The State Legislatures Natural Resource Committee held it’s hearing on the proposed Ocean Plan legislation on July 18^th and heard from all sides on what should be sent on to the full legislature. We don’t know how many of you called your local State Representatives or Senators to voice your insistence that fishing must be exempted from all parts of the bills but we must make this point very clear to them. Besides the identifiable reference to Fishing and hunting in our state waters being exempt from provisions in these proposed laws, there is the Marine Protected area discussion. No one knows what an MPA means in reality but the “hints” are restrictions on “various” activities. If one or more of these is in Massachusetts state waters, could it mean no non-marine projects, Maybe? Could it mean, no fishing, Maybe? Could it mean in the extreme, no entrance by humans, Maybe? This unfortunately, is what the Marine Protected Area debate is all about. The legislation seems to have boiled down to this Marine Protected Area idea.

            The Senator O’Leary bill, which was drafted with the help of Audobon and the Conservation Law Foundation, clearly allows for Marine Protected Areas to be established and although it also notes that fishing would remain the domain of the Marine Fisheries Division, there still is the hint that fishing could be included. Groups like the Conservation Law Foundation would like nothing better then to be able to go into court and argue that on a particular Marine Protected Area, once established, it didn’t address fishing in that area and should. CLF, for example, could then argue that the court should order Marine Fisheries to address the issue and possibly close that area to fishing. Obviously, we would hope that wouldn’t happen but we must look at the possibility.

The Governor’s bill however, at present, doesn’t mention Marine Protected Areas and exempts all fishing and hunting from all provisions of the Act. This is good. As we’ve discussed before, however, a sub committee has been meeting to craft a Marine Protected Area section to add to the Governor’s bill. The wording was developed and the Marine Fisheries Director did craft that wording excluding fisheries issues from any MPA. The Director clearly would prefer to not need this anywhere in the legislation. Once again even with this wording in the Governor’s bill and if it prevails, it still could offer an opportunity for a legal case from the environmental side of the table.

            Despite what was obviously an effort to compromise by fishing reps and the Division, the environmental representatives were not willing to concede even to the Director’s wording. The whole issue of adding any Marine Protected Area wording to the Governor’s legislation is therefore in Limbo. We therefore must conclude that since there is no agreement on wording for the Governor’s bill that no Marine Protected Area section should be added at all. This actually makes the Governor’s version better than Senator O’Leary’s version.

            The Administration’s “high command”, the Governor’s office, would like to have an Ocean Management Act passed that the Governor could sign into law amid much press coverage for whatever political advantage it may serve. We are not opposed to giving the Governor that “glory”. The basic goal as started by the Governor back in the Task Force meetings was to address “projects” in our waters and a policy the state should have in dealing with those projects. Windmills, mining, pipelines and those types of projects come to mind. Fishing access was not supposed to be the issue although as we know it has now been added, to the other issues. It has been suggested that the Administration wants a legislative bill to sign into law and at this point may not be too particular as to what it says at least on “fishing” or the Marine Protected Area wording.

            Given all this, we want to indicate to the Administration that we must insist that, in keeping with his promise, fishing must be exempted and that the best way to get a piece of legislation successfully to his desk is to exclude Marine Protected Area wording from the legislation entirely. The environmentalists will of course scream about this but it can be argued that we tried to get the wording right for this but “they” wouldn’t agree, so now we must oppose the legislation’s passage unless MPA’s and fishing are out completely. If this is done, we will be supportive of giving the Governor a bill to sign. With that said, we therefore must support the Governor’s bill as written. Senator O’Leary to his credit has tried to produce an alternative to the Governors bill but unfortunately; it contains a risk to all fishing interests, however discrete. The entire fishing industry cannot afford to take that risk.

            Call your legislators and let them know our position.

            Bill Adler, Executive Director                  

8/05