IMPROVING FISHERIES MANAGEMENT IN 

MAGNUSON ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOlVIlVIITTEE ON FISHERIES, 

vVILDLIFE AND OCEANS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

H.R. 39 

A BILL TO AMEND THE MAGNUSON FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT TO IMPROVE 

FISHERIES MANAGEMENT 

89-569cc"" 

FEBRUARY 23, 1995-WASHINGTON, DC 

Serial No. 104-49 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1996 

For sale hy the U.S. Government Printing Oftice 

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402 

ISBN 0-16-052241-2 
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman 

JA.lv!ES V. HANSEN, Utah 

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

KEN CALVERT, California 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts 

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona 

FRANK A. CREMEANS, Ohio 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

WES COOLEY, Oregon 

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho 

LINDA SMITH, Washington 

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas 

RICHARD (DOC) HASTINGS, Washington 

JACK METCALF, Washington 

JAMES B. LONGLEY, JR., Maine 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

GEORGE MILLER, California 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota 

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts 

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California 

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 

Rico 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

SA.t\i FARR, California 

DA.'IIEL VAL KISH, Chief of Staff 

DAVID DYE, Chief Counsel 

CHRISTI~E KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/ Administrator 

JOHN LAWRENCE, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITIEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS 

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

WAYNE T. GILCHEST, Maryland 

PETER G. TORKILDEN, Massachusetts 

LINDA SMITH, Washington 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

JACK METCALF, Washington 

JAMES B. LONGLEY, JR., Maine 

GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts 

GEORGE MILLER, California 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut 

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

SAM FARR, California 

HARRY BURROUGHS, Staff Director 

DAVE WHALEY, Professional Staff 

JEA.'I FLEMMA, Democratic Professional Staff 

ill) 
CONTENTS 

Hearing held February 23, 1995 .... ............................................... ........................ . Statement of Members: 

Pallone, Hon. Frank, Jr., a U.S. Representative from New Jersey ............. . Saxton, Hon. Jim, a U.S. Representative from New Jersey, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans ....... ....... .. .. .......... . Studds, Hon. Gerry E., a U.S. Representative from Massachusetts .......... . . Young, Hon. Don, a U.S. Representative from Alaska, and Chairman, 

Committee on Resources .... .. .. .... ... ......................... ... ... ........................ ... .... . Statement of: 

Alverson, Robert, Manager, Fishing Vessel Owners' Association (prepared 

statement) ..................................................................................................... . 

Amaru, William H., Fisheries Research And Conservation ......................... . Prepared statement ......... ............... ...................................... .... ................ . 

Anderson, Lee, on behalf of the chairs of the eight regional fishery man- agement councils (prepared statement) ..................................................... . Anderson, Nels, Jr., Executive Director, Bristol Bay Economic Developll!-ent Corporation for the Western Alaska Fisheries Development AssoClatwn .................................... ............... ...... ................................ .................. . Prepared statement ............................ .... ............................ .. ........ ............ . Beideman, Nelson R., Executive Director, Blue Water Fishermen's Association ...... ........ .. .. ... ............. .... .. .. ...... ....... ....... .. ... ... ......... .................... ........ . Prepared statement ............. ....... ...... ..... ......... ... ................... ......... ...... ..... . Blum, Joseph R., Executive Director, American Factory Trawlers AssociaBr~~~a<re~~~rj~s!~t;,e~:~t E~gi~~d· ·Fi~h~~Y· · M~·;;;g·~~~~ t · ·c ~~~~;i: · -~~- · b~~ half of the chairmen of the eight fishery management councils .............. . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Casey, Thomas A., representing the Alaska Fisheries Conservation 

Group ..................................... ....................................................................... . Prepared statement with attachments ................... ................................ . Dorsey, Eleanor M., Conservation Law Foundation ............ ..... ... .............. ... . Prepared statement .. ... .......... ................................................... ................ . Fisher, Capt. R. Barry, Yankee Fisheries (prepared statement) ............ ..... . Gordon, Walter M., Jr., Mid-Atlantic Foods, Inc. (prepared statement) ..... . Green peace (prepared statement) ........... ................. ........................ .............. . 

Hall, Margaret, Treasurer, United Catcher Boats .. ..... ......... ... .... ........... ...... . Prepared statement ...... ........ ... .. .. .......... ..... .......... ......................... ..... ..... . Hendricks, Jeff, General Manager, Alaska Ocean Seafood Limited Partnership ........................................... ....... .............. ... .......... ..... ....... ...... .... ....... . Prepared statement ...... ... .... ................. ............. ............. .... .. .... ... .... .. ....... . Magnuson, John J., Ph.D., Chairman, Committee on Fisheries, Ocean 

Studies Board of the National Research Council ............. .. ........ .... .......... . Prepared statement ........... .. ...................................... ...... .......... ............... . Moore, Rod, Executive Director, West Coast Seafood Processors Association ....................... ..... .............................................................. ... ... .. .............. . Prepared statement .......................................................... ... .. .. .. ... ........... . Nelson, Chris, Vice President, Bon Secour Fisheries, Inc ............................ . 

Prepared statement .............................................................. .. .................. . Nicolov, Assen, President and Chairman, Oceantrawl, Inc. (prepared 

statement) ............... ...................................................................................... . Philemonoff, Ron P., Tanadgusix (TDX) Corporation (prepared statement) .................... ........................... .. ......... ............. ..................................... . Schmitten, Rolland A. , Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Department of Commerce .................. . 

(III) 

Page 

1 

47 

1 

4 

2 

266 

48 

175 

98 

31 

115 

3E 

14E 

30'i 

E 

9E 

5E 

20E 

5( 

17~ 

29E 

25E 

29S 

52 

186 

34 

128 

9 

87 

30 

104 

37 

156 

315 

250 

6 
IV 

Statement of-Continued 

Schmitten, Rolland A., Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Department of Commerce--Continued 

Prepared statement ........................................ ........ ............. ...... . . Seaton, Paul, Alaska Marine Conservation Council ........ ... ... ... ......... ...... .... . 

Prepared statement ..... .......... ......... ........ ...... ......... .... ...... ....... ... ... ... ... .... . Sosin, Mark, American Sportfishing Association ....... ................... .. .... . . Prepared statement .... ... ...... .... .... ..... .. .. ..... . ...................... .. ..... . Thomson, Arni, Executive Director, Alaska Crab Coalition (prepared 

statement) ........ .... .. . .. ... ... . .. ... .... .. .. . .... ... . . ......... ..... .... ........... .... . Trout Unlimited (prepared statement) ............ .... ................... .... ................... . Unalaska Native Fisherman Association 1 prepared statement) ......... ........ . . Additional material supplied: NOAA: Data collection and days-at-sea r equirements in New England ..... . Responses to questions submitted after the hearing: 

Alaska Ocean Seafood by letter of March 22, 1995 .. ............... .... ... ....... . Blue Water Fishermen's Association by letter of April 4, 1995 ........... . Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation by letter of March 

24, 1995 ··················· ···· ··· ·· ·················· ···· ·· ·· ········· ····················· ·· ······· ··· ·· Conservation Law Foundation by letter of March 23; 1995 ... .............. . National Research Council by letter of April 14, 1995 ......... ... ... ........... . 

New England Fishery Management Council by letter of March 28, 

1995 ················· ························ ·· ·························· ·· ·· ································ Communications submitted: Blackburn, Chris and Beth Stewart (Alaska Groundfish Data Bank): 

Letter of February 17, 1995, with attachments to Hon. Ted Stevens 

and Hon. Don Young with views on H.R. 39 ... ..................... ........ ............. . Fisheries Groups (Six): Letter of June 3, 1994, to Richard B. Lauber .. ..... . Markels, Dr. Michael, Jr.: Letter of February 22, 1995, to Hon. Don 

Young ............................................................................................................ . Peterson, Rudy A. (North Pacific Fishing, Inc.): Letter of February 22, 

1995, to Hon. Don Young ........ ........... .. .. .................... .. ... ...... ...................... . Smith, Thorn, Linda Kozak, Arni Thomson, Bob Alverson, John Bruce 

and Jeffrey R. Stepha: Letter of February 23, 1995, with attachments to Hon. Don Young ............................... .. .................................... ....... ... ...... . 

Page 

70 

54 

193 

39 

165 

270 

288 

294 

27 

322 

340 

330 

327 

355 

336 

224 

312 

264 

260 

235 
IMPROVING FISHERIES MANAGEMENT IN 

MAGNUSON ACT 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1995 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS, 

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11 a.m. in room 1334, 

Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Jim Saxton (Chairman of 

the Subcommittee) presiding. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM SAXTON, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM NEW JERSEY, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS 

Mr. SAXTON. Good morning. The Subcommittee on Fisheries, 

Wildlife and Oceans will come to order. The subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on the Magnuson Fishery Conservation 

and Management Act. 

[The bill may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. This will be our only hearing on the Magnuson Act 

this year. As such, we have invited 14 witnesses to share their expertise with us. Our witnesses cover a broad range of commercial 

and recreational fishing interests. Under Rule 6(D of the committee 

rules, the oral statements at hearings are limited to the Chairman 

and the Ranking Minority Member. This will allow us to hear from 

our witnesses sooner and help Members keep their schedules. 

To set what I hope is a good example, I ask unanimous consent 

that my statement be placed in the record; and I will yield the time 

allotted to me for my opening statement to Mr. Young, the Chairman of the full committee. 

[The statement of Mr. Saxton follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM SAXTON, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW JERSEY, AND 

CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS 

Good morning and welcome to our only hearing this year on the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Congress enacted the Magnuson Act and 

created the 200-mile fishery conservation zone (now called the exclusive economic zone) in direct response to a dramatic rise in foreign fishing off the coasts of the 

United States in the early 1970s. One undisputed success of the Magnuson Act has 

been the virtual elimination of foreign fishing within the exclusive economic zone. According to some environmental groups, the Magnuson Act succeeded in getting 

rid of foreign overfishing only to replace it with domestic overfishing. 

Our fisheries resources are facing an acknowledged crisis. The National Marine 

Fisheries Service reports that some of the nation's most historically important fisheries are in serious decline, including several key species of Northeast groundfish, 

many Pacific coast salmon runs, and Gulf of Mexico shrimp. 

(1) 
2 

During this year's reauthorization, the Magnuson Act must provide a framework 

for the recovery of diminished stocks. One of the issues that will have to be addressed is "overfishing." The original Magnuson Act did not define overfishing and 

the time has come to do so. Our fisheries resources are too valuable to squander 

away. 

One component of a healthy fishery with which we can all agree is that healthy 

habitat makes for stronger, healthier fish stocks. The fishing community should be 

prepared to share its expertise on how to better protect fish habitat. Details must 

be worked out in regards to this issue. Should the Congress empower the eight fisheries councils or the Secretary of Commerce to identify habitat'? Should councils be 

required to address "essential fish habitat" when drafting fishery management 

plans? 

The issue of fishing clean also must be addressed. Bycatch-non-target fish 

caught by commercial fishermen in error----{;an diminish breeding stocks. Some environmental groups insist that further gear changes must be imposed on commercial 

fishermen. Others argue that the cost to the fishermen will make fishing prohibitively expensive. The council system has recently come under fire due to its specific exemption from 

standing conflict of interest laws. Because the council system was designed so that 

the experts on fisheries-the fishermen-would be able to draft the fishery management plans, this issue will remain at the forefront. The legislation before us today 

strikes a balance between getting council business efficiently completed and protecting against conflict of interest. 

The National Marine Fisheries Service has made clear its support for Individual 

Transferable Quotas, also known as ITQs. If NMFS will be moving forward administratively on ITQs, the Congress should play a role. The Administration has proposed a fee on ITQs that is not addressed in the bill before us today. This issue will come up again and Congress must deal with it. It should be noted that these quotas do 

reduce and/or limit the number of resource users, as we have found in the surf clam 

industry in New Jersey. The ITQ system is still in its infancy, however, and should 

be studied carefully before widescale change takes place. 

One final issue that will surely be discussed at this hearing is about allocation. 

There has been some discussion about preference in the law for "fishery-dependent 

communities." The premise is to give special consideration to those communities 

that have limited economic alternatives. But, how does Congress define these communities? 

During our hearing today, we will surely touch on the issue of overfishing, essen- tial fish habitat, the reduction of bycatch and "conflict of interest" in the council system. The purpose of this hearing is to educate the newer Members about the Mag- nuson Act. With our full slate of witnesses, I have no doubt our goal will be accom- plished. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DON YOUNG, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM ALASKA. AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and I thank you for holding this hearing on H.R. 39, the reauthorization of the Magnuson 

Fishery Conservation and Management Act. This is a vital piece of 

legislation for this subcommittee to examine for the long-term 

health of our Nation's fisheries resources. 

On a side bar, I would like to suggest that this Act was worked 

on diligently way back in 1976 by then-Chairman of this subcommittee, Mr. Studds from Massachusetts. He and I are the last 

remaining ones that voted on this legislation. 

In the last Congress, the Merchant Marine Committee, where 

Mr. Saxton and Mr. Studds and several other Members of this subcommittee all served-we held 11 hearings on the reauthorization, 

11 hearings. That is why we are only going to have this one hearing this year because it is time for us to move forward. As you 

know, the Magnuson Act was sunsetted last year; we are operating 

under a temporary authorization. 

Last year, the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee wrote 

a compromise bill that addressed all the major concerns voiced in 
3 

those hearings. The result of that work was adopted by the Fisheries Management Subcommittee as H.R. 780. 

This legislation is not significantly different from H.R. 780. In 

fact, H.R. 39 should not look new to anyone in this room. H.R. 39 

addresses the issue of bycatch reduction, habitat protection, 

overfishing and rebuilding of overfished stocks and Regional Council reforms. There may be those that do not think this bill goes far 

enough, but I would argue strenuously with that position. There are those who think that the current system of Council 

management of our marine fisheries does not work. The Magnuson 

Act was set up to allow those who know the most about fisheries 

to make the management decisions concerning those fisheries. This 

is the fundamental premise of the Magnuson Act. I will not stand 

by to see people attempt to undermine the Council system. I want 

to stress that, Mr. Chairman, to those in the audience, that the 

Council system is working. 

We have a number of very knowledgeable witnesses today, and 

I look forward to hearing their testimony. There are a large number of people I wished I could have also heard from, but we are limited in the amount of time we have. Many of these people have testified at the hearings we held in the 103rd Congress, and I urge 

Members that are new to look back to those hearing records. I would like to thank Dave Benton of the State of Alaska's Department of Fish and Game for submitting his testimony and working with my staff on issues affecting Alaska. We received numerous 

requests from other States to have their representatives testify, 

and to agree to all of these requests would mean we would be here 

well into next week. 

I will continue to work with the State of Alaska to make sure 

their concerns are addressed. Again, I appreciate Dave's leaving an 

open chair at the witness table for others. 

Members will hear a lot about ITQs, both pro and con. I am 

frankly not a supporter of ITQ for many reasons, including the fact 

that they prevent future generations from getting into the closed 

fisheries without a lot of money. However, I always said Congress 

should not micromanage fisheries management. We have regional 

Councils which we have given the duty to manage and conserve 

fisheries, and I will not second-guess their decisions. 

We also are aware that the NMFS is out pushing Councils to 

enact ITQs. I don't think this is correct. I will be working with 

Members to see if we should include guidelines for ITQ programs 

in this legislation. If NMFS is going to encourage Councils to enact 

ITQ programs, we need to do what we can to protect traditional 

fishing practices. I look forward to working with my colleagues to 

address all the concerns before we mark up this legislation. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to recognize another part of this legislation, the CDQs; these CDQs are Community Development 

Quotas enacted in the State of Alaska, primarily in the Bering Sea. 

