The final rule received a mixed reaction from stakeholders, with conservationists praising it as a move toward sustainable fisheries management and fishing representatives condemning it for burdening the industry with unnecessary financial hardship.
Fishing representatives admitted that the final interim rule was better than the proposed rule, but said it still created significant problems for fishermen.
"It’s a step in the right direction, but it leaves a number of open questions," said Brian Rothschild, a UMass Dartmouth fisheries scientist and chairman of the New Bedford Mayor’s Ocean and Fisheries Council.
He said he was particularly concerned about the ban on southern New England winter flounder, since there would be no record of how much flounder fishermen caught and threw back overboard.
Richie Canastra, co-owner of Whaling City Seafood Display Auction, said New Bedford fishermen are 100 percent dependent on catching groundfish in southern New England waters, where they will now face double-counting or a de facto 50 percent cut in fishing days.
Canastra said he had not heard immediate reaction from New Bedford fishermen regarding the final rule because most vessels were out at sea trying to complete a trip before Good Friday, but he estimated that the economic impact on city groundfishermen was likely going to be a 30 percent cut in revenue because of the ban on southern New England winter flounder.
U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, who met with Lubchenco in March to discuss the interim rule, said in a statement that "the rule is not as good as it should be."
"I remain concerned that there continue to be areas where two fishing days are counted as one. … Fishermen will still suffer significant financial hardship under this interim plan, and the agency will need to address that. We can do better."