By: Anne Pringle, Portland Maine

Senator Damon, Representative Percy, and members of the Committee, my name is Anne Pringle and I live in Portland.

Since 1990, when I served on the Portland City Council, I have been an advocate for pre-serving Portland’s working waterfront as a unique economic asset, not just for the City but for the State.

In the course of my service on the Council, I learned of Portland’s multi-decade com-mitment, going back to the 1960s at least, to its waterfront, capped by the citizen referendum in 1987. The 2-to-1 vote restricted the waterside of Commercial Street to marine use only for five years, in response to office and condo proposals. A dramatic statement of public commitment, the City has been diligent in making careful adjustments since that time, so as not to displace water-dependent uses, both lobstermen and groundfishermen, and the business which support them.

That longstanding policy commitment is now seriously threatened, in my view, by the economic condition of the groundfishing industry, which we all know has been under du-ress for at least a decade.

Now, we are not here to debate the cause of that economic stress, but rather how a modest proposal can help our Maine fishing fleet endure, rather than migrate to Massachusetts, with their catch, jobs, and taxes.

Others can answer the questions about the how important this step is in the larger context of the conditions facing the groundfishing industry, but I want to direct my comments to the fundamental policy question:

Is the state of Maine prepared to stand by, without making this modest change, and watch the permanent migration of this valuable traditional industry to Massachusetts?

As a citizen, I am very distressed to see the lobster industry, whose numbers have also benefited from my advocacy in Portland, deny their fellow fisherman the relief they seek. I have to ask them, how would they feel if the situation were reversed? It is a Sophie’s choice for the Legislature to have to choose one industry over another. They are both valuable and both should be supported, not one over the other.

As a former policy maker myself, it seems to me you must ask yourself this fundamental question: If these lobsters are already being landed in Massachusetts (and can be landed, under federal law, in all other New England states except Maine), what exactly is the unique industry damage to allow very limited lobster landings in Maine?

Again, others can better respond than me to the arguments raised by lobstermen, but they just do not make sense to me when the lobster are already being landed elsewhere and that will not change!

What can change, with your support of LD 170 is where they are landed and what value they bring to preserving the Maine-based groundfishing industry….

Please use your common sense and support this modest measure and the controls and re-porting that it entails. The state of Maine has made a $12-14 million public investment in the Portland Fish Pier, the centerpiece of which is the Portland Fish Exchange. The continuing migration of the groundfishing industry to Massachusetts will surely result in the bankruptcy of the Fish Exchange and redirection of a significant public investment –perhaps to private use. Is this what we want? No, a resounding, no!