But U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle handed conservation groups a victory in their challenge of the new rules, finding that the government must set up a better program for monitoring bycatch -- unintentional take of often protected fish, turtles or sea mammals.

The regulations, known as Amendment 13, scaled back the number of fishing days and closed some fishing grounds. They have been an ongoing point of contention between fishermen who found them too limiting, and environmental groups that deemed them inadequate. Developed by the New England Fisheries Management Council, the rules went into effect last May 1, and in her ruling, Huvelle said she wanted to issue her decision before the fishing season begins this May.

"Amendment 13 reflects the council's and the secretary's painstaking efforts to achieve a delicate balance that rebuilds stocks and ends overfishing while allowing fishermen to continue fishing those stocks that are healthy," the court said. "Amendment 13 is, with limited exception, reasonable and in accordance with law."

Oceana, the Conservation Law Foundation and the Natural Resources Defense Council, in two separate complaints, argued that the new rules did not protect Georges Bank cod and four other depleted groundfish stocks from overfishing.

The lawsuits also said the rules did not do enough to protect the cod habitat off southeastern Cape Cod, and did not provide enough observers to ensure that fishermen were complying with bycatch limits.

Huvelle found that former Commerce Secretary Donald Evans, who oversaw the National Marine Fisheries Service, now known as NOAA Fisheries, did consider sufficient programs and alternatives to protect the stocks. But, she agreed with the complaints about observer coverage.

Saying the data must be both precise and accurate, Huvelle referred the matter back to the Commerce secretary to develop more specific requirements to monitor bycatch.

Fishermen already do their best to avoid bycatch, said Jim Kendall, executive director of the New Bedford Seafood Coalition.

"They do it themselves because it's to their benefit," Kendall said. "Fishermen have the strongest concern for the resource, because nobody benefits more from a healthy resource. Bycatch just makes more work and costs you more money."

NOAA Fisheries officials have said they would like to have observers on up to 10 percent of vessels in certain fisheries, but have said they don't have enough funding.

The proposed budget for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1 would give the agency money to hire two more observers and additional funding for vessel tracking systems, which are used to help monitor where commercial boats are fishing.

Adding more observers is just more intrusive government oversight, Kendall said, and won't help with the problem.
Eric Bilsky, senior attorney for Oceana, said the group was disappointed that the judge rejected their arguments for better protection of the cod habitat. But, he said, "the observer ruling is very important and we appreciate the court's recognition that the agency must specify measures sufficient to account for unintended catch."

This story appeared on Page A3 of The Standard-Times on March 10, 2005.