I hope everybody will look at what occurred by enacting CDQs, 

how they benefited areas of our State that has no other resource 

or income to be developed. They have worked, they have been encouraged and actually developed by a gentleman named Harold 

Sparck. This gentleman has worked long and hard for many, many 

years to make sure this is embraced in the small communities of 
4 

Alaska, and I suggest at this time, as time goes by, we recognize 

his great contribution. Unfortunately, he cannot be with us today. 

He has a serious illness, and I hope God takes care of him in the 

long run. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this time. 

Mr. SAXTON. I thank the gentleman for his statement. 

[The attachments to the statement of Mr. Young may be found 

at end of hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. I now recognize the Ranking Minority Member, the 

gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Studds. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GERRY E. STUDDS, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM MASSACHUSETTS, AND RANKING MINORITY 

MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND 

OCEANS 

Mr. STUDDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

This is not the first and probably not the last time the gentleman 

from Alaska and I indulge in historical musings. It happens to you 

when you get to be our age. 

Mr. YOUNG. Cut it out. 

Mr. STUDDS. We are the only two people here old enough to remember that it was 22 years ago that we first had hearings in this 

room on what became known as the Magnuson Act. Twenty years 

ago the House initially passed that bill. You may recall, at the time 

it was known for a variety of Members. Then the Senate, in character, in particularly senatorial fashion, officially renamed it the 

Magnuson Act. We were taken aback by that at that time. 

There were a few years when we were in power and considered 

renaming it after the gentleman and myself-the Young-Studds 

Act was what it was going to be; it had a certain ring to it. And 

then when we saw what happened, particularly in New England, 

we were sort of glad the Senate took credit for it in some cases. 

But it is a history which I know my friend and extraordinarily 

mellow colleague from Alaska treasures, as I do. You may recall in 

the early- and mid-1970's that throughout both of our coasts foreign vessels were ravishing the stocks. We in New England, our 

fishermen on Georges Bank, our own fishermen, were taking only 

12 percent of the catch. The rest were vacuumed by the Soviets, 

other East Bloc countries, the Japanese and others. 

We set out to, first of all, essentially throw out foreign vessels 

from our 200 miles zone, develop our own fleet and establish conservation and management programs for the United States. We did 

the first part right. We threw everybody out, we established our 

own fleet; it was heavily capitalized. And now, 20 years later, we 

find ourselves in a situation much like what we faced 20 years ago. Our groundfish landings are at an all-time low, even lower than 

they were in 1975 in some cases, without any foreign competition. 

Haddock is virtually commercially extinct, and cod and yellow tail 

may be close behind. 

I tell this history not to point fingers or lay blame and not even 

because history is the preferred sideline of many prominent House 

Members these days. You have to think about that for a minute. 
5 

I really think the New England Council probably did the best job 

it could, given the tools they were given. I highlight this only to 

point out that we need to give all the Councils better tools. We 

need to strengthen this Act. .This bill, the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act Amendments, indeed tracks to a large degree what we began 

last year to address overfishing, to deal with some conflicts of interest that are inherently in those animals called "Management 

Councils", and to deal with bycatch which has been a terrible problem everywhere. We need to strengthen in some respects, particularly with respect to overcapitalization, which is probably the single largest component of our problem in New England, where high 

tech has gone in directions we have not dreamt of in the last 20 

years and there is no way on earth to allow nature to replenish the 

stocks if we simply go back at them with the technology that will 

exist 10 years from now, never mind that which exists today. We 

will not have done anything wise or helpful and certainly not longlasting. We need to give science a far more prominent role than 

what it has had. If we learn nothing else from the tragedy that occurred in New 

England, we must never allow it to happen again-on Georges 

Bank or anywhere else. That is the challenge, as we deal persuasively and meaningfully with the problem that plagues New England, but to do so in a fashion that will see to it that this crisis 

does not develop elsewhere in the country. 

I don't want, and I doubt that the gentleman from Alaska or anybody here wants to pass on fishing only as a memory for large 

parts of this country. So we have a very, very important responsibility, and I am delighted, given the changes in this institution, 

that when the dust has settled, I and the gentleman from Alaska, 

the gentleman from New Jersey and the many other colleagues 

with whom I have worked for a very long time will find some solutions to this situation. It is not going to be easy to figure out what is right, never mind 

having the fortitude to do what is right. But we have to do it. 

I look forward to the challenge and we are ready to go. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Studds follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. GERRY E. STUDDS, A U .S . REPRESENTATIVE FROM 

MASSACHUSETTS 

This year marks the twentieth anniversary of final House passage of H.R. 200, 

my bill to establish U.S. jurisdiction and management authority over fisheries within 200 miles of our coasts. When that bill was signed into law the following year, 1976, it marked the end 

of a three-year legislative battle, waged by myself, Chairman Young, and others who 

represented the fishermen and fisherwomen of this country, to protect our fisheries 

and the communities that depended on them from the ever encroaching foreign ves- sels off our shores. It was not an easy fight, but we persevered, and the Magnuson 

Act was established. 

Those foreign vessels were decimating our stocks. By 1974, our fishermen on Georges Bank and in southern New England were harvesting only 12 percent of the 

overall catch. The rest of our fish were being taken by boats from the Soviet Union, Poland, and elsewhere. Haddock had become almost commercially extinct and other 

stocks were threatened with a similar fate . 

Our goal then was to push out the foreign boats, develop our own fleets, and es- tablish sound conservation and management programs. As I and others have pointed out over the past two years, we did the first part pretty well. U.S. boats can now 
6 

harvest any and all fisheries available in our waters. Sadly, our conservation efforts 

have not been as successful. 

In New England we ironically find ourselves in a situation which, in many ways, mirrors 1975. Groundfish landings are at an all time low. In some cases, even lower 

than they were in 1975 when we were competing with the foreign fleets. Haddock 

is commercially extinct and cod and yellowtail may be close behind. I relate this history not to point fingers or lay blame. I believe the Council in New 

England did the best job they could with the tools they were given. Instead, I high- light our crisis to point out the need to give the Councils better tools-to strengthen the Magnuson Act to definitively address overfishing, to reduce bycatch and waste, 

and to protect habitat. If we learn nothing else from the tragedy in New England, it must be that it can never be allowed to occur again-on Georges Bank or any- where else.Fishing must not become something our grandfathers used to do, but remain an honorable way of life that can be passed on to future generations. As members of this Committee we have a responsibility to ensure that this is possible. I 

believe H.R. 39 is a good step in that direction, and I look forward to hearing from 

the witnesses today on their ideas to improve it. 

Mr. SAXTON. I thank the gentleman. 

Before introducing the first panel, let me remind everybody who 

is going to testify that we are operating under the five-minute rule 

and that there is a little device on the table with three light bulbs 

on it-green, yellow and red. Please, when the yellow light comes 

on, begin to complete your testimony, because when the red light 

comes on, your time is over. That is what it says right here. So we 

will try to adhere to that as closely as we can. And, of course, at 

the conclusion of your testimony, Members will be invited to ask 

questions. 

Let me introduce the first panel, people who are well-known to 

us and to the industry, Rollie Schmitten, Assistant Administrator, 

National Marine Fisheries Service; Joseph Brancaleone, Chairman, 

New England Fisheries Management Council; and John Magnuson, 

Chairman of the National Research Council, Committee on Fisheries. 

We welcome you all here, and we will begin with Mr. Schmitten. 

STATEMENT OF ROLLAND SCHMITTEN, ASSISTANT 

ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE 

Mr. SCHMITTEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Committee. I am Rolland Schmitten; I am Assistant Administrator 

for Fisheries of the National Marine Fisheries Service, and I do appreciate the opportunity to present the views of the Department of 

Commerce on H.R. 39. 

From a resource perspective, this will be a major accomplishment 

for this Committee, for the Congress and certainly for the marine 

resources of the Nation. The Department strongly supports reauthorizing the Magnuson Act and recommends the enactment of 

H.R. 39 with the following brief comments. 

Mr. SAXTON. Excuse me, could you pull that microphone just a 

bit closer. 

Mr. SCHMITTEN. Is that a little better, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. 

Mr. SCHMITTEN. In passing, let me compliment Chairman Young 

for introducing this legislation; and I did enjoy the Magnuson history lesson from both Mr. Young and Mr. Studds. 

I have been attempting to meet with every Committee Member, 

and before commenting on the bill I will just take a very brief moment to describe our vision for the future of marine fisheries and 
7 

put it into context to shape our view of where amendments could 

come from for the Magnuson Act. It is our goal to seek the greatest 

long-term benefits possible to the American public from our marine 

fisheries resources and thereby increase the Nation's wealth and, 

in turn, the quality of life for members of the recreational and commercial fishing industries and communities. 

We believe that you can realize that vision by concentrating on 

two areas. First, undertaking an aggressive approach to stewardship of our trustee resources to rebuild overfished stocks and maintain them at maximum sustainable levels, thereby avoiding the 

economic and social consequences that accompany attempts to repair damage to the resources after it occurs. 

No more New Englands. 

Mr. Chairman, on H.R. 39, foremost, we support its attention to 

conservation issues. We strongly support the measures in H.R. 39 

which end or prevent overfishing, and we support the rebuilding of 

depleted stocks and maintaining them at maximum sustainable 

levels. We cannot afford to continue the current practices which are 

permitted under the Magnuson Act where stocks are legally allowed to be fished down to and managed at the point where 

overfishing occurs. We can do better, and, in the end, the Nation 

deserves better. 

The Department supports strongly the concept of identifying essential fish habitats, and providing for improved consultation with 

other agencies. We cannot rely solely on regulatory measures torestore our fisheries. I have said it many, many times: We can regulate our fishermen out of existence, but it won't necessarily bring 

the fish back; we must also do something to protect and preserve 

their habitat. 

We also support the provisions in the bill that deal with bycatch. 

The emphasis on bycatch with inclusion of a new national standard 

and the mandatory requirement for fisheries management plans to 

contain information on bycatch, is well taken and essential in our 

view. 

We continue to seek innovative ways to reduce bycatch, including 

the use of incentives, and refocus the use of S-K on gear technology 

and product development, which we have not done for 10 years as 

an agency. Further, we want to be sure that measures such as incentive and harvest preferences be carefully designed to prevent 

"due process" problems. 

For example, we do not believe that such a program should prohibit some fishermen from receiving allocations of, or access to, fish 

stocks because of their bycatch levels without also providing some 

administrative hearing in advance of the agency decision. 

The Department supports inclusion of strong provisions that 

would address the appearance or possible appearance of conflict of 

interest on the regional councils. While the provisions in H.R. 39 

are a step in the right direction, we recommend that the Committee work closely with our staff and others to help strengthen and 

provide definitions for the conflict provisions. I have asked the Committee to consider in H.R. 39 the use of 

user fees associated with ITQs, or what we call "individual transferable quota programs" to recover the cost of these programs and 

improve implementation. 
8 

As a part of its fiscal year 1996 budget request, the Department 

has submitted a proposal to recover those costs, but what is new, 

and I think significant to the fishing community, is that the fees 

collected would not disappear into the general fund but would go 

back into the management and conservation of marine resources. 

Mr. Chairman, I also urge inclusion of a nationwide data collection program. I think we did a very poor job of explaining the benefits of such a program, and I notice it is not included in H.R. 39. 

To improve the management of our marine resources, we need to 

gather information in a consistent way across the Nation. Our intent in such a program is not to increase the reporting burden on 

fishermen-we already are turning them into fisheries bureaucrats-but rather to simplify and reduce it. I think by working with 

you we can provide the tools to do that. 

In my full comments I offer less significant technical comments, and additions to H.R. 39. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my com- ments and it is a pleasure to be here. Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, Mr. Schmitten. 

[The statement of Mr. Schmitten may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Brancaleone. 

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH M. BRANCALEONE, CHAIRMAN, NEW 

ENGLAND FISHERIES MANAGEMENT COUNCIL 

Mr. BRANCALEONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of 

the subcommittee. I am here today on behalf of the Chairmen of 

all eight of the Management Councils. The Chairmen have not met 

since H.R. 39 was introduced, and my own Council even now does 

not have Senate bill, S. 39. 

However, over the last two years the Chairmen have considered 

a number of draft bills and proposed changes to the Magnuson Act. 

Following our May 1994 meeting, we prepared testimony covering 

a wide range of proposed amendments. I think the testimony was 

never delivered to the subcommittee, but I am submitting it today 

as our most recent agreed position. Keep in mind that the Chairmen have reached consensus on that testimony, but it does not necessarily reflect a full consensus of the eight Councils themselves, 

even though there is substantial agreement by the Councils to most 

of it. 

The general view of the Chairmen is that Magnuson is a good 

law and does not need basic revision, although minor adjustments 

may be helpful. We believe the perception of conflicts of interest on 

the Councils is greater than any actual conflict. We are opposed to 

mandatory recusal and to NOAA General Counsel determining 

when a conflict exists. We urge you to consider the alternative language proposed in our draft 1994 testimony. We believe Councils should have discretionary authority to establish fees related to data collection programs and limited entry programs. A requirement for bycatch data, as in H.R. 39, would make 

fees even more necessary. 

The Chairmen do not believe lowering compensation for appointed members is appropriate, but if compensation is lowered to 

the GS-15 level, it should be set at the top step of that grade level. 
9 

We are all concerned about possible habitat degradation, but believe that a requirement to define or identify essential habitat 

would burden Councils beyond the limits of their funding and 

staffs. 

Likewise, we are gravely concerned about overfishing, but we 

doubt that defining overfishing in the Act would be helpful. The 

602 guidelines are adequate in this regard. Overfishing and rebuilding issues are best dealt with at the Council level with guidance. We support a 180-day period for emergency actions and for extensions of such actions. 

We are in favor of reducing the time required to implement regulations for fishery management plans. I believe the 60-day time 

limit in H.R. 39 on secretarial review of proposed regulations is a 

step in that direction. 

Mr. Chairman, this is clearly a very brief summary of our views. 

We did not specifically consider the H.R. 39 proposal that all persons presenting oral or written statements must state their interest 

and their qualifications. Neither did we consider the addition of 

items to a Council's agenda upon the request of two members or 

the defining of Fisheries Dependent Communities. Our view, however, was that flexibility and latitude within the parameters of 

Magnuson are preferable to very detailed prescriptions and proscriptions in the Act. The Councils were created to exercise judgment. 

I expect that in the next several weeks most, if not all, of the 

Councils will consider H.R. 39 and submit specific comments on 

that bill. I will be happy to answer any questions that I can. 

I thank you for inviting me here today. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you for your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lee Anderson may be found at 

end of hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Magnuson, I assume that you are a relative of 

the famous Magnuson. 

Mr. MAGNUSON. No, neither a relative nor have we ever met. We 

obviously have common interests, however. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. You may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN MAGNUSON, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL 

RESEARCH COUNCIL, COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES 

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee, I am John Magnuson, Director of the Center for Limnology at 

the University of Wisconsin, Madison. I participated in many National Research Council studies on fisheries, recently as chairman 

of the Committee on Fisheries to Review Atlantic Bluefin Tuna. 

On behalf of the NRC, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before this subcommittee on H.R. 39. 

Having an effective Magnuson Act is important to our country. 

