - National Marine Fisheries Service.

NOAA - National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.

OCS Outer Continental Shelf.Lands Act.

OCZM Office.of Coastal Zone Management.

PCB's Polychlorinated biphenyls.

PSP Paralytic shellfish poisoning.

110

LITERATURE CITED

Anderson, Charles 0. CollectionS Compilation, Evaluation and Dissemination
of Commercial Fisheries Statistics. Massachusetts Division of Marine
Fisheries, 1980.

Boeri, David and James Gibson. Tell It Goodbye, Kiddo, International Marine
Publishing Company, Camden, Maine. 1976.

Bromberg, K.M. Determination of the Number of Commercial and Non-Commercial
Recreational Boats in the U.S., Their Use, and Selected Characteristics;
NOAA, Washington, D.C., December, 1973.

Brown, A.J. Using Cooperatives to Aid the New England Fishing Industry.
Future Prospects for the New England Domestic and Imported Fish Process-
ing and Handling Facilities. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sea
Grant 75-7. 1974.

Bumpus, D.F. 1973. Physical Oceanography. In: Coastal offshore environ-
mental inventory - Cape Hatteras to Nantucket Shoals. University of
Rhode Island Marine Publication Service 2: 1-46.

and L.M. Lanzier. Surface circulation on the continental shelf
3f eastern North America between Newfoundland and Florida. Serial atlas
of the marine environment. Am. G@eo. Soc., New York, NY., 1965.

Capalbo, S., J.B. Dirlam, V.J. Norton, and D.H. Wang. Subsidies to the Cana-
than Groundfish Industry: Background Information for Countervailing
Duty Assessment. Department of Resource Economics, University of Rhode
Island, 1977.

Centaur Management Consultants, Inc., Economic Activity Associated With Marine
Recreational Fishing, 1977.-

Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Final Report on the Studies of Massachusetts
Marine Fisheries Problems By the Marine Fisheries Advisory Commission.
Massachusetts Department of Natural Resources, 1960.

Conservation Law Foundation of New England, Inc. Guide to Marine Fisheries
Law Boston, Massachusetts. 1980.

Cooperative Extension Service. Massachusetts Natural Resource Agency Direc-
tory. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 1980.

Council of State Governments. State Natural Resource Economics. Lexington,
Kentucky, 1979.

Curley, J.R., Lawton, Chadwick, Reback, and Hickey.' A Study of the Marine
Resources of the Taunton River and Mount Hope Bay. Division of Marine
Fisheries, 1974.

LITERATURE CITED (continued)

DiCarlo- Joseph S. and K E. Reback. Anadr omous Fish Investigations. Massa-
'CLS'etts Division of Marine Fisheries, 100 Cambridge Street, Boston.,
Massachusetts, Pub. #6469, 1970.

Environmental Canada. A Policy for Canada's;Commercial Fisheries, Ottawa,
,1976.

Georgiannd, D., P. Greenwood, R. Ibara, and R. Ward. Estimating Fish Processing
Capacity in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Southern Massachusetts
University, Dartmouth, Massachusetts, 1978.

Gloupester-Fisheries As sociation. Linkages, A Directory of the New England
Fishing Industry. Gloucester, Massachusetts, 1977.

Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission. Responsibilities, Activities and
Authorizations of Federal Agencies Having Bearing on U.S. Marine
Fisheries. Sept. 1975.

Hasselback, Nancy. Canadian Lobsters: Subsidies and Impact On U.S Ex-vessel
..Price. Sponsored by.Mass. Lobsterman's Association, M.i-T. Sea Grant,
and U.R.I. Sea Grant. February, 1979.

Howe, A.B., D.B. MacIsaac, B.T. Estrella, and F.J. Germano. Annual Report,
Coastwide Fishery Resource Assessment. Publication #11,723. Mass.
Division of Marine Fisheries, 1979.

Hughes, P. and C. Kellogg. A Brief Description of the Massachusetts Fishing
Industry. Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management and Division of Marine
Fisheries, Boston, Massachusetts, 1977.

Jensen, Albert C. The Cod. Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York, 1972..

