BOSTON (AP) – The new restrictions set to hammer New England’s weary fishing industry have been narrowed to one of four proposals, each promising new pain for fishermen.

The options, which include fishing area closures and strict quotas, were released last week by the New England Fishery Management Council in a mammoth analysis of the proposed new rules and their possible impact.

The report projects total fishing-related job losses ranging from 2,100 to 3,000 in the first year, and revenue losses as high as $88 million, depending on which proposal is chosen.

“It’s a bullet, poison, a knife or a rope,” said New Bedford fishing boat owner Rodney Avila. “Those are the four options you have. … Any one of those options is death for the industry.”

Thomas Hill, chairman of the fishery council, said without tough measures the industry will continue to limp along, dividing diminished stocks of fish.

“We’ll find that bridge to get us through the difficult time, and when we come out the other side, we’re going to have a healthier fishery and healthier fishing industry,” Hill said

The new restrictions were ordered by U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler, who ruled in December 2001 that the government wasn’t doing enough to prevent overfishing.

In the 19 months since, fishermen have seen a 20 percent reduction in the number of fishing days at sea – to a maximum of 70 – even as they’ve argued that fish stocks are rebounding and questioned the reliability of the science behind grim stock assessments.

The 1,200-page Draft Environmental Impact Statement released last week analyzes how the proposed restrictions will affect fishing communities, the environment and various sectors of the industry. It will be subject to public hearings in the coming weeks.

The new restrictions, called Amendment 13, will likely look much like one of the options in the draft because there isn’t time for major changes, said Chris Kellogg, the council’s deputy director.

The council is scheduled to submit a final version of Amendment 13 to federal regulators by November for implementation next May.

The immediate affect of each alternative is not identical because they have differing timetables which delay or hasten economic pain, Kellogg said.

Some basic provisions of the four options include the following:

• Alternative 1: Reduces fishing days at sea by up to 65 percent;

• Alternative 2: Reduces fishing days at sea in Gulf of Maine. Lowers the limit on cod caught per trip in Georges Bank. Requires extensive gear changes;

• Alternative 3: Develops rules for different geographical areas based on fish found in those areas and establishes various quotas to restrict the catch;

• Alternative 4: Implements “hard” catch quotas that shut down all fishing for certain species once the quota is reached. Entire areas where the protected fish are found could be closed.

A council analysis indicates the second option has the most severe affects of options meeting conservation requirements, costing $88 million in revenues and about 3,058 jobs in the first year. Ports in the Gloucester, Boston and New Bedford areas feel it most, with 491, 601 and 569 jobs lost, respectively.

Alternative 1 has the least impact – about 2,140 jobs are lost, including 436 in New Bedford, 428 in Boston and 316 in the lower midcoast of Maine.

Avila, who starts a term on the council in August, said he’ll do what he can to help ease restrictions, but doesn’t see much wiggle room.

“It’s like a hurricane,” he said. “You batten down the hatches as much as you can and wait for it to come.”

AP-ES-07-10-03 1707EDT