Specifically, for resource information, I refer you to Chapter 4 recommendations in the NRC report, Improving the Management of 

U.S. Marine Fisheries, and also to my written testimony that I 

have turned in. 
10 

With the limited time today, I present four important topics for 

your consideration during this reauthorization, relating entirely to 

our recommendations: 

First, prevent overfishing, including controlling entry and wasteful capitalization and better defining the meaning of the words "optimum yield"; second, improving institutional structure embodied 

in the Act; third, improving the quality of fisheries science and the 

data used; and fourth, moving toward an ecosystem approach to 

fishery management, including reducing the bycatch, and protecting fish habitats. 

First, preventing overfishing: Congress should strengthen this 

Act to prevent overfishing by adding specific provisions for managers to control entry and wasteful overcapitalization of marine 

fisheries and providing a better definition of "optimum yield" so it 

will not conflict with fisheries' goals. Wasteful capitalization must 

be responsible, equitable, be tuned to individual fisheries and have 

adequate phase in periods. The current definition of "optimum 

yield" is so broad that under the present Act it has been used to 

justify almost any quantity of catch. Consequently, increasing 

catches to achieve optimum yield has conflicted with conservation 

goals; it has depleted fisheries' resources and resulted in lost jobs 

and revenues. This needs to be fixed. Second, improving institutional structure: Although H.R. 39 includes very important recusal process to prevent possible conflict of 

interest on the Management Councils, Congress should further 

strengthen the Act to improve institutional structure, namely, require that acceptable biological catches be determined by scientific 

experts, clarify lines of authority and responsibility between the 

Secretary of Commerce and the regional Councils, and establish an 

independent oversight body. Third, improve the quality of fisheries science and data. Congress 

should amend the Act to mandate confidential reporting of catch 

and to promote collection of reliable socioeconomic data. Presently, 

there are insufficient funds for conducting appropriate stocks assessments, which results in uncertainty and great user conflicts. 

Also, supporting observer programs that are necessary to collect 

the bycatch/discard data to determine the socioeconomic fact of 

these management actions. 

An example of the benefit from improved fisheries science data 

is found in the NRC bluefin tuna study. The scientific basis was 

critically reviewed and analyzed. Bluefin tuna in the eastern and 

western Atlantic are not independent because tuna move significantly between these two fishing areas. There were two outcomes: 

The science was improved and more effective management was established, and the added plus was a large economic benefit to the 

U.S. bluefin tuna fisheries. 

Fourth, move toward an ecosystem approach to fisheries management. Congress should take further steps to move fisheries management toward an ecosystem approach, namely include promoting 

a multiple species approach to fisheries management, factoring in 

nontarget species and ecosystem interactions, determine the environmental components essential for fisheries production, survival 

and production, and identify the current causes of this habitat degradation. 
11 

We compliment the subcommittee, because H.R. 39 includes important first steps in moving fisheries management toward an ecosystem approach. However, there is still an opportunity to make 

further improvements in the Act based on the NRC report recommendations which would make it less likely that we will be returning to these same issues in a few years with even fewer fish. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee for 

your interest in the National Research Council's recommendations 

for improving fisheries management. 

[The statement of Mr. Magnuson may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. We thank you all for your very articulate statements. 

I will begin with the first question, and I would like to address 

it to Mr. Brancaleone. 

In your statement, you mentioned that you felt that it was perhaps more appropriate-this may be true, I am not challenging 

you-for the Councils not to have to deal as a primary activity with 

habitat management. 

Did I interpret you correctly? 

Mr. BRANCALEONE. Not as a primary activity, but if it is written 

into the Magnuson Act, it would, we feel, hold our feet to the fire 

even more than we could possibly do. 

We understand that habitat is "motherhood and apple pie," and 

everyone wants to do everything they can for it. We are required to do as much as we can, but if it is written actually in the law, we don't have the money or manpower. We are 

understaffed and underfunded right now. 

Mr. SAXTON. There are many people in and about the industry 

who believe that habitat management is something that we need 

to take a closer look at. 

Do you have any suggestions as to how we might restructure the 

Act, or do we need to look at habitat management in some other 

structure, in some other legislation, and look at some other agencies that can do a better job than we have been doing thus far? 

Mr. BRANCALEONE. It is a difficult question to answer. My personal feeling is that the first thing forthcoming should be the 

money and manpower. I think that could be directed toward the 

Service. We look to them for all the help we can get when writing 

plans. If they don't have the money and manpower, surely we don't 

have it. Whether it should be outside of this Act, I am not sure. 

Mr. SAXTON. Can you tell us about the relationship that currently exists between the National Marine Fisheries Service and 

the Councils? Do you think it works well? Do you think it needs 

improvement? Are there changes that we need to make in the legislation to encourage a better working relationship if it isn't what it 

should be currently? 

Mr. BRANCALEONE. I would have to admit-that is just not because Mr. Schmitten is at my right side-the relationship has gotten somewhat better. What is needed is better data, more timely 

data; the Council right now is struggling with a new amendment 

to the plan in New England, and we are waiting for data from 1994 

and it looks like we may not get that until the beginning of next 
12 

year. Without that timely data, it is hard to make judgment calls 

that could virtually bankrupt communities; and this is what the 

Council is wrestling with now. So if you and the committee in any 

way can help us get the data quicker, we can respond more quickly. 

The other issue is the 602 guidelines. We feel that they are appropriate now, but if you make them law where we have to define 

"overfishing," it will slow our process even more; and I think the 

interpretation by the National Marine Fisheries Service up until 

now is, that has been pretty much law and not just used as guidelines. I think I see that changing. 

Of course, that is my personal opinion. You may find other people on my Council and other Councils may disagree. Mr. SAXTON. Would you address the issue of data, Mr. Schmitten? We have heard statements in this regard previously as 

to data accuracy, methods of collection, as to the cost. Would you 

address that issue? 

Do you need more resources? I suspect that is one of the things. 

Mr. SCHMITTEN. When I first came aboard I went to the community with 48 different meetings all up and down the eastern seaboard and in the Gulf, saying, how can I better serve you; we want 

to put service back into the National Marine Fisheries Service. I 

heard consistently, whether it was from the recreational or commercial community, three things: We need better data, better enforcement and habitat improvements. 

You will see that our budget reflected that, in that we put $23 

million more into data collection in our 1996 budget. That is exactly what the fishing community is saying. That is where I am 

trying to guide this Service. We want data more readily available; 

we want data that can be used in the real timeframe-like Chairman Brancaleone, to provide for his needs; and I think we are a.ttempting to gather that right now. 

Mr. SAXTON. Can you specifically address the method of data collection in the Northwest? 

Mr. SCHMITTEN. It differs. In the Northwest, there is a system 

I am familiar with in which we rely on a fish commission. The commission contracts with the States. We provide the funding for that, 

we do the oversight. There is an informal peer review of the data 

collection, and we are comfortable with that. We have a similar 

process in the Southeast, but in various areas it differs. 

Mr. SAXTON. I understand in the Northwest, and Southeast as 

well, maybe, is there one ship that does the data collection? 

Mr. SCHMITTEN. As far as collecting the data itself, we have four 

NOAA ships usually on station on the West Coast, but they rotate. 

We usually only do our contracted surveys once every thi:ee years 

or, at best, every other year. That is a function of time and money, 

and, certainly, the shorter the timeframe sequence, the better the 

data. 

Mr. SAXTON. There may be some ways to subsidize that data collection process. I understand that maybe we can get into that. Mr. SCHMITTEN. I would be very interested in hearing about 

those ways. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Studds. Mr. STUDDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
13 

Mr. Schmitten, Mr. Brancaleone, I don't want you to take personally what I am going to say. I want to express some personal frustration. 

When we first wrote this law, the initial version was two pages 

long; and we thought about it, and eventually ended up with how 

many dozens of pages now? We created the creatures known as the 

Councils. We were aware at the time that that was an unusual 

thing to do, because put as members on those Councils were people 

affected by the decisions that would be made-that is, representatives of the industry themselves. 

We couldn't have done that today probably, because it is a direct 

conflict of interest in many cases, and God knows what headlines 

would come up the next day. We did it then because we thought 

nobody in Washington knew how to run a fishery, and the expertise and wisdom lay around the country in the regions and in the 

fisheries themselves. 

As the gentleman from Alaska mumbled under his breath, that 

is probably still true. 

However, it wasn't working; at least it is not in New England. 

We have a disaster on our hands in New England. Something is 

wrong. I don't know for sure whether it is in the wording of the 

statute or that creature called the "Council" or what it is. 

People say-I think, Mr. Brancaleone, you said it is difficult to 

be in a position where the decisions you make can bankrupt people. One of the things we do that will bankrupt virtually every fisherman in New England is to do nothing. We can do that. If we were 

to do nothing, very soon there would simply be no fish left and, 

therefore, no fishermen left. It is almost as simple as that. That is 

an option. I don't think anybody thinks that is a particularly desirable option. 

I think it is probably safe to say that any option we have at this 

point-putting aside for the moment how we got here-involves 

pain for fishermen and their families, whether it is the do-nothing 

option and let nature take its course or deliberate actions. But I 

don't sense in anybody's testimony a sense of this emergency. Mr. Brancaleone, you have a job even worse than the job Mr. 

Young and I have. I don't envy you that job at all. I also realize 

you are speaking for all eight Councils and not speaking particularly with your New England hat on here. I have a hunch it is not 

fair to put in your mouth these words, but you might have a little 

stronger language you would use if you addressed yourself only to 

the situation in New England. But clearly, unarguably, with respect to New England at least, 

this has led in 20 years to a situation that is at least as bad as 

where we started. I think New England was the only region that 

began with a crisis when the Act first was written. We were in crisis there in the 1970's. 

We are back in crisis. Whatever it is that we did has not kept 

us from that point. The Council has been unable, for whatever reason or reasons, to come up with a plan that has worked for the 

groundfish. The Secretaries of Commerce have, for whatever reason 

or reasons, been unwilling or unable to come up with emergency 

plans, given the inability of Councils to act, and here we are with 

Georges Bank effectively closed. I assume the fleets concentrating 
14 

on the Bank will eventually be forced to come inshore and threaten 

the inshore vessels and bring the crisis to them if nothing happens 

for them out on the Bank. 

With all the danger of oversimplifying a situation, I believe I am 

correct in saying that we have too many boats with too sophisticated technology going after too few fish. Is that a fair statement? 

Mr. BRANCALEONE. Yes, it is. 

Mr. STUDDS. Is it therefore a fair next inference to say that 

whatever the answer might be, in the future, if we can find a way 

to restore these stocks, we cannot ever again allow that many vessels with that much technology to go after them? Is that a fair 

statement? 

Mr. BRANCALEONE. Yes, it is. 

Mr. STUDDS. How do we get from here to there? How do we get 

the vessels that ought not to be fishing at all out of the fishery and 

allow those who ought to be fishing to somehow sustain themselves 

for whatever years it will take for nature to replenish it and then 

to wisely manage these resources into the future? That is really the 

nub of the question at the moment, certainly for New England, but 

I have a hunch and a sad feeling that before long it will be a question in other regions of the country. 

But I don't hear in anybody's testimony, A.-a sense of that urgency; and B.-any bold new thinking about where we go. I don't 

think that tinkering with the law at this point will restore the fish 

on Georges Bank. Certainly it isn't going to give us the courage to 

make difficult decisions if we didn't have it before. I don't like the 

idea with the Congress sitting here, if you think it is hard for you, 

but I suspect you don't want us making these decisions. 

That is why-for right or wrong-we wrote the Act the way we 

did. I don't want the Congress, I don't think Mr. Young or anybody 

else wants the Congress, making detailed fisheries management 

decisions. We are simply not competent to do that. But somebody 

has to do it. 

Nobody, to date, has done it-again, without pointing fingers as 

to why the Councils have not done it-and succeeding Secretaries 

of Commerce of both parties have somehow been unwilling or unable to do it. 

How do we grapple with the problem? I don't see anything in 

anyone's testimony. It is a frustration, but it is a challenge. How 

do we do that? How do we think big enough to do that? 

The only reason we have lobsters left in New England is we 

mandate by the law the most inefficient method of catching them. 

You can only use a pot. You can't go out with high-tech equipment; 

they would have been extinct decades ago if you could have done 

that. Maybe we should be going back to the dory, maybe we should 

look at hook and line again. I don't know. If high tech had been 

allowed in lobster fisheries, we would have no lobsters left. 

What do we do? 

My time has expired. 

Mr. SAXTON. The gentleman's time has expired; however, this is 

the crux of the matter we are here to deal with, and I would ask 

unanimous consent from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 

that we reset the clock for another five minutes to give each witness an opportunity to respond to this very important question. 
15 

Mr. YOUNG. Reserving the right to object, it shouldn't take five 

minutes to answer that question. 

Mr. STUDDS. And really it shouldn't have taken five minutes to 

ask it. Mr. SCHMITTEN. Mr. Chairman, I will start. As to urgency, I said 

in my statement and I add this as a footnote from myself: No more 

New Englands. 

I think the way you get there is threefold. First, we must address 

overfishing. We must apply limited effort. It doesn't need to be 

ITQs, but limited effort, and seven of eight Councils are looking at 

limited-effort programs. Second, we need aggressive management. 

You simply have not had that either from my agency or from the 

Councils in many parts of the country. Third, you need to begin to 

recover the stocks while the other two goals are being pursued, I 

happen to support quotas because it is one way to protect the fish 

while other things are occurring. 

You asked how to grapple with the problems. I think in New 

England, currently, the Council has under consideration the one 

thing it can do and that is widespread closure to look at the shortterm urgency; but I think you need to ultimately look at long-term 

and what you do there. You can allow the marketplace to sort out what occurs and that 

leads to disaster. You could attempt to look at a buyout or buyback. 

That is a very costly system. It is something I happen to think that 

has incentive, and I would like to work with the industry in coming 

up with ideas for this Committee. But that is the recipe that I see 

in the short, one-minute answer. Mr. BRANCALEONE. Frankly, I don't know if I have an answer. 

The worst part about coming here is following Mr. Studds. 

First of all, I am not going to apologize for what has happened 

in the past. I can only tell you where we are headed now. I can 

tell you where the New England Council is headed. 

The New England Council has voted, and they have set their 

minds that they are going to do something for the resource. The 

people that come before us now are crying, screaming, you can't do 

this, you can't do that; and we are going ahead and doing it anyway. The people in my community, the people out of Gloucester, 

don't want anything to do with me anymore. If I come up for reappointment, they are going to be knocking on your doors-they 

are commercial people-don't appoint him. 

I face recreational fishermen who look at me and say, you are for 

the commercial industry. 

How do we deal with it? Ten years ago I was opposed to any form 

of moratorium or limited entry. I am convinced now that that is the 

only way. 

I was opposed to buyouts. The reason I was opposed is because 

my father was a fisherman, and his father before him fished; and 

I wanted my opportunity to fish , and I wanted my children to have 

the opportunity to fish. I don't see that happening. The future is 

gone. 

The only way-my personal feeling-is, there will have to be substantial downsizing. The number of boats will have to be reduced 

in number to one-third eventually, if we do our job. That is my 

opinion. 
16 

But that is the only way I can answer your question, Mr. Studds. 

The Council, the present Council, is presently on a road that is 

going to dismantle the industry up and down the coast. But I don't 

think that taking those people off the Council who are knowledgable in the industry is the right way to go. 