Jerome, W.C., A.P. Chesmore, C.O. Anderson. A Study of the Marine Resources of
the Parker River Plum Island Sound Estuary, Division.of Marine Fisheries,
1968.

Ke llogg, C. Massachusetts Imports of Canadian Fish Products. Massachusetts
Division of Marine Fisheries. Salem, Massachusetts, 1980.

Kilbride, Carol. Collection, Compilation, Evaluation and Dissemination of
Commercial Fisheries Statistics. Massachusetts Division of Marine
Fisheries, 1979.

Kolek, Andrew. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB's) Analyses of Marine Organisms
in the New Bedford Area, 1976-1980, Mass.blvision of Marine Fisheries,
1980.

112

LITERATURE CITED (continued)

Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management. Massachusetts Coastal Zone Manage-
ment Program and Final Environmental Impact Statement, Boston, Massa-
chusetts, 1978.

Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture, Executive Office of Environ-
mental Affairs. A Policy for Food and Agriculture in Massachusetts.
Boston, Mass., 1976.

Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture. 1979 Massachusetts Agri-
cultural Statistics, 1979.

Massachusetts Division of Employment Security. Commercial Fishing in Massa-
chusetts, 1979. Boston, 1979.

Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries. Summarization of Massachusetts
Marine Sport Fishery Statistics, 1975. Boston, Massachusetts, 1977.

Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries. The Comm ercial Fisheries of
Massachusetts, 1977. Boston, Massachusetts, 1978.

Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries. Estimated Numbers of Vessels for
Selected Ports. Fisheries Extension Project, 1980 - unpublished.

Massachusetts Port Authority. The Fishi ng Industry in Massachusetts. Boston,
November, 1977.

Massachusetts Salt Water Fishing Guide. Published by the Cooperative Extension
Service and County Extension Services cooperating with the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology Sea Grant Program, and the Massachusetts Division
of Marine Fisheries.

McFarland, Raymond. A History of the New England Fisheries. University of
Pennsylvania, 1911.

Merrill, Richard G. A Concise Survey of the New England Party Boat Industry,
Prepared for the Interstate Party Boat Associates. Financial and Market-
ing Consultant, Salem, Massachusetts, 1978.

National Fisherman. The American Fisheries Directory and Reference Book.
Camden, Maine, 1978.

National Marine Fisheries Service. Fisheries of the United Sta tes, 1977. U.S.
Department of Commerce, April, 1978.

National Marine Fisheries Service. Fisheries of the United States, 1978. U.S.
Dept. of Commerce, April, 1979.

National Marine Fisheries Service. Fisheries of the United States, 1979. U.S.
Dept. of Commerce, April, 1980.

113

LITERATURE CITED (continued)
National Marine Fisheries Service. Marine Rec Ireational Fishery Statistics
Survey, Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, 1979. Washington, D.C., 1980*.
National Marine Fisheries Service. Massachusetts Landings, 1978. 'U.S.. Dept.
of Commerce, 1979.
National Marine Fisheries Service. Massachusetts Landings, 1979. U6'iS. Dept.
of Commerce, 1980.
New England Fisheries Management Council. Draft - Interim Groundfish Plan
for Atlantic Groundfish, Haddock, Cod and Yellowtail Flounder, May,
1980.
Nicholson, L.E. and K.E. McConnell. A description of the New England Head-
boat Fleet, A Report'to the New England Regional Fisheries Management
Councils December, 1977.
Nic holson,'L.E. and R.P. Ruais. Description of the Recreational Fisheries
for Cod, Haddock, Pollock, and Silver Hake Off the Northeast Coast of
the U.S., A Report to the New England Regional Fisheries Management
Council, April, 1979.
Odum, E.P., 1961. 'The Role of Tidal Marshes in Estuarine Production', New
York State Conservationist. 15(.6):12-15S 35.
Teal, J.M., 1962. 'Energy Flow in the,Salt Marsh Ecosystem of Georgia.'
Ecology. 43:614-624.
U.S.. Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services. 1975 National
Su.rveY of Hunting, Fishingand Wildlife, Washington, D.C., 1977.