I have sat there at meetings and argued with Allen Peterson, 

who in any meeting-he did it in front of our Council, he did it 

with Mr. Schmitten-had those people in tears at the state of the 

stocks. I showed them what would happen if you put into place a 

500-pound trip limit and still millions of pounds of haddock would 

be going overboard. We are doing something to alleviate that. 

The answer is not to take the knowledgable people off the Council. We need the Allen Petersons; we need the Service; we need people with biological backgrounds to tell the Council what is happening, and we will tell them how the fishery works. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. 

Mr. Magnuson. 

Mr. MAGNUSON. I also share that critical aspect of this issue and 

was pleased to hear it coming from the head of the room here. 

Clearly, the way the system works is bound to failure. What we 

have is a fuzzy definition of what an acceptable catch is to maintain a fishery into the long-term. We have built into that the possibility that short-term economic goals like paying for a boat next semester-! come from a university, we have those problems, too--

paying for a boat in the next year is more important than sustaining the fishery over 10 years; so short-term economics with an 

overcapitalized fishery continuously bite in personal ways into rebuffing conservation measures. 

Then the catches are increased. They are increased and increased and increased, marginally, and the fishery collapses. It 

happens over and over again in common property resources where 

the amount of capital investment and the rules are not tight 

enough, but have fuzzy data sets to do this. It is clearly a situation 

that needs improving. 

I don't think that the National Research Council, in its recommendations that are in that black book, tinkered a little with 

the Act; I think we have addressed some of the major considerations. The people that were involved in making these recommendations were involved in the industry; some of them were 

involved in helping write the Magnuson Act in 1976, and they were 

people that argued for a long time to come up with these kind of 

things. These were not hastily thought out and not minor 

tinkerings. 

It is clear that we need to go back to a biological definition of 

what a sustainable yield is, and we need to prevent short-term economic issues from erasing future opportunities to grow. 

It is also very clear that we need to--as hard as it is-to control 

entry and prevent wasteful capitalization. We talk about the New 

England area where the fisheries have collapsed, but even if you 

go to Alaska, because of the same issues, some of the fishery seasons are so short, such as in halibut, it is the same problem, overcapitalization. The existing gear and people can take the whole 

catch in a week. 
17 

This isn't a good way to manage. It is around the border on all 

the other sites. 

We felt that on the institutional structure embodied in the Act 

that there were needs for improvement. The Management Councils 

were a good idea. We do want the people that are involved in these 

fisheries to be involved in making the decisions. That was a very 

creative thing in the Act. Nobody wants to get rid of it, but you 

need to protect people from themselves. You need to provide 

recusal or prevent people from voting on things of direct benefit to 

them economically. You have to provide that protection. It is unfair 

to put them in that position. 

In addition, we didn't have additional oversight. We didn't have 

a mechanism built up for conflict resolution, and occasionally the 

NRC is called in to help out in conflict resolution on some of the 

severe ones. 

I will end there for now. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Young. 

Mr. YoUNG. Whoever is running that light, it was five minutes 

total time not five minutes for each one. 

Two things: One is that I appreciate all your testimony. I will go 

into some other questions. 

One question that rang a bell there-and I heard it from John 

and from Rolland-about habitat; I have been caught in that trap 

before. What is your definition of habitat? 

We have to recognize that habitat is not the problem; overfishing 

is the problem. So tell me how you suggest that habitat plays a role 

and what would be the definition? I see some people in the audience salivating now, legal people for certain groups. 

What is habitat? 

Mr. SCHMITTEN. Mr. Chairman, we support the definition of essential fish habitat--

Mr. YOUNG. What is habitat? Don't give me the runaround. What 

is your definition of habitat? 

Mr. SCHMITTEN. Those areas necessary for fish to survive 

through all cycles of their life. That would be, in Alaska, in the 

spawning beds, on the high seas, that could be considered habitat. 

I am thinking specifically of salmon. 

Mr. YOUNG. Salmon is not under the jurisdiction of the Magnuson Act. Let's be very careful about that. That is why I want you 

people in the audience and you people-you are not going to have 

the term "habitat," Rollie, if that is what you define. If it is under 

the Magnuson Act, we are talking about bottom fishery, halibut, 

pollock and the rest of the fisheries. 

What is your definition of habitat out in those areas? How do you 

defend it? Where have we destroyed the habitat for our fisheries? 

Mr. SCHMITTEN. Mr. Chairman, in the Northwest, for instance, 

we have destroyed the habitat with the introduction of barriers and 

hydrosystems. 

Mr. YouNG. You are talking about migratory fishing; you are not 

talking about bottom fisheries. 

Where have we destroyed the habitat in the bottom fisheries? 

Mr. SCHMITTEN. You recall in the north, we have the FMP for 

salmon. 
18 

Mr. YOUNG. Let's get away from salmon. 

I am asking for an answer here. Mr. SCHMI'ITEN. In bottom fishing, I will cite one I am familiar 

with. We have spoiled some of the beds by dumping carcasses overboard; it is a practice we have since stopped, but we soured some 

of the fishing grounds with the carcasses that were caught on the 

high seas and dumped out. 

Mr. YOUNG. We are in agreement about that, but I want to suggest to you, before you make that statement, you give me documentation where we have done that. I see what will happen down 

the line about taking care of the habitat. What have we done 

wrong? I am talking about the Northwest. 

You may have done something in the East, where you dump the 

garbage from New York-I don't know; but I am suggesting before 

you use that term, don't let us get caught in that trap about "habitat." I can just see people filing suit against every fisherman because the motor is too noisy and it is destroying the habitat. 

Second, Rollie, again, the ITQs. You are promoting this, but I 

don't support it for two reasons. One, it is a financial gain by those 

who receive it as such and have the ability to dispose of those for 

financial gain. Are you in support of that or how would you suggest 

that work? 

Mr. SCHMI'ITEN. Mr. Chairman, I have been very careful not to 

promote ITQs. I promote limited effort. 

Mr. YOUNG. That is an ITQ. 

Mr. SCHMITTEN. That is just one of the management tools for a 

limited effort, yes. I have been careful not to do that. I think the 

previous administration was very aggressive about ITQs in certain 

parts of the country where there are some independent fishermen 

and independent thinking; anything that government wanted, they 

shied away from. I think-and you have heard a consensus from 

this panel-to control effort. I look at the broader picture, not just 

ITQs. If the fishing community wants ITQs, we should provide the 

service. We should do the economic and social work for the Councils, but we should not gripe. That is my position. 

Mr. YOUNG. I happen to agree with you, Joe; I think the Councils 

are correct. They can work. We give them the tools to work, and 

they can achieve the goals of the Magnuson Act. One of the biggest concerns I have-all of you said something 

about conflict of interest-! happen to believe the best people to be 

on the Councils are those that understand the issues. And we have 

written into this bill, I believe, a sound proposal that will eliminate 

conflict; but what I don't want, very frankly-in all due respect, 

Joe,-is a bunch of college professors on the Council excluded because they don't have an understanding of every element of this 

Magnuson Act that was created. 

You have to keep in mind, when we passed this Act, it was because of the foreign intrusion onto our waters. If you think you see 

problems now, there were worse problems then. We have the opportunity now to solve those problems, and when 

you write this bill, our difficulty-with Mr. Studds and myself-is, 

frankly, you have problems in New England. We could have problems in Alaska. But I want to give the Council the strength to 

make sure those problems do not occur. 
19 

I will not sit here and allow this Congress or an agency to manage the fish, because I think we would lose sight of where we are 

going. I happen to believe this Congress does not have access to all 

the brains in the world. I don't believe the agencies do either. What we have to do is make sure, when we write this Act, Mr. 

Chairman, that we stop the bycatch as much as possible; and we 

must try to lower the pressure. That is one of the biggest problems 

we have, even in Alaska, of catching so many fish in such a short 

period of time and actually not looking at the long-term results. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SAXTON. I thank the gentleman from Alaska. 

The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Gilchrest. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to ask each of you to quickly respond. I have a couple of questions, the first deals with overfishing. 

Pretty much-in the State of Maryland, not the coastal fisheries 

but the State and Chesapeake Bay-the Department of Natural 

Resource scientists pretty much set what they feel for a variety of 

species-especially rock fish and striped bass-what is the maximum sustainable yield. What is MSY for that particular fish? Then 

they talked amongst the watermen and recreational watermen and 

so on, what their allocation will be. But the science of it is the 

ground upon which this species is protected. 

If you could-my question is-how can we ensure that there is 

some threshold for MSY upon which each of the Councils will then 

deal and, for example-! wi.~·· I had a chalkboard; I wasn't the 

school teacher Mr. Studds was referring to earlier, but I was a historian in my better former life. Imagine on this chalkboard you 

have NMFS gathering the data, you have the scientific statistical 

committee interpreting the data, then an advisory panel that has 

input into the data, and then the SSC and AP giving this information to the Council. 

Now, as it stands, and in this bill as I understand it, the Council 

interprets the scientific data with the socioeconomic conditions of 

the community, and then they create a management plan whichand I don't want to pick on New England, but to a certain extent 

New England, even the Gulf and other Councils-they have taken 

into consideration more of the economic, short-term economic conditions as opposed to the long-term sustainable yield. 

In this framework could we say in your opinion that the scientific 

statistical committee interpreting NMFS recommendations will 

then give the MSY to the Council, and the Council will take that 

information-they can't go above the threshold, but they will have 

the ability to deal with the problem of a species in that particular 

fishery? 

I know this isn't the only problem, you have got overcapitalization and all the rest, but it seems to me if we start off with this 

fundamental position, a lot of the other things could fall into place. 

Could each of you respond to that? 

Mr. MAGNUSON. I will start on this end. I have a very short response to that. I thinl: that is very consistent with recommendations that you would see in the National Research Council's report. 

Recommendation one-let me read it quickly-fishery managers 

should promote the full realization of optimum yield as envisaged 
20 

by the Magnuson Act, not as played out, by ensuring that harvest 

does not reduce stock abundance below levels that can sustain 

maximum yields over the long-term. 

In H.R. 39 that is beginning to appear and you have a statement 

about a rebuilding plan for ones that are below. That is essential. 

And that we should--

Mr. GILCHREST. What I am saying is that-I know there is a 

great deal of latitude into whatever exact science is, and I understand we make mistakes. I would rather err on the side of the 

stock than err on the side of decimation of the stock. In your opinion, would it be workable for that recommendation 

from NMFS to the scientific statistical committee to say, OK, Council, here is the maximum sustainable yield, this is what you have 

to work with for the next year or whatever, make your allocations 

accordingly, instead of going above the threshold which sometimes 

is often the case? 

Mr. MAGNUSON. It is a hard bullet to bite. It is the one you will 

have to bite to make this work. 

Mr. BRANCALEONE. I guess we pretty much work that way now. 

We are not held to a finite number. Yes, it would be a good thing 

if that finite number is reached under the proper science. 

I mentioned earlier, we are still waiting to hear the data from 

this past year and the year before. We put in measures that right 

now the industry is saying, there are more fish out there than 

what the scientists are saying to us. You can't take into account 

what you did by shutting down a fishery in the Gulf of Maine; you 

can't tell us what you know about the effects of shutting down 

Georges Bank for the past six months. If the information is there 

and it is timely-personally, I am speaking-yes, I think that is 

the way to go. Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Schmitten. 

Mr. SCHMITTEN. I fervently believe that to help fishermen, which 

we all want to do, you have to help the fish first. In many cases, 

the Western Pacific Council, and the Pacific Council, and the North 

Pacific Council have used the SSC report as the ceiling. In fact, the 

North Pacific Council on two different occasions have gone under 

what was recommended by the scientists. 

Would I support that? You bet I would. That is part of the definition, I think. All the bills-the Administration's, H.R. 39 and S. 

39--establish MSY as a goalo, and make it sacred. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SAXTON. Before I call on Mr. Farr let me just state that it 

is the intention of the Chair in the future to call on Members according to the following plan: 

Members who are here at the time the committee begins the 

hearing will be called on in order of seniority. Following that, Members who appear will be called on in the order in which they appear. In other words, we will-once we make the first round, we 

will call on Members in the order of their appearance; and I think 

that is the fairest we can do. 

In this case, since I had not announced that before, I will yield 

to the gentleman from California, Mr. Farr. 
21 

Mr. FARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the moment 

to make an observation and ask a question. 

Right now, on the Floor, we are debating a moratorium on regulations. I can't think of an industry that deals more with how we 

manage the resource than this industry. We manage it by regulation rather than by statute. I am just wondering if there are regulations that are pending or regulations that are on the books that 

need to be revised, that would be affected if we slammed the door 

on them and said there would be no more regulations adopted pursuant to the bill being debated right now. 

Mr. BRANCALEONE. We have-you can help me on this-we have 

an emergency action which is in place now and, we have just requested an extension of another 90 days, and it has been approved 

by the Service. I am not sure if this happens that that would do 

away with that. We are also right now writing Amendment No. 7 

to the New England groundfish plan. If that were the case, I would 

assume it would jeopardize that amendment. 

Mr. FARR. Would that hurt the industry or hurt the biomass? 

Mr. BRANCALEONE. It would hurt-well, you save the fish, you do 

something for the industry. It would hurt the biomass as well as 

the industry. 

Mr. FARR. You wouldn't be supportive of us adopting those regulations if that is what it is going to do? 

Mr. BRANCALEONE. That is right. I wouldn't, no. We would not 

be supportive of that. 

Mr. F ARR. Thank you. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. 

Mr. Torkildsen. 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, I would like to ask unanimous consent to submit a statement at the beginning of today's hearing. 

Mr. SAXTON. Without objection. 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. For the witnesses, thank you for your testimony. 

Thank you, Mr. Brancaleone, for coming down and bearing the 

brunt of criticisms on the Councils. You do represent the New England area, and clearly, as everyone knows, New England has taken 

the brunt of whatever people want to attribute for the disaster up 

there, but it is nothing short of a disaster that is happening right 

now. 

A few specific questions for Mr. Schmitten. Did I understand you 

to say that one way that habitat was destroyed was the spoiling 

of beds by throwing carcasses overboard? 

Mr. SCHMITTEN. Yes, I was aware of instances on the West Coast 

where that occurred. They call it "souring the beds." That has been 

corrected since that time, but that was an example I provided to 

Chairman Young. 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. What do you define as "carcasses"; is that any 

dead fish or what? 

Mr. SCHMITTEN. No, these were fish that had been filleted, so it 

was head, backbone, tail, and thrown over in large masses. 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. So throwing over dead fish you would not see 

as spoiling a bed? 

Mr. ScHMITTEN. It could easily qualify as spoiling a bed. 
22 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. My concern there directly, in New England now 

we have a requirement, I believe, from NMFS that any boat that 

catches more than 500 pounds of haddock throw over any catch in 

excess of that. Those fish are almost always dead. 

If indeed throwing over dead fish is spoiling beds, why do we 

have a regulation in place that requires fishermen to spoil beds we 

are all trying to replenish? 

Mr. SCHMITTEN. It is an age-old regulation that we have tried to 

replace. We have promulgated that and--

Mr. SAXTON. May I interrupt before the Members leave? This is 

a 15-minute vote. Normally, we would be back in 15 minutes to resume. However, we are going to extend this 15-minute vote for an 

additional 15 or 20 minutes to allow everyone to get some lunch, 

so we will reconvene at approximately 12:35 or thereabouts. 

We may finish with Mr. Torkildsen's questions at this point. 