114

APPENDIX I

The Division of Marine Fisheries developed commercial and recre-
ational fisheries questionnaires to identify areas of concern affecting
the fisheries. These questionnaires, distributed at 25 public meetings
and mailed to various commercial fishery organizations and recreational
fishing clubs, allowed fishermen to rate the relative severity of pro-
blems and issues they deemed important. While most of the responses re-
flected a true picture of conditions in the fisheries, the validity of
some responses must be tempered by the fishermen's background, specific
fishing techniques, and species sought. For example, on the commercial
questionnaire the "quality of catch" is known to be a major limiting
factor to export sales. However, the fishermen did not rate this a
major problem (47% responded as no problem; 36%, minor problem; 17%,
major problem) because the majority of responders were inshore dragger-
men and lobstermen who have no fish quality problems.

The recreational questionnaire was completed primarily by know-
ledgeable sportfishermen. As a result, the "availability of information"
question drew a high percentage of "no problem" responses. However,
tourists and occasional fishermen may have rated this a serious problem
Although the questionnaires are not a statistically precise sample of
Massachusetts fishermen, after qualifying the results based on the
D' ision's knowledge of the fisheries and fishermen we obtained a clearer
view of fishery issues. The questionnaire results are presented below.
iV

A. The commercial fisheries questionnaire dealt with gear technology,
fisheries development, fisheries management, port and harbor facili-
ties, and other topics the Division felt were of concern. Both an
English and Portuguese translated version were distributed. Parti-
cipants were first asked general information such as name, telephone
number, gear used, vessel length, and port. Then fishermen were
asked to rate how serious a list of possible problems in the fisher-
ies were by circling "no problem", "minor problem", or "serious
problem" for each item. The third section of the questionnaire was
separated into three groups with items specifically refering to the
lobster, finfish, and shellfish fisheries. Percentages were calcu-
lated and areas of concern derived. A final section asked for
additional comments.

Although not every questionnaire was completed in full, the follow-
ing list and percentage totals were the result of 266 responses to
the commercial fisheries questionnaire. The issues that the fisher@
men felt needed the most attention were: price stability for catch
(77%, a serious problem), future effects of oil exploration on fishing
grounds and ports (72% and 65%), adequate markets for underutilized
species (72%), price of-fishing gear (68%). berthing and offloading
space (60%), cost of vessel insurance (59%), and adequate representation
of fishermen's views (55%).

items of concern that were expressed by the lobster, finfish, and

115

shellfish fishermen were: competition from Canadian and out-of-state
lobsters (76% and 67%, a serious problem), competition from Canadian
and frozen European fish (85% and 72%), adequate long-term management
planning (57%), availability of shellfish grants (48%), area restric-
tions (45%), and regulations restricting amount of fish caught (65%).
These items are discussed in more detail in the Public Concerns
section of the report.

In the items below, fish refers to finfish, lobsters', and/or
shellfish.
no minor serious number
problem problem problem respondinA

Condition of the fish stocks 17% 42% 41%. 238

Competition for fish between vessel size categories 25 39 36 241

Competition for fishing grounds 14 41 45 240

Lack of experienced crew members 57 31 12 236

Gearconflict withstationary gear 33 35 32 239

Gear conflict with mobile gear 41 30 29 234

Price of fishing gear 10 22 68 242

Competition with recreational fishermen...

over dock space 34 29 37 244

... over fish 42 32 26 238

... over fishing grounds 35 28 37 243

Adequate enforcement.of-state fisheries laws 31 23 46 246

Adequate number of state law enforcement officers 36 19 415 242

LE officers with adequate knowledge of fishing 27 45 30 231

Timely processing of state fishing license 67 23 10 239

Accurate catch statistics 39 33 28 233

Accurate stock size estimates 27 28 45 227

Availability of information...

... on state fishing regulations 51 34 15 @33

... on fish abundance and distribution 32 35 33 223

on council/federal fishing regulations. 38 34. 28

... on vessel safety 116 63 28 09 227

no minor serious number
problem problem problem respondin@
... on gear technology 48% 33% 19%. 220

in another language 76, 14 10

Clarity of state fishing regulations 44 38 18 217

Adequate representation of fishermen'.s views. 17 28 55. 239

Availability of...

... DMF biologists 6@5 22 13 197,

DMF administrators 69 21 10 191

J. DMF extension agents 61 25 14 193

Adequate markets forunderutilized species 09. 19 72 230

Price stability for catch 05 18 77 244

Quality of catch 47 36 17 23 3

Sheltered mooring facilities 2.7 24 49 238

Berthing space 18 22 60 240

Harbor channel impr ovements 28 22 50 241

Offloading space 14 26 60 .240.

Gear storage facilities, 28 26 46,

Ice facilities 32 30 38 224

Marine railway facilities 48 30 218

.Availability of vessel construction loans 25 29 46 209

Availability of vessel improvement loans 25 28 47 210

Cost of vessel insurance 17 24 59 223

Ocean dumping of dredge.spoils: 26 32. 42 217

Pollution by toxic chemicals 23 21 56 222

Future effects.of oil exploration on fishing areas 14 14 72 217

Future effects of oil exploration on ports 16 19 65 216-

117

LOBSTER FISHERY

no minor serious number
problem problem problem responding

Interaction with noncommercial lobstermen 20% 45% 35% 124

Gradual increase in minimum carapace length 44 36 20 117

Compliance with escape vent regulation 75 21 04 116

Number of pots used in fishery 29 26. 45 121

Number of fishermen in lobster fishery 24 34 42 121

Verification of student eligibility 36 26 114

Compliance with mandatory catch reporting 56 30 14 120

Competition from Canadian lobsters 07 17 76 125

Competition from out-of-state lobsters 20 13 67 114

Availability of bait 19 37 44 121

FINFISH FISHERY

.Competition from Canadian fis1% 03% 1 85% 155
2%

Competition from frozen European fish 07 21 72 147

Regulations restricting amount of fish caught 13 22 159

Amount of small fish discarded '35 28 37 156

Fish discarded because of regulations 29 21 50 163
Adequate aid in starting joint.ventures 31 27 42 132

Possibility of management by limited entry 15 26 59 152

SHELLFISH FISHERY

Gear restrictions 53% 21% 26% 80

Area restrictions 30 25 45 87

Availability of shellfish grants 28 24 .48 64

118

no minor serious number
problem problem problem responding

Adequate long-term management 16% 27% 57% 77

Cost of local licenses 49 30 21 79

Adequate local regulations 38 20 42 81
B. On the recreational fisheries questionnaire, the pubiic was asked to
comment on such topics as public access, availability of fisheries
information, fisheries management, and other issues which would aid
the Division in formulating policies. Participants were asked their
name, principal areas fished, and most common method used. Similar
to the commercial fisheries questionnaire, a list of items were pre-
sented asking for a response of "no problem", "minor problem", or a
11serious problem". A second part of the questionnaire was separated
into the specific fishing activities, i.e. rod and reel, party and
charter boat operators, recreational lobster, and recreational shell-
fish. Respondants were asked to answer the sections that applied to
their fishing activities. Percentages were then calculated based on
the total number of persons responding to a particular question.

A third section asked if the.Division should increase, decrease, or
not alter their activities in recreational fisheries. In conjunction
with this, the public was asked if they would also favor the estab.
lishment of a saltwater fishing license to fund additional programs.

The ensuing list and percentage totals were the result of 125
responses to the recreational fisheries questionnaire. Concern was
expressed over the effects of pollution by toxic chemicals and sewage
waste (65% and 60% a serious problem), loss of fish habitat'(57%),
availability of docking facilities and boat ramps (44% and 39%), and
adequate stocks of fish to catch (43%). The specific fishing activi-
ties showed that access to fishing sites (40%) and availability of
fishing piers (38%) were serious problems experienced by rod and reel
fishermen. Availability of bank financing (47%) and fuel (38%) by
party and charter boat operators, and adequate enforcement of lobster
regulations (39%) by recreationallobstermen were also rated high.

In the items below, fish refers to finfish, lobsters, and/or
shellfish.

no minor serious number
.:problem problem problem responding.

Adequate stocks of fish to catch 15% 42% 43% 115

Catching and keeping undersized fish 40 43 17 106

Understanding state regulations 46 35 19 .108

no minor serious number
problem problem problem responding

Availability of information on...

charter and party boat activity 76% 21% 03% 102

location of boat ramps 40 33 27 ill

... location of bait and tackle shops 76 21. 03 107

location of shore fishing sites 39 35 26 103

fishing techniques and gear 22 05 101

... cleaning and cooking catch 79 11 10 103

where the fish are 44 41 15 106

Availa*bility of boat ramps 37 24 39 102

Availability of bait 64 30 06 107

Availability of docking facilities 34 44 98

Competition with commercial fishermen

... over gear. 61 21 18 88

over fish.- 46 31 23 94

over prey/forage species 53 35 12 81

over, docking space 50 31 19 84

... over fishing grounds 43 22 35 97

Loss of fish habitat 22 21 57 100

Effects of pollution by toxic chemicals 12 23 65 106.

Effects of pollution by sewage waste 14 26 60 ill

ROD AND REEL
no minor serious number
problem problem problem respondin g
Access to beach fishing sites 25% 35% 40% 113

Availability of fishing piers 24 38 38 105

Competition with bathers over fishing sites 55 37 08 100

,120

no minor seriou's number
problem problem problem responding

Fair advertising by charter and party boats

regarding the price of a fishing trip 68% 25% 07% .87

... regarding who keeps the catch 43 34, 23 91.

PARTY AND CHARTER BOAT OPERATORS

Zi@@npmber
no minor, serious.,
problem problem problem responding

Availability of bank financing 21% 32% 47% 19

Availability of ...

boat insurance 40 40 20 20

fuel 38 24 38 21

liability insurance 56 22 22 18

Availability of vessel safety information 65 22 13 19

RECREATIONAL LOBSTER

no minor serious number
pr blem preblem oblem respondin
pr 9

Interaction with commercial lobstermen 44% 33% 23% 39

Timely processing of license applications 70 22 08 40

Compliance with escape vent regulations 84 11 05 37

Compliance with mandatory catch reporting 59 30 11 37

Adequate enforcement of lobster regulations 45 16 39 38

RECREATIONAL SHELLFISH

no minor seriour number
problem problem problem responding,

Alternate fee rates for non-resident permits 38% 24% 38% 63

Adequate shellfish size limit regulations 74 20 06 68

Adequate maximum catch limit regulations 67 23 10 66

121

no minor serious, number
2roblem problem problem respond-ing

Adequate local shellfish regulations 57% 28%. 15% 67

Adequate local long-term management planning 31 41 28 .64

It was felt that the Division should increase all of its sport-
fishing programs with studies of sportfish, i.e. striped bass, flounder
(88%), restoring river herring and smelt runs (82%), and-construction
of artificial reefs (80%) drawing the highest priorities. When asked
if implementation of a saltwater license to help defray the costs of in-
creasing these programs, the results with 117 responding were 32% "yes",
48% "no", 18% "maybe", and 2% "no opinion". However, additional comments
.showed that if license funds were dedicated to sportfishing programs,-
55% indicated they Would favor a saltwater recreational license.

no number
decrease change increase responding
Studies of sportfish fstriped bass, flounder) 06% 06% 88% 110

Studies of prey/forage fish (menhaden, squid) 07 26 67 101

Restoring river herring and smelt runs 08 10 82 106

Gather statistics on sportfishing 07 24 69 106

Propagation of coho salmon 16 30 54 105

Promotion of salt water fishing 10 37 51 106

Informative literature on sportfishing 09 29 62 101

Interaction with sportfishing organizations 03 24 73 .100

Construction of ramps and fishing piers 06 22 72 104

Construction of artificial reefs 04 16 80 98

122

DIVISION OF MMINE rISHERIES POLICY PROGRAM
18 HERITAGE PROF. BLDG.., SANDWICH, MA..0?563

COMMERCIAL FISIiERIES QUESTIONNAIRE

Name Vessel length

'Telephone No. Port

Gear used Captain Owner

Crew Other

The Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) is examining its
policies towards the commercial fisheries. These policies will be statements
on,how the Division stands Ion certain issues and will be used as guidelines
for fisheries development and protection. - -The problems and needs of commercial
fish'eries have changed, particularly since the ^AOO mile limit. Therefore, the
Division is seeking advice on how we can better serve the fisheries in such
areas as gear technology,, fisheries development, fis'heries management, and -harbor
facilities. To accomplish this we must first identify the areas of concern and
thenpropose solutions.

The following list of items are provided to get your opinions. By circling
a number for each of the items you can let. us know your problems and what areas
need the most attention.

(In the items below, fish refers to finfish, lobsters or shellfish).

no minor serious
problem problem problem

Condition of fbe.fish@ stocks 2 3

Competition for.fish between vessel size categories 1 2 3

Competition for fishing ground s 2 3

Lack of-experienced crew members 2 3-

Gear conflict with stationary gear 2 3

Gear conflict with mobile gear 2 3
Price of fishing-'gear 2

Competition-4ith recreational fisherman-

... over dock space 1 2 3

over fish 1 2 3

... over fishing grounds 1 2 3

no minor serious
problem problem problem
Adequate enforcement of state f isheries laws 2 3
Adequate number of state law enforcement officers 1 2 3
LE-officers w'*th adequate knowledge of fishing '1@ 2 3
Timely processing of state fishing license 1 2 3
Accurate catch statistics 1 2 3
Accurate stock size estimates .1 2 3

Availability of information-
on state fishIng regulation s 2 3

on co*uncil/federal.fishing regulations 1 2 3

on fisbabundance and dis tribution 1 2@ 3
on Vessel safety 2
on gear technology 2 3
in another language 2 3
Clarity of state fishing regulations 2 3
Adequate representation of fishermens' view 1 2 3

Availability of..
DMF biologists 1 2 3
DMF administrators. 1 2 3
DMF extension agents 1 2 3
Adequate markets for underutilized'species. 1 2 3
Price stability forcatch 2
Quality of catch 21 3'
Sheltered mooring facilities 2., 3
Berthing space 2 3
Harbor channel improvements 2 3
Offloading space 2 3
Gear storage facilities 2 3

[email protected]

no minor serious
problem problem problem

Ice facilities 2 3

3
Marine railway facilities. 2
Availability of vessel construction loans 1 2 .3
Availability of vessel improvement loans 1 .2 3
Cost of vessel insurance .2 3
Ocean dumping of dredge spoils .3
Pollution by toxic chemicals 1 2 3
Future effects of oil exploration on fishing grounds 1 2 3
Future effects of oil exploration on ports 1 21 3

The following items are separated into three groups. Please circle the
items in the group(s) that pertain to your fishery andignorethe other group(s).

LOBSTER FISHERY
Interactioi -with nqncomm@rcial lobsterman 1 2 3
Gradual increase in minimum carapace length 1 2 3,,
Com-pliande With iscape vent riegulation 1 2 3
N%imb4@W; Df pots Used i- 2 3
n fishery.
Number of fiiherme.h.'4v 3.obdt6r'kish@ry 2 3
Verification of student eligibility 2
Compliance.with mandatory catch reporting 1 2 3
Competitionfrom Canadian lobsters 2@
Competition from out-of-staie lobsters 2 3
Availability of bait 2 3

FINFISH FISHERY
competition from Canadian fish 2 3
Competition from frozen European fish 2 3
Regulations restricting amount. of fish caught 2 3

125

no minor serious
problem problem problem

Amount of small fisb discarded 2 3

risb discarded because of regulations 2 3.
Adequate aid in starting joint ventures, 2 3
Possibility of management by limited entry 1 2 3

SHELLFISH FISHERY

Gear restrictions 2 .3

Area restrictions 2 3

Availability of she:11fish grants 1 .2 .3

Adequate long-term management pl
anning 2 3

Cost of local licenses 2 3

Adequate local rege-lations 1 2 3