Mr. SCHMITTEN. What the Councils face is whether to close, a 

fishery, completely shutting people out of any opportunity to catch, 

or whether to try and find an equilibrium to allow an incidental 

bycatch level without going beyond what would harm the stocks. It 

is a very delicate balance; it requires as much scientific input as 

the Councils can receive, and each and every Council faces this. We 

operate a bycatch system on the West Coast, too. 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. To me, that is just one problem; our regulations 

are not coordinated with other regulations or laws, and I do think 

it needs to be straightened out. I want to get a few points in during 

the rest of the five minutes that I have. 

The overall point my colleague from Massachusetts made, the option of doing nothing is always an option. Usually, it is a bad one; 

certainly it is in this case, too. Simply closing Georges Bank and 

doing nothing else is also an equally bad option. 

While you could starve out some fishermen, it would be the least 

efficient fisherman who could not afford to wait out for whenever 

that reopening will be. As soon as you reopen the Bank, whether 

it is one, two, three years or whatever the plan, you would still 

have the most efficient fishing boats there to go back and cause the 

same damage again. So doing nothing is not an option. 

Simply closing the Bank without anything else is not an option 

either, but I would like to ask, when are we going to see some longterm plan? I have asked this question before, Mr. Schmitten, but 

for the record, when are we going to see some type of long-term 

plan so the inefficient industry will know what timeframe they are 

talking about? How many years will they have to go through what 

are very painful steps-and I don't see any way around that-but 

how long do they have to go through that so they can plan their 

lives. Will be a number of years? 

The closing of Georges Bank is done on 90-day cycles now. Is 

that going to be long range in Amendment 7 when it is approved? 

Can you address that question a little bit more, please? 

Mr. BRANCALEONE. The groundfish committee is wrestling with 

that now, Amendment 7, and we will be setting the fishing mortality rate; and from there, we will determine exactly what fishing 

will be allowed to take place. 

How long is it going to take? I have heard numbers from five to 

ten, twelve years. I don't know whether that is exactly what is 
23 

going to happen, but again, we still don't know what the actions 

that we have already taken under the emergency action have done 

or contributed to bringing the stocks back. 

Personally, as a fisherman, I believe they are doing more than 

the Service is saying they are doing, but hopefully within eight 

months to a year, I would say, Amendment 7 will be finalized. We 

are looking for the amendment as soon as possible but six to eight 

months, possibly a year at the most. 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. OK. 

Mr. Chairman, because of the yellow light, I would ask unanimous consent to submit further questions for the record and have 

the witnesses respond. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. 

[The information may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. After conferring with the Ranking Member, we will 

reconvene at 12:45, thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. SAXTON. If our witnesses will resume their position. The 

Chair at this time yields to Mr. Gilchrest for a second round of 

questions, and as the others return, we will recognize them. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, all of the Republican Members 

have yielded me their time, so I have about 25 minutes. 

Mr. SAXTON. Good luck. 

Mr. GILCHREST. I would like to go back, because I was somewhat 

confused by the question of the Chairman of the full committee 

when he asked about habitat protection. So I would like to address 

the question of specifically what is habitat and what fish that happen to be spawned in tidal estuaries, marshes, riverine environments or whatever come under the jurisdiction of the Magnuson 

Act; and is putting habitat protection to a degree on the backs of 

the Councils, which is something that Mr. Saxton asked, too much 

for the Councils to be expected to handle? 

Whoever wants to respond. 

Mr. SCHMITTEN. I will go ahead and start. First of all, the example that I should have used, probably the best example that comes 

to mind, is the relationship of shrimp to the estuarine environment. At one time this was our largest fishery in the Nation. It 

now vacillates between first and second with the North Pacific fishery. It is absolutely dependent upon good estuary conditions, and 

that is a good example of the need for protecting the habitat. 

How do we help the Councils? Each Council should have a habitat committee; I think most do at this point. I believe the National 

Marine Fisheries Service should be responsible for helping staff 

those committees. These Councils do not have the money to do the 

full job. We have done that on various Councils and we are prepared to assist if the habitat amendment passes. I will stop with 

that. 

Mr. MAGNUSON. Well, I think the shrimp example is an excellent 

one. As you know, also, many of the species that occur along the 

Atlantic seaboard use the estuaries, and the estuaries also are affected by many other users. Part of the problem here comes as individual activities occur in these habitats. The fishery interests probably don't have enough say in the way the decisions are voiced, and 
24 

there are many different organizations of government involved in 

habitat involvement. 

I think part of the issue is, how do you get the fisheries, the 

habitat protection for fisheries, to be a more significant part of the 

decisionmaking when all of these habitat decisions are made? 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you. Mr.-I will say Mr. Joe. 

Mr. BRANCALEONE. I really don't have anything to add, Mr. 

Gilchrest, except that again it would just tie our hands even more. 

With our staff, I have people working six, seven days, twelve, thirteen, fourteen hours, just in writing the plans. And we would be 

happy to do it if there were more money forthcoming, but until that 

time, it just ties our hands even further. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you. 

Is there ever a time when it is good policy to exceed maximum 

sustainable yield as far as a fishery management plan is concerned? 

Mr. BRANCALEONE. There has been some-yes, sir. 

Mr. MAGNUSON. I will start, but I think you would all like to 

comment. 

First of all, maximum sustainable yield, in the way it is calculated, is also probably an overestimate of what many fisheries 

can bear. In addition, maximum sustainable yield is a dynamic 

thing. It is not the kind of thing that we can set it and it is good 

for the next decade. It goes up and down and we need to have a 

dynamic response system. 

One can picture that there may be a few cases where you might 

wish to exceed maximum sustainable yield. The key here, though, 

is to make that much harder than it has been in the past. 

Mr. SCHMITTEN. I couldn't improve on that. 

Mr. GILCHREST. The gentleman from New England? 

Mr. BRANCALEONE. There is nothing I could add to it. He has hit 

it right on the head. 

Mr. GILCHREST. The last question is somewhat vague and philosophical and we are never going to pinpoint it, I suppose, but I will 

ask anyway; and it is, not one of those things that is in any way 

an exact science, but it gives us some sense of the fishery as far 

as long-term planning is concerned, that is, where does ecological 

integrity or biodiversity enter into the picture of fishery management planning? As far as species interrelationships are concerned, 

is there some sense of, well, we have this living planet here, we 

have living organisms, they interact with each other, they have 

evolved over millions of years, and there is a certain balance that, 

granted, fluctuates periodically, but is there some sense of that 

when we talk about fishery management planning? 

Mr. Magnuson. 

Mr. MAGNUSON. I think the easiest way for us to answer that in 

the context of the Magnuson Act is to look to the sections dealing 

with how to implement or how to move toward an ecosystem approach. An ecosystem approach is a fairly simple kind of idea 

where you put into the system tho.t you are trying to manage the 

components that really belong in it. And the way that we have 

done this in the past is, many of the components that are important to fishery management are left out, and so one has to look 

carefully. 
25 

If one goes the other way and says, every fish management plan 

should include everything, this becomes unmanageable. And so it 

becomes a matter of specification and how detailed you can specify 

this problem so that you can solve the one you are dealing with 

without complexing it past the point of being able to do something. 

Certainly diversity, ecosystem integrity are all words that have 

meaning to certain parts of individual fish management plans; 

from a pragmatic point of view, it is probably easier to make a very 

strong and flexible ecosystem approach to fisheries management 

that pulls in the pieces you need for a specific fisheries. 

Mr. SAXTON. The gentleman's time has expired. 

The gentleman from Washington, Mr. Metcalf. 

Mr. METCALF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question isn't 

vague and philosophical. 

Congressman Studds did in my estimation a magnificent job of 

framing the problem for discussion today, earlier in this hearing. Everyone agrees we are dangerously overcapitalized in the North 

Pacific, and I am deeply, deeply concerned about this. Our civilization now has the technology to totally wipe out any resource on 

earth in a short time. And so my question is for my friend Rollie 

Schmitten, and it is not perhaps the easiest question, but-and I 

am asking in your professional opinion-are we on track now to 

prevent in the North Pacific what Congressman Studds so clearly 

described off New England? 

Mr. SCHMITTEN. With the best scientific data that we have, we 

are on track to sustain the fishery as it is. Now, that is not taking 

into account unexpected turns in environmental conditions or fluctuations of the stocks which we often see. The North Pacific has 

been very conservative in their management, and they are the one 

Council that I cited as an example that twice has said they want 

to fish below the MSY level, even though our scientists say that 

they can fish at such a level. The concern has been that runaway 

technology, the ability to harvest; and frankly, until recent times, 

no limit on effort, haas not capped this growth. We have the ability 

in the North Pacific to take those fisheries in very short order if 

we don't have tight constraints on setting of quotas. 

Mr. METCALF. Have the government-backed loans on gear and so 

forth, has this added to the problem? 

Mr. SCHMITTEN. Yes, it certainly did in the near-term. In recent 

years, we have not allowed any government loans in overcapitalized fisheries. But initially, the fisheries guarantee program certainly contributed. If you think back to the Magnuson Act, that is 

exactly what we were intending-displace the foreigners with our 

own fleets, encourage them to come into these displaced fisheriesand I think that we should have put the constraints on before we 

opened up the fisheries. 

Mr. METCALF. OK I have another sort of a question. 

We are talking about IFQs or ITQs, and as I understand it, that 

ITQs means transferable. And I guess I would like to have your 

thinking on this. I have come kicking and screaming, dragged, believe me, to the conclusion that we have to go in this directionthat is my opinion-but I don't think that they should be transferable. I think that that is an asset granted by the government which 

becomes very, very valuable, and I don't think that they should be 
26 

transferable. I am going to get a lot of heat for saying that, obviously, but it is just my opinion. It is a gain that I think is beyond 

what you can reasonably expect. What is the thinking about IFQs now? You mentioned something 

about that earlier and I would like to have you expand on it. Because I really, as I say, didn't like this, but I think we are coming 

toward it, necessity. 

Mr. SCHMITTEN. Well, my personal goal is that we need to cap 

effort. Some of the preference should come from the fishing community through the Councils. There is a role for government, and that 

role is to be the referee, to make sure that it is as fair and equitable an allocation as it can be. For government, though, to impose 

its own will, to suggest that IFQs or ITQs is the best thing for a 

fishing community, I think, would be the first thing that will kill 

it. The misconception that we had earlier is certainly not something that I have supported. I do support ITQs if they come out of the Councils that we have 

had a chance to participate with. We have three programs in this 

Nation. We have a Clam, a Surf Clam ITQ program, a wreckfish 

program in the Southeast, and that which will be the test for this 

Nation, the major sablefish-halibut IFQ in Alaska, which has 

around 3,800 vessels involved in it. 

Mr. METCALF. OK, thank you. 

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Longley. 

Mr. LONGLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to pick up 

on Mr. Metcalfs questions and be more specific with reference to 

New England. 

Where does it stand now, where does the concept of ITQs stand 

with respect to problems in New England? 

Mr. BRANCALEONE. The Council has wrestled with ITQs for a 

long time. There are some members of the Council in New England 

that feel it is a good idea; there are some members who are not 

ready for it. It is not out of the question, but I can tell you, right 

at this point, it is not on the table. Mr. LONGLEY. Based on opposition from within the Council? 

Mr. BRANCALEONE. Council, industry, yes. Mr. LONGLEY. What, if any, initiatives or how does H.R. 39-does 

it have any language at all that deals with the problems of New 

England, or should it contain any language that deals with the 

problems of New England? And I want to just kind of preface my 

question by-from a lot of my conversations with fishermen, frankly, it has become clear to me that the perception that they have of 

what is happening with the fisheries Council is, it is total chaos, 

there is no agreement, there is no consensus, and they are sitting 

there worrying about their livelihood, worrying about the diminished resource and, frankly, are in a total quandary as to exactly 

what they should be doing with their lives or what they should be 

doing to try to deal with the problem. And I am just looking for 

a little more specificity or leadership from the Council; I am 

searching for it. Mr. BRANCALEONE. Well, you are hearing from the industry, and 

I will give you my point of view; I don't think there is chaos on the 

New England Council. 
27 

I was Chairman of the Groundfish Oversight Committee for two 

years. I attended two rounds of public hearings. And it is not easy 

to go to public hearings, and frankly, I did not realize there were 

that many fishermen in New England, because everyone came. And 

the first round on Amendment No. 5, we proposed a 50 percent reduction in effort; 50 percent of those vessels would be out of the 

fishery. Nobody in the industry wants to hear it, no one. 

Now, on Amendment No. 7, we are looking at as close to zero as 

practicable on Georges Bank, possibly in the Gulf of Maine. I don't 

know if I want to go to these public hearings because they again 

are not going to want to hear it. We are doing something for the 

resource that, in turn, will turn it around and there will be fishermen for the future. 

So if you talked to the industry, you have heard the same thing 

that I heard. It is not chaos; it is that we are about to dip into their 

pockets, we are about to put a lot of people out of business, and 

we know that. We are not looking forward to it, but we are intending to turn the stock around. I don't see that as chaos, I don't see 

that as chaos at all. 

Mr. LONGLEY. Well, let me ask you this. With respect to the reduction of effort, could you kind of give me a sense of the steps you 

are trying to take to achieve that? I am assuming it is more than 

a conceptual--

Mr. BRANCALEONE. Well, as a matter of fact, if this committee 

could do anything, it would benefit us. There are some of us on the 

Council who feel Amendment No. 5 is going to go a little further. 

We understand theMr. LONGLEY. Amendment 7? 

Mr. BRANCALEONE. Amendment 5, which is in place now. We 

have reduction of days at sea. We have shut down small mesh fisheries and a whole host of things. And the days at sea, we reduced 

boats in five years down to 88 days. Boats have already told us, 

we cannot live on 88 days. Yet we cannot get from the Service 

where we are at this present time. 

Granted, it is on a short-term, we are only about a year and 

some piece into it, but the fishermen are asking what have you 

done for us so far. We can't give them the answer. That is where 

the chaos is. 

Mr. LONGLEY. Now, does the $23 million request for data collection have anything to do with the days-at-sea requirement in New 

England? 

Mr. SCHMITTEN. It has spread through every geographic region. 

So there is a piece that would go to New England. And I couldn't 

identify for you at this point, but I will get back to you, how much 

of that goes to New England. 

[The information follows:] 

DATA COLLECTION AND DAYS-AT-SEA REQUIREMENT IN NEW ENGLAND 

Data collection is a separate issue from the days-at-sea provision in the fishery 

management plan. The FY 1996 budget proposes an increase of $22,684,000 for data 

collection activities to help meet our stewardship responsibilities for building sus- tainable fisheries and recovering protected species. Under our fisheries programs, as part of the data collection request, $14,764,000 will be used to improve assessments 

of fishery resources, with $4,464,000 of that amount targeted for New England. 

Under our recovering protected species programs, $7,920,000 of the data collection 

funds will be used to improve assessments of the status of protected species, with 
28 

$1,520,000 of that amount targeted for New England. Therefore, a total of 

$5,984,000 of the $22,684,000 for data collection is targeted for New England. 

Mr. LONGLEY. The reason for that question is, how effectively is 

the days-at-sea requirement being administered? 

Mr. BRANCALEONE. Well, again, this is another administration; 

this is before Mr. Schmitten. We were assured when we were writing Amendment No. 5 that the Service would have all the manpower and all the money to implement that program. We are still 

waiting. 

We required VTS, vessel tracking system, in both the groundfish 

plan and the scallop plan. We are still waiting for a VTS system. 

It is not there, there is no money. They are putting it together, we 

are told. 

Mr. LONGLEY. When you say ETS--

Mr. BRANCALEONE. VTS, vessel tracking system. And a year has 

gone by, over a year, and we still don't have a vessel tracking system not only in the groundfish fishery, but in the scallop fishery. 

Mr. LONGLEY. But yet the fishermen are still submitting all their 

reports and I am assuming the information is going into a black 

hole. 

Mr. BRANCALEONE. If anybody is into chaos, it is the Service; and 

it is no fault of this gentleman. It is the lack of personnel. People 

are being pulled off the wharf-the people that can interview fishermen-to try to put together the log books. Log books are coming 

in, the data is coming in; they don't have the manpower or the 

money to compile that, to get it back to the Council in quick 

enough fashion so we can move quickly on anything. 

Mr. LONGLEY. Is it any wonder that from the fishermen's point 

of view that there is chaos? 

Mr. BRANCALEONE. Again, I don't see that as chaos on the part 

of the Council. 

Mr. LONGLEY. Well, if I were asked to fill out a log book and 

found out that it was being submitted and not used, I would be 

pretty upset. 

Mr. BRANCALEONE. It is being used, but the compiling of the data 

is taking longer than everyone would like to see. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired. 

I would now like to recognize Walter Jones. If the name is familiar to those of you who have not met Walter yet, his father sat in 

the seat that I occupy here today for many years; and it is a pleasure to have him with us. The room was recently named after Walter's father, and so I yield to the gentleman. 

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And again I want to express my appreciation to you and others that were strong advocates 

of having this room named for my father. I very much appreciate 

it. He certainly did love the Congress and the people that served 

in the Congress. 

My question deals with these Councils-! don't know which of 

the two gentlemen would want to answer, maybe both. The State 

of North Carolina is a member of the South Atlantic Council, although the Mid-Atlantic management plan extends to Cape Hatteras, which is the midway point of the coastal area of North Carolina. Knowing that Florida is a member of two Councils, do you see 
29 

any problem in North Carolina being part of two different Councils? Do you see any problem at all? 

Mr. BRANCALEONE. My personal opinion? I don't see any problem. 

But I would also like it expanded so that Rhode Island would be 

on the Mid-Atlantic Council. 

Mr. JONES. Well, let me also, if I may, Rollie, then how many of 

these Councils have commercial fishermen? I know they are appointed by the State, but how many commercial fishermen serve on 

these Councils that come to mind? 

Mr. SCHMITTEN. It varies Council by Council, but every single 

Council has commercial fishermen serving on them. 

And I would like to return to your question, because I too support the concept of adding another member. I think we would want, 

with you, to look at whether the voting number shifts and even 

whether you should have two; are there other States, such as 

Rhode Island, we should consider? And look at it in its totality. 

Conceptually I support that. 

Mr. JONES. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. SAXTON. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina. And I 

thank the panelists for their indulgence today and for sticking with 

us while we took our short lunch break. 

The Members of the subcommittee may have some additional 

questions which we may request you to respond to in writing. The 

hearing record will be held open for these responses. 

[The information may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. It has also been indicated that some Members may 

have opening statements that they would like to have made part 

of the record, and I ask unanimous consent at this point that those 

statements be made part of the record at the beginning of the hearing record. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. 

And I will now introduce the next panel. The next panel consists 

of six individuals, many of whom are well-known to us. Rod Moore, 

who is very well-known to us, former minority staffer here with 

Mr. Young and is now the Executive Director of the West Coast 

Seafood Processors Association; also Nels Anderson, Jr., Executive 

Director of the Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation; 

third, Jeff Hendricks of Alaska Ocean Seafood; fourth, Nelson 

Beideman, a constituent of mine, who is Executive Director of the 

Blue Water Fishermen's Association, his home is in Barnegat 

Light, New Jersey, a commercial fishing community which, of 

course, is in my district; fifth, Chris Nelson, Vice President of the 

Bon Secour Fisheries, Inc., and Mark Sosin of the American 

Sportfishing Association. 

If you would all take your places and while you are getting arranged, let me remind the witnesses that under our committee 

rules, we must ask you to limit your statements to five minutes, 

but that your entire statement will appear in the record. Because 

we will be hearing from so many witnesses, once again I regret 

that we cannot be more generous with time. When the yellow light 

comes on, please begin to wrap up your testimony and conclude 

promptly when the red light appears. 

In addition, we will also allow the entire panel to testify before 

we question any of the witnesses. 

89-569 96-2 
30 

I now recognize the gentleman who is very well-known to us, Rod 

Moore, Executive Director of the West Coast Seafood Processors Association. Good to have you with us. Mr. MOORE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SAXTON. Again or still. 

STATEMENT OF ROD MOORE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WEST 

COAST SEAFOOD PROCESSORS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. MOORE. It is good to be able to refer to you as Mr. Chairman. 

Sort of good-news-bad-news kind of feeling here: It is good to be 

here , to be able to testify before the subcommittee; it is in a way 

sort of bad that I am not testifying before the committee that used 

to occupy this room for a number of years that most of the Members who are here today served on for so many years. 

West Coast Seafood Processors Association is relatively new as 

an association, although the members themselves have been 

around for a number of years. Our association represents the major 

shore-based processors of species caught in the Exclusive Economic 

Zone off the coast of Oregon, California and Washington. Our members own processing plants, restaurants, transportation facilities, a 

whole wide variety of fisheries interests. Some of them even have 

ownership in boats. What we are hoping is that-by being here today-we want to 

make you aware of the importance of the shore-based processing 

community to the fisheries of the United States and especially to 

the local communities of which they are a part. Our processors 

sometimes serve as the major employers in some of these communities. Westport, Washington, for example, in Mrs. Smith's district, one 

of our members is the biggest employer in that district. I was recently in Fort Bragg, California, visiting one of our members, and 

Fort Bragg has got a nice tourism industry, used to have a timber 

industry some years ago, but not lately; but all the motels were vacant, the tourist shops were closed, the only thing that was keeping 

that community open during the winter months were the three fish 

plants that were processing fish on shore. Without those, that 

whole community would be shut down. 

And so as I go through here and talk about things, and as we 

talk to the committee further on, we hope the committee recognizes 

that the shore-based processors are a vital part of what goes on in 

the economics of coastal communities and in the fisheries of the 

United States. 

Going to the legislation, generally speaking we support H.R. 39. 

We think it is a well-written bill. There are some technical and 

clarifying provisions that we would like to see made in there, which 

are discussed in the written testimony; I won't go into them here 

and get into that. 

Looking at some of the things that have been said by other witnesses, I do want to stop for a minute and talk about the conflict 

of interest issue. The Councils cannot operate properly unless fishermen, processors, everybody who is involved in the industry is allowed to serve on them. 
31 

I think Mr. Studds and Mr. Young mentioned it earlier, that 

when the Councils were created, it was recognized that bureaucrats 

in Washington, D.C., aren't going to be able to understand what is 

happening in the fisheries in the West Coast, the fisheries up in 

Alaska, the fisheries up off of New England. If you don't have involvement of fishermen and processors on those Councils, you are 

not going to get the information you need. 

And to whatever extent the committee decides to impose new restrictions involving conflict of interest, make sure that you don't 

hamper the commercial fishing industry from participating in the 

management decisions. We are not suggesting that anybody be allowed to vote their own 

pocketbook. But if you take away the ability of the commercial fishing industry to participate in the management decisions, you are 

not going to have a Council system and you might as well turn everything over to the Secretary of Commerce. 

In regard to some things that aren't in the bill, Mr. Metcalf, on 

behalf of at least one of your constituents up in Bellingham, although we don't like ITQs and wish they would go away, if there 

is a way to make them nontransferable, that would be just great 

and you would be appreciated by some of your constituents up 

there. The House bill is silent on the issue of ITQs. While we would like 

to not have any ITQs, quite frankly, we recognize that they are occurring. So what we are suggesting is that you adopt something 

along the lines of the Senate approach, which would be to impose 

a moratorium on new ITQ plans, develop some guidelines so that 

we make sure that the public interest is protected, the people are 

protected, and so forth, and then use those guidelines when developing new ITQ plans. 

We also have a couple of new provisions that we want to have 

the committee look at, and I will just touch on one of them very 

briefly. Mr. Saxton, you mentioned it earlier, the issue of what is 

happening with stock assessment on the West Coast. As Mr. Schmitten explained, stock assessment is sort of a haphazard kind 

of thing on the West Coast, and we hope that there will be an opportunity for some contracting out of local fishermen to do this, because we think that is going to lead to better data at less cost to 

the taxpayers. And we are willing to live with whatever that data 

shows, but we want better data out there so we know what we are 

dealing with. And, with that, my time is almost up; I will wrap up. Again, it 

is a pleasure to be here. Thank you. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Moore. [The stater.1ent of Mr. Moore may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Nels Anderson, Executive Director of the Bristol 

Bay Economic Development Corporation. 

STATEMENT OF NELS ANDERSON, JR., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

BRISTOL BAY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 

Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the committee. My name is Nels Anderson, I am the Executive Director of 

the Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation. I am here 

today to speak for the four CDQ corporations that comprise the 
32 

membership of the Western Alaska Fisheries Development Association. They represent 96 percent of the population of the CDQ-eligible region and have received 74 percent of the community development quota. 

I wish to begin my testimony by describing the situation in western Alaska and how it relates to the CDQ program. Fifty-six communities are eligible for CDQs. According to the 1990 Federal census, the combined population is very close to 25,000 people today. 

The official unemployment rate is over 50 percent, one of the highest levels in the Nation; in some villages, it is as much as 75 percent. The average annual income is less than $11,000 per annum. The number of people living below the poverty line is as high as 

40 percent in some regions. 

Subsistence puts food on the table from hunting and fishing. Local commercial fisheries provides some income, but there are few 

opportunities for economic growth, and alcoholism and other selfdestructive social behaviors are prominent, and social problems 

such as those are commonplace. The most ironic aspect of this tragic situation is that all of these problems occur in a region that is 

immediately adjacent to one of the world's richest fisheries, the 

Bering Sea. 

The Bering Sea is home to millions of metric tons of pollock, 

crab, Pacific cod and many other commercially valuable species. In 

most cases, our people have had no access to these resources because of the high capital investment required to participate in 

these fisheries. Even though the first CDQ fishery occurred in December, 1992, this program has developed a track record of being 

one of the most innovative and successful economic development 

programs created. At the end of 1993, the CDQ program accounted 

for 8 percent of the region's entire economy and 18 percent of the 

region's private-sector economy. Imagine that, almost one-fifth of 

the private economy in less than two years. 

By the end of 1993, the CDQ program had created 556 jobs. By 

the end of 1994, the total was 1,676. We wish to stress that this 

is a jobs opportunity program, not an entitlement program. This is 

not welfare; it is welfare reform. The benefits are only available to 

the communities and individuals who have the initiative to utilize 

this program to their best advantage. 

Another important aspect is that the idea for this program came 

from western Alaska, not from outside. Local people have a vested 

interest in seeing it succeed. One person who deserves much of the 

credit for CDQs is your colleague, Congressman Don Young of Alaska. He supported the idea for many years and worked with the 

Federal fisheries administrations to make CDQs a reality, and we 

truly appreciate this. 

And then also a brief reference we would like to make is to Harold Sparck, whom we in western Alaska recognize as a leader who 

also helped to make the CDQ program become a reality. Before we got into this program, and even now, there was some 

speculation that once we became participants in Bering Sea largevessel fisheries, we would lose our enthusiasm for conservation. If 

anything, our participation has only intensified our interest, because we now have a direct stake in the resource and because we 

believe we can make a difference. And I think we have. 
33 

We want to see this industry remain viable, not only for this generation of western Alaskans, but for the next generation and the 

one after that. We want to reduce bycatch to the lowest level possible, because our villages depend on those bycaught salmon for 

sustenance and income. 

The CDQ program has set a new standard for conservation in the 

North Pacific. We have demonstrated that a community development quota, when fished by a conscientious skipper and seafood 

company, can result in low bycatch, waste and discards. 

In order to provide the Federal managers with the most reliable 

data possible, all CDQ vessels carry two observers, report catches 

daily, and have fish holds that are equipped for mandatory volume 

metric measurements. The CDQ corporations pay the cost of these 

additional requirements. We don't mind, because we want to be 

part of the solution in making this a better fishery. We believe 

these standards should be met by all participants in the North Pacific fisheries. 

Mr. Chairman, at the current time, W AFDA is participating in 

an expensive lawsuit that challenges the existence of the CDQ program under the Magnuson Act. In December, the Federal District 

Court in Alaska ruled that CDQs are authorized by the Magnuson 

Act. However, the challenge is pending appeal. Because the intent 

in H.R. 39 is not readily apparent, we respectfully request that language be added to reinforce the point that the existing western 

Alaska CDQ program with the existing eligibility requirements is 

authorized. According to Congressman Don Young and Senator Ted 

Stevens, this is what Congress intended, and this language will 

clarify that this was always the congressional intent. 

Before I conclude, Mr. Chairman, if I may, H.R. 39 includes a 

new national standard for minimizing bycatch. We request that 

this standard be strengthened by saying "to the maximum extent 

practicable," rather than just "to the extent practicable." 

And in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to state very 

clearly that we believe that we can reduce bycatch, waste and discards. We can follow fishing practices that preserve this resource 

for future generations. We can utilize our fisheries in a manner 

that is in the best interests of the Nation. And we can do all this 

with an allocation of Federal fish, not with the appropriation of 

Federal dollars. 

Mr. Chairman, I again wish to thank you for the opportunity to 

testify. Thank you. 

Mr. SAXTON. Well, we thank you for your eloquent testimony. 

[The statement of Mr. Anderson may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. Before we get to our next panelist, I would like to 

yield to the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Metcalf, to introduce 

our next panelist. 

Mr. METCALF. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And it is 

my pleasure and honor to introduce today Jeff Hendricks, who is 

the General Manager of the Alaska Ocean Seafood Company of 

Anacortes, Washington. And just as an interesting thing, they operate the Alaska Ocean, 

which is the largest and one of the most modern factory trawlers 

in the United States. They operate basically in the Alaska groundfish industry, with a target species being the Alaska pollock. 
34 

It is a real pleasure to have you here today. Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Hendricks. 

STATEMENT OF JEFF HENDRICKS, ALASKA OCEAN SEAFOOD 

Mr. HENDRICKS. Thank you, Mr. Metcalf. And thank you, Mr. 

Chairman, and Members of the subcommittee. As Mr. Metcalf introduced me, I am Jeff Hendricks, General Manager of Alaska 

Ocean Seafood Limited Partnership. My family has participated in 

the North Pacific and Bering Sea fishery since 1924. I personally 

have been involved in these fisheries for some 25 years and began 

fishing groundfish in 1982 as owner and captain of joint-venture 

trawlers that delivered to foreign processor motherships. During the 1980's, we were a part of the Americanization of 

these fisheries with the construction of two stern trawlers that deliver their catch directly to shore-side processors in Dutch Harbor, 

Alaska. We also introduced the Alaska Ocean that Mr. Metcalf 

n1entioned, which is the largest and one of the most modern surimi 

factory trawlers in the U.S. fleet. This state-of-the-art vessel enjoys 

a strong reputation throughout the industry for its overall quality 

and emphasis on safety. As principal captain of the Alaska Ocean, 

I am particularly proud of her and I have included a recent photograph with my written testimony. 

We are keenly interested in the Magnuson Act and its implementation by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. The fundamental purpose of the Magnuson Act was to prevent overfishing, and thus conserve our fishing resource for future generations. I believe the Act has indeed prevented overfishing and promoted conservation in our groundfish fishery resources of Alaska. For that 

reason alone, the Magnuson Act should be reauthorized, and we 

applaud Chairman Young for the introduction of H.R. 39. While our written testimony contains detailed comments on the 

bill, I would like to focus on an important issue that the bill does 

not address. The Magnuson Act was written in the context of the 

tradition of open access, the idea that the fisheries are open to all 

comers. At that time, open access provided a strong invitation for 

Americanization of the fisheries, but now the fisheries are fully 

harvested and processed by Americans. On the opening day of the 

season, each and every vessel and processor enters into a highly 

competitive race to harvest as large a share as possible before the 

government gives its :24-hour notice of the season closure. Unfortunately, the consequences of open access are now overcapitalization 

and fisheries that are not viable because there are simply too many 

vessels and processors for the resources available. The seasons are 

now measured in terms of days rather than weeks or months. 

Among the untenable results of this race are those directly related to safety, discard, bycatch, inefficient resource utilization and 

economic instability. Put another way, open access in the context 

of an overcapitalized fishery is obviously the very antithesis of good 

fisheries management. It seems equally obvious that the North Pacific Council can fulfill 

its management responsibilities only by moving away from the 

open access system and implementing a system of individual transferable quotas, or ITQs. Briefly, an ITQ system is one in which individual participants in a fishery are allocated a specific percentage 
35 

of the total allowable catch. As a result, each vessel and processorowner is individually accountable for his catch and its utilization. 

Our reasons for believing the ITQ system is the best and really 

the only viable solution to the overcapitalization problem in the 

Bering Sea groundfish fishery are set out in detail in the written 

testimony. By way of summary here, I would like to emphasize 

that the North Pacific Council staff and other analysts have concluded that ITQs are the most effective way to address the problems of the race for fish, safety, bycatch, discards, utilization and 

economic instability. 

The North Pacific Council has begun consideration of ITQs, but 

it appears constrained, at least in part, by actual or perceived legal 

and political barriers to such a program. We therefore request that 

this committee approve legislation that would eliminate these barriers. 

One barrier that is of major importance to us are the criteria 

that should be used to determine initial allocations of quotas, that 

is, how can the Council avoid creating huge windfalls and losses 

when it implements the programs? We suggest that this is a problem that can be avoided by simple concept where a harvesting vessel in the fishery would receive a quota, the percentage of which 

is no less than 95 percent of its current percentage of the harvest. 

Likewise, allocations to each processing sector should be authorized 

and be no less than 95 percent of current levels. 

Other barriers which we request the committee address include 

unequivocal authorization of ITQs, authorization of processor sector 

quota shares, and clarification that ITQs are not a property right. 

We therefore respectfully request that this committee move to address the issues of safety, bycatch, discard, utilization and economic instability by implementing these changes, and finally, that 

these legislative changes include a requirement that the North Pacific Council implement an ITQ system for the Alaska groundfish 

fishery no later than two years from now. 

My partners and I very much appreciate your kind attention to 

our views. Thank you. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, Mr. Hendricks. 

[The statement of Mr. Hendricks may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. We are now going to hear from Nelson Beideman, 

who, as I mentioned earlier, is from Barnegat Light, New Jersey, 

a vibrant little fishing port in New Jersey. Nelson is the Executive 

Director of the Blue Water Fishermen's Association. 

Nelson and I first got to know each other a number of years ago 

when he became my support line, my lifeline to the fishing industry; and a lot of information that we have exchanged has been very 

helpful to both of us over the years. 

Nelson, we are anxious to hear from you. 

STATEMENT OF NELSON BEIDEMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

BLUE WATER FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATION 

Mr. BEIDEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the subcommittee, for asking me to speak. I am Nelson Beideman. I have 

been a fisherman since childhood and began fishing commercially 
36 

year-round after graduating from Maine Maritime Academy in 

1975. 

Blue Water represents commercial fishermen, vessel owners, fish 

dealers and supply companies involved with Atlantic highly migratory marine species. These family-run small businesses are proud 

to carry on the tradition of providing healthy seafood to other 

Americans who cannot or do not want to catch their own. 

On behalf of Blue Water's membership, I thank the Chairman 

and this subcommittee for delaying the scheduled markup of the 

Atlantic Tuna Convention Act. This allowed time for staff and industry to improve the bill by adding comparable enforcement provisions for all Atlantic harvesters and a sense of Congress to clarify 

congressional intent regarding our participation in ICCAT. 

Today I will confine my remarks to highly migratory species issues. My written testimony contains Blue Water's general comments on H.R. 39 and the Magnuson Act. Since National Marine 

Fisheries Service can choose either the Magnuson Act or the Atlantic Tuna Act to implement regulations for highly migratory species, 

you must also incorporate comparable enforcement provisions into 

the Magnuson Act to ensure fairness and equity for U.S. fishermen 

who harvest internationally shared resources. The 1994 ICCAT 

commission meeting proved that ICCAT can produce a winning 

turnaround for Atlantic bluefin tuna. ICCAT's progressive measures to ensure compliance with international bluefin recommendations bring hope to Atlantic fishermen who depend on these resources. We must ensure that similar provisions are established for 

all species under ICCAT's jurisdiction, not just bluefin tuna. 

In Madrid last year, fairness to American fishermen was separated from conservation of the Atlantic swordfish resource. In reality, these two issues cannot be separated. Congress must ensure 

that fairness in conservation guides our renegotiation of the swordfish recommendations at ICCAT in 1995. The United States must 

not condone ICCAT actions which reward noncompliance and punish those who have abided by conservation agreements. 

Strengthening the Magnuson Act is critical to the revised management program for highly migratory species that Congress initiated with the z.mendments of 1990. Congress did the right thing 

then and now must reaffirm its commitment to a balanced approach that requires a careful integration of domestic and international perspectives. 

National Marine Fisheries Service has made progress. However, 

many areas still need higher priority and focus. The proposed 

amendments in H.R. 39 will strengthen this important Act. National Marine Fisheries Service has resisted establishing a more 

formal public forum around the U.S. ICCAT advisory committee. 

We think the plan development teams will fulfill what many see 

as a missing ingredient to the current HFS public process. If properly implemented, plan development teams will allow conveniently 

located open debate among all interested parties. 

If Congress wants to effectively address their priorities in the 

Act, they must be funded. For example, in the proposed bill, there 

is a new national standard to minimize bycatch, yet in the President's budget proposal, there are decreasing dollars for gear engineering and bycatch research. 
37 

We appreciate congressional efforts to hold all nations that harvest international fish stocks accountable to a similar degree as 

American fishermen. We ask you to continue and strengthen that 

policy· for the sake of the resource, the benefit of the Nation and 

the American fishermen. 

I thank the Chairman and the subcommittee for the opportunity 

to testify. 

Mr. SAXTON. Well, we thank you for being here, Nelson. Your testimony is very articulate and we appreciate it very much. 

[The statement of Mr. Beideman may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. We turn now to Chris Nelson, Vice President of the 

Bon Secour Fisheries, Inc. 

Mr. NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is better that time. 

I appreciate it. 

STATEMENT OF CHRIS NELSON, VICE PRESIDENT, BON 

SECOUR FISHERIES, INC. 

Mr. NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to be here. I am Chris Nelson, Vice President at Bon Secour Fisheries. Back at Bon Secour, 

"vice president" means "little brother." I have got two older brothers and a dad in the business. I am fourth generation. We have 

been in the seafood business, the Nelson family has, for over a hundred years. We operate shrimp boats down there, as well as a 

shrimp and oyster packing plant. 

I have seen a number of different sides of these issues that we 

are dealing with. I have some academic training in fisheries, I have 

a Master's degree in oceanography. I also worked on the Hill for 

a year for Mr. Stevens, Senator Stevens, on the other side, as a sea 

grant fellow, and got to see some of the legislative perspective on 

a number of these things. So I appreciate the difficulty and the 

complexity of a number of these problems. 

I would like to thank particularly on this committee some of the 

members from our region-Mr. Tauzin, Mr. Ortiz are unfortunately 

not here-but I appreciate their efforts in the past and will continue to look forward to working with them on these issues. 

As I said, the problems that we are facing on a national basis 

and certainly in our region, in the Gulf, are very complex, and I 

don't have any easy answers for any of them, no quick fix. But one 

thing that I can present as a theme, that I hope we will all adhere 

to, and when I talk to the people in the National Marine Fisheries 

Service, what we need to do is fix-there is a lot of talk about rebuilding fish stocks, and that is certainly an important, important 

part of the Act. However, I would also like to focus on the people 

that we are managing. 

You know, Service always says we are really managing people, 

a lot of lip service to that. But I would like to focus on rebuilding 

the confidence of the people that we are managing in the process. 

And specific to our region, we have got the issue of bycatch and 

shrimp trawls. It is certainly a concern to all users of all the resources in the region; whether their perceptions of the issue are 

different from others, it is a concern to everyone. The 1990 Magnuson Act had some provisions to deal with that particular issue. 
38 

I would like to see continued regionalization of dealing with 

bycatch-rather than trying to deal with it on a national basis, the 

Councils be allowed to deal with it on a more regionally specific 

basis. I participated in the Gulf and South Atlantic Foundation 

Bycatch Steering Committee, and helped to design their research 

program in cooperation with the Fisheries Senrice. And I felt very 

good about that effort. A number of different interests came together and forged a plan to do research on characterizing the 

bycatch-what are we bringing up in the trawl? How much of it is 

there? And also we planned to do gear research. 

Now, currently it is my feeling, and a number of the other people 

in the industry feel that maybe the gear research is receiving a little too much focus and that we still don't know all we need to know 

about what is being caught, and particularly what are the impacts 

of what is being caught on the ecosystem. 

For instance, there is a concern in the commercial industry that 

red drum are taking a lot of the crab, blue crab resource, as well 

as the shrimp resource; and we would like to see some research 

from the Service on what are the effects of excluding some of these 

predators on the resources that we depend on, what are the atrophic level interactions. It is a big word, but what are some of these 

things that are going on? Dr. Joan Browder at Miami has done 

some research on that, but we don't see much emphasis on further 

research there. As far as the data goes, I would like to see, and everyone in the 

industry, I think-certainly in the Gulf-would like to see some 

fundamental changes in how data are gathered from the shrimp 

fishery. Currently, there is a lot of dependence on port agent interviews of captains. And unfortunately, with the TED issue being so 

hotly contested in the Gulf, there is-suffice it to say-a poor relationship between Federal Government employees and even State 

government employees and the fishermen. So a lot of those interviews are not happening. 

There has been a tremendous decline in the number of interviews, and I would like to see that addressed, possibly through a 

workshop or task force-type environment where a number of different ideas could be presented on dealing with the data, or lack 

of data. 

Second, I would like to see a process put in place for the Gulf 

of Mexico where fish stock assessment could be scientifically peer 

reviewed from outside the Service. 

There are a couple of other things I wanted to mention. The net 

ban situation in Florida is something that I feel like the Councils 

in the Gulf and the south Atlantic need to address, the impact that 

that is going to have on FMP species such as white shrimp and 

Spanish mackerel need to be addressed. 

Habitat concerns-another way we can build confidence in the 

fishermen that the process is working to their best interest is to 

see more involvement on habitat issues by the Federal Government, fisheries management agencies, sort of from a supply side 

rather than the restriction-side point of view. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to 

make these comments and look forward to working with Members 
39 

of the subcommittee on moving forward on this very important bill. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Nelson, thank you very much. We appreciate 

your being here. 

[The statement of Mr. Nelson may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. So far in this panel, we have heard from the commercial fishing industry, which is obviously of great importance to 

us for a number of reasons; and when we think about the commercial fishing industry, it is certainly easy enough for us to think in 

terms of the economics of the industry. 

We are now going to hear from a representative from the recreational sportsfishing industry, Mark Sosin. When we hear from 

Mark and others from his side of the fisheries industry, it is good 

for us to all keep in mind-and I can bear true faith to this-that 

the recreational industry is also a very important industry from an 

economic point of view. 

I represent 40 miles of coastline, and I can tell you that the tackle shops and the restaurants, the small boat rental places, the boat 

sales places, the motor sales places all add up to be a humongous 

industry in my district. 

And so I am very pleased to have you with us today, Mark, and 

we are anxious to hear from you. 

STATEMENT OF MARK SOSIN, AMERICAN SPORTFISHING 

ASSOCIATION 

Mr. SosiN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My name is 

Mark Sosin. I came to Washington this morning to testify on behalf 

of the American Sportfishing Association, the sportfishing industry, 

and obviously I am the only representative at this table of the Nation's 17 million salt water anglers. 

I have been a recreational angler myself for over 55 years. In my 

professional life, I have been involved in the recreational fishing industry for more than three decades, and reported on it as a journalist during that time. Currently, I produce and host Mark Sosin's 

Saltwater Journal, now in its eleventh season, and broadcast nationwide on ESPN. 

My testimony will address the provisions of H.R. 39. 

Let me say that we support this legislation, but intend to offer 

some suggestions on how certain provisions could be strengthened 

to improve recreational fishing and fisheries management across 

this country. 

Let me take a minute to tell you about ASA and the recreational 

industry. The American Sportfishing Association was created in 

November of 1993 for the sole purpose of representing the resource 

and trade needs of the recreational fishing industry. The first goal 

of this new association is to ensure that we have a healthy, sustainable fishery resource, because without that resource, we are all 

out of business. 

Recreational fishing plays a significant role in the lives of one in 

five Americans. Over the decades, this fishing activity has given 

rise to a wide-ranging industry dedicated to meeting the fishing 

needs of the country's 60 million anglers. These anglers, who collectively spent over 500 million days pursuing freshwater and salt 

water species, support an industry with $24 billion in retail sales 
40 

annually. This spending encompasses a wide cross-section of the 

American economy, including fishing equipment manufacturing, 

travel and transportation services, boat and vehicle manufacturing, and fishing and boat licenses. This activity generates a total economic impact of nearly $70 billion throughout the manufacturing, 

wholesale and retail sectors of the American economy. 

Likewise, Mr. Chairman, the marine recreational fishing industry has played a valuable role in the economies of local coastal communities. In 1991, 17 million Americans spent 64 million days fishing in salt water. The economic impact of this activity exceeded $5 

billion at the retail level, and generated $15 billion in overall economic activity. 

Mr. Chairman, in my oral comments, I would like to speak to 

just one issue, for I am afraid that if we fail to deal with it, none 

of the other changes may matter. My concern here is overfishing. 

As you all know, the Magnuson Act mandates that conservation 

and management measures must prevent overfishing. But in most 

cases, managers react to overfishing after it occurs. A report by the 

National Marine Fisheries Service disclosed that 67 species are 

overfished, representing 43 percent of those species assessed. Due 

to overfishing, the same report says, U.S. fisheries produce only 

about half their potential yield, resulting in losses of about $3 billion a year to this Nation. This year, you have the opportunity to 

amend the Magnuson Act and fix what time has proven to be the 

single most ineffective element of the Act, its failure to prevent 

overfishing. 

Almost all of the changes proposed in H.R. 39 regarding Council 

structure and operation are targeted at improving conservation. 

However, in order for any of these efforts to work, there has to be 

a conservation baseline that limits harvest in favor of the resource. 

H.R. 39 advances the most significant improvement in all of the 

bills today. However, it would still allow for the manipulation of optimum yield to increase harvest in excess of maximum sustainable 

yield. Two simple amendments will significantly improve the conservation basis of this statute. The first is to include a definition of maximum sustainable yield similar to the existing 602 guidelines. The 

second is to prevent harvest from exceeding maximum sustainable 

yield in any fishery. Our recommended definition for maximum 

sustainable yield is included in our written comments. 

In addition, Mr. Chairman, there should be a restriction on the 

ability to increase harvest above conservative levels. The following 

amendment to H.R. 39 is suggested. Delete the word "jeopardize" 

from the definition of overfishing in section 4 of the bill, and replace it with the word "reduce." 

Mr. Chairman, do not underestimate our fishermen's ability, be 

they commercial or recreational, to overharvest our fisheries, or the 

fishery manager's inability to control it. We need your help to impose a conservation ethic in the fishery management system. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to address this subcommittee. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, Mr. Sosin. 

[The statement of Mr. Sosin may be found at end of hearing.] 
41 

Mr. SAXTON. The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Gilchrest. Let 

me say before Mr. Gilchrest, you are noticing, I am sure, that there 

have been people in and out, and that is because there are a number of other hearings going on at the same time. There are hearings that are being carried out by other subcommittees of our full 

committee, as well as other committees. And so we apologize for 

that, but it is just part of life on Capitol Hill. 

Mr. Gilchrest. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Nelson, you expressed some interest in allowing the flexibility for each Management Council to come up with its own plan for 

bycatch and things of that nature; and I agree with you 100 percent on that. And then you also made mention of an ecosystem approach, which is a term that I guess some people understand, some 

people don't understand, the bulk of us in the middle have some 

vague notion of it. 

It would seem to me that if we are looking at an overall fishery 

management plan, as far as overfishing, bycatch, and all of the related problems that we have to deal with, that an ecosystem approach would make-now I am not a scientist-but it would seem 

to make some sense to me. And I would just like you to comment 

on, can we inject an ecosystem, which is not an exact science, wording or philosophy or mentality into the planning for the management plans, especially for bycatch? 

Mr. NELSON. I can't comment on the ability of the scientists necessarily to put-how fine of a point they can put on it. We already 

see the shortcomings in many cases of working with the data sets 

that we have to even come up with what is OSY or MSY or any 

of these things, or the status of the stock. So as far as being able 

to word an act so that certain things would take place, based on 

an overall look at the ecosystem and how well it is doing, I would 

like to see that as a goal. 

I always felt like the Fisheries Service was moving in the right 

direction, looking at it that way, because fundamentally you look, 

you know, from a science background; you can't just single out any 

one species and try to manage for that species. The case I gave 

with red fish, we really don't know what the effect of not fishing 

red fish in the Federal zone is having on some of the prey species 

that that fish preys on. The Council down there is asking for reassessment of that stock. That is at least a step in the right direction, 

to look at what the size of the stock is. 

There are a number of other examples, for instance I mentioned 

Dr. Browder's study. It showed that there were actually some negative impacts on some fish stocks which, doing some things with 

bycatch, reducing bycatch actually impacted negatively some of the 

apex predators. So I think that is foolish to go forward with some 

of these management plans before we do know what these effects 

are. And that is why I mentioned it. 

I think it is important that we do some of this research, as best 

we can. I am certainly not an atrophic level interaction type scientist, didn't have any training in that, but I know that it can be 

done from a modeling standpoint. 

Mr. GILCHREST. But that is the direction, I guess what you are 

saying, we need to move in? 
42 

Mr. NELSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Sosin, could you comment on the same question, relating ecosystem approach to management plans ecosystem 

approach when we are thinking about bycatch, the discards? 

Mr. SOSIN. I am not sure I have the kind of answer you want 

to this, Mr. Gilchrest, but you know, obviously it is all tied together. But by the same token, you can look at shrimp as a 

bycatch, even though that is the primary thing. 

Mr. GILCHREST. I didn't hear you. 

Mr. SOSIN. You can look at shrimp as a bycatch. Even though 

that is their primary mission, to catch shrimp, they are catching 

one pound of shrimp to seven or eight pounds or nine pounds of 

something else. 

So I think it is very hard to control an entire ecosystem. I think 

it is going to be very hard for the Councils to do it, because I don't 

think they react fast enough. 

Mr. GILCHREST. It is difficult, I understand, and my next question will be about the structure of the Councils; and I understand 

it is difficult to do the ecosystem approach. And I am sort of coming 

from the Chesapeake Bay where we have a number of clams and 

oysters, and to a certain extent they filter out the water and to a 

certain extent they are tied to the grass, the subaquatic vegetation; 

the grass is tied to the protection of the crabs, the crabs are a 

source of food for the rockfish. I mean, all of it, the wetlands have 

an impact, and all of this setback as part of a perspective on a 

management plan, this is how it is connected. And I think it is incumbent upon us to begin the rigorous mental effort that is required in order to understand the ecosystem as far as fishery management plans is concerned. It is timely for us to begin to do that. 

Mr. SOSIN. Absolutely. You know, I agree 100 percent. I just 

looked at video footage, we edited a show this week in Barnegat 

Bay, New Jersey, in which we show sanding grass shrimp out of 

the eel grass, and all of the creatures that live in that eel grass. 

And I made a comment in a voice-over on the show, that because 

they brought the eel grass back in greater quantity, you have all 

these creatures in there which then, in turn, will support the larger 

predatory species and give you what you are asking about in the 

ecosystem. 

I was also in Chesapeake Bay this year, and I am very well 

aware of some of your problems. So, yes, it is all tied together. 

The question this morning that was asked about habitat. Habitat 

is a key to fish stocks. Without the proper habitat, you are not 

going to have the fish stocks, whether it be in the Grand Banks off 

of New England, or down in the south where I live, or anyplace 

else. 

Mr. GILCHREST. I see my time is up. Thank you. 

Mr. SAXTON. Ask your other question. 

Mr. GILCHREST. The other question did related to habitat. And 

I don't want to pick on Mr. Nelson, but you made a statement that 

was fascinating to me. 

First of all, we don't have shad in the Bay anymore, and to a 

large extent it is due to the Conowingo Dam that was built there 

some years ago. The shad can't swim upstream so there are very 

few areas now where they can spawn. So it was due to overfishing, 
43 

but the major problem with the shad is the fact that they can't 

have little babies anymore. So even though we have stopped fishing 

for shad, they haven't come back. So, Mr. Nelson, you made a comment that we need to begin to explain habitat from a supply side 

versus restricted point of view. Could you explain that? 

Mr. NELSON. Well, I guess fishermen always-the management 

programs on fishermen usually result in making them less efficient 

in order to protect the fish stocks. And I have always thought that 

is backwards from what we should be doing. 

We should be encouraging all industries to be more efficient. 

Anything else is encouraged to be more efficient. Fishermen, particularly commercial fishermen, are encouraged to be less efficient. 

And I think it is a shame that fishermen have to endure that without also seeing some real commitment on the part of the same fisheries managers and agencies to the supply side, which is-I mean, 

habitat protection theoretically could lead to more fish being available for everyone-recreational, commercial, all the users of the resources. And it is too bad that we can't-that would, again, build 

confidence among the fishermen that they are not being unfairly 

singled out as the sole cause for the fish stocks being down. 

And in many cases overfishing can occur very, very quickly, for 

the fish stock is already compromised because of habitat destruction. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Fascinating perspective. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, Mr. Gilchrest. 

Mr. Moore, as you recall, one of my pet peeves about the way we 

make policy is that we oftentimes ignore or don't make the best use 

of scientific data, and sometimes we question the validity of scientific data. And I can see from reading your written testimony 

that you have some questions about the scientific fish data that are 

used to make policy with regard to the Magnuson process. 

Would you care to elaborate on that? 

Mr. MooRE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You got into this a little 

bit earlier with Rollie Schmitten, and he sort of half answered the 

question. 

The area in particular that my members obviously are concerned 

about is the West Coast, but this is kind of applicable to a lot of 

other places around the country. The stock surveys on the West 

Coast, which is sort of what the harvest guidelines for fishermen 

are based on, are conducted once every three years. And because 

of the size of the area being covered, the amount of time they have, 

so forth and so on, you have one vessel that once every three years 

covers a few different places on the West Coast; and then they extrapolate all that data and come up with something that, frankly, 

is only good enough to be used as an abundance index. It will tell 

you that maybe there were more fish there three years ago, maybe 

there were less fish there three years ago. It doesn't tell you anything about the numbers of fish, the sex of the fish, the size, what 

kind of shape the stock is in. 

There is a very good model that has been done by a NMFS scientist out of the laboratory in Seattle, but if he doesn't have good 

data to put in that model, it is a garbage-in, garbage-out situation. 
44 

What we are suggesting is something that I think is going to be 

supported around the industry, and we hope in the environmental 

community as well. We also hope it is going to save some money 

for the taxpayers and address, potentially, some of the overfishing 

issues; and that is, allow the industry to be chartered out to perform these stock surveys in those areas where they want it to be 

done. 

I know there is a different situation up in New England that Mr. 

Studds faces that they have got some real good data that has gone 

on for a lot of years. We are not as fortunate as having that. 

But allow fishermen to be chartered out by the National Marine 

Fisheries Service; allow them to retain their catch as a way of offsetting the costs. And whatever data you get is going to be, we 

think, better data than something that is done once every three 

years. And that data may show that there are fewer fish out there, 

in which case we need more restrictions on our fishermen and our 

processors, or it may show that there are a lot more fish out there 

and we need to be able to harvest more, which is better for the 

fishermen, better for my processors. 

So that is what we are proposing as sort of a trial thing for the 

West Coast, and we hope you will take a look at that. 

Mr. SAXTON. Do you have support from anyone in the scientific 

community or anyone in the current administration for that kind 

of approach? 

Mr. MooRE. I had a brief discussion with Mr. Schmitten about 

it sort of during the break between panels here, and we are going 

to discuss it a little bit more. It is being discussed quite a bit 

amongst the fishing industry-fishermen, processors, even the factory trawlers. This may be one of the issues where the factory 

trawlers and the shore-based processors may actually agree on 

something. 

I have also had some discussions with one of the West Coast representatives of one of the major environmental organizations, and 

I think there is some interest there on the part of environmental 

community, as well, to at least try this out on the West Coast, see 

if we get some better data. Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. Mr. Beideman, you come from a unique perspective because you 

deal with migratory species-basically, your livelihood is dealing 

with swordfish-and as a result of that, you have extensive experience with not just the regulations imposed through the Magnuson 

process, but also with regard to the international fisheries conventions. 

Can you share with us your perspective of how that process, 

those processes, work together? Do we need to do anything with 

Magnuson to take account of the dual process and the dual regulatory authorities that you deal with? 

Mr. BEIDEMAN. Well, I believe it needs to remain under the Secretary and that we need to formalize the ICCAT advisory committee, into more of a Council-like public setting. The scoping meetings 

that National Marine Fisheries Service has been conducting have 

been good, however, the fishermen don't have an opportunity to debate with the actual policymakers, decisionmakers, in the plans, to 

give these managers the knowledge of what is going on in our fish-
45 

eries. They get asked questions, and National Marine Fisheries 

Service comes around, and everybody puts their input in; but unlike the Council process, what we lack is that open debate in front 

of some of the people that are actually working on developing the 

fishery management plan. 

So right at this time, I think that the next step is to open up the 

public process a little wider and to allow these plan development 

teams. Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much, Nelson. 

Let me ask Mr. Studds if he has any questions at this point. Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, let me simply apologize to the panel. 

I have mastered being in three places at once, but four sometimes 

is tricky. I did a double-take when I saw Mr. Moore down there. 

What the hell is he doing with the witnesses? 

Mr. MooRE. Mr. Studds, it is strange seeing you on that side of 

the dais, too. 

Mr. STUDDS. I know. Same thing has occurred to me on more 

than one occasion. 

Let me just note-I did, of course, read your testimony carefully; 

and I couldn't help but note that you seem to have a strong preference for the House bill over the Senate bill. I am inclined to ask 

you which one you wrote, but I--

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Studds, all I can say is that the Chairman's 

name is on the bill. 

Mr. STUDDS. As always. Still a staffer, I may say. No, it is a delight to see you there, and it is a delight to see you 

less stressed and obviously more affluent. 

Mr. MOORE. I wish the latter were true. 

Mr. STUDDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. 

Mr. Torkildsen. 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

For the witnesses, given that you all have your specific problems 

in the fisheries that you deal with, I think none perhaps quite as 

severe as what we see up in New England, I would just ask for 

your general comments about what type of stands or steps would 

you be willing to accept to avoid the catastrophe we have in New 

England? I mean, can you just share your thoughts on that a little 

bit? 

Because the success of a fishing industry can be too successful, 

as New England has demonstrated, what steps would you be willing to accept from your local Councils to avoid going through the 

disaster that has happened off the coast of New England? 

Mr. MOORE. If I can start off real briefly, as far as the West 

Coast is concerned, we are already accepting steps and, you know, 

we would certainly accept more. The difficulty with the situation 

in New England, and this is no offense to Joe Brancaleone or anybody on the Council who has worked so hard up there to try to deal 

with the problems that you have in your area, on the West Coast 

we have a tradition of having quotas, reporting, in many cases observers on vessels or in processing plants, and strong enforcement. 

The New England fisheries for a long, long time were managed 

without quotas and without any good reporting. And it is our contention on the West Coast-and I think Jeff will probably agree 
46 

with me on this-that if you don't have quotas saying, you have got 

to stop fishing when you are getting close to taking too many fish, 

and you don't have good reporting, so the managers don't know 

what is being caught out there, you are going to run yourself into 

the ground. 

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman, as far as we are concerned in 

Alaska, we would encourage you folks to encourage the Councils to 

take a very conservative approach. If you wait until too late, you 

have to take some very drastic measures that hurt everyone. And 

I think it is really important for you to set some very good national 

standards that give the necessary guidance to the Councils so that 

they can manage the fishery correctly, so that there is something 

for the future. 

Mr. HENDRICKS. Well, I have to agree with what was said and 

re-echo that I think with respect-well, my experience for the fisheries in the North Pacific, in the Bering Sea, is that I think most 

will agree that the National Marine Fisheries Service and the scientific community in the north and the North Pacific Management 

Council have in fact conserved that resource and protected it from 

overfishing. I believe that is a fact. And we are thankful for that 

in the industry, on both sides of the fence, and that should be applauded; that is the North Pacific fishery. 

Mr. BEIDEMAN. This is a little difficult question for highly migratory species, because the fact of the matter is until we have cooperation across the entire range of a stock of fish by all the harvesters, cooperating together to keep yields at or below MSY and 

to rebuild the stocks to maximum levels, we have got very little. 

We are watching as highly migratory species decline. And the 

more that we do, the more it relieves international harvesters from 

doing their share. We have to be careful to do all of what we should 

be doing, but not do too much, because it actually relieves their responsibility and undermines the shared burden necessary to be effective for the fisheries. 

There are a lot of things that need to be done. One of the areas 

is much more data collection and attention across all the highly migratory species. All the businesses involved in these fisheries 

should be at the same level of reporting and at present, they are 

not. We have charter boats and head boats that are not reporting 

at the moment, while the commercial boats have daily log books. 

Our dealers have mandatory reports-our boats have mandatory 

observers, and we have three different cross-checks on for data collection; while other businesses haven't even gotten started reporting yet. Plus recreational surveys, as we have learned, are nothing 

better than guesstimates. We need to enhance recreational monitoring. Mr. NELSON. Is there still some time? 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. There is, if anyone else would like to respond. 

Mr. NELSON. OK. First of all, I guess the situation in New England is somewhat foreign to me being in the shrimp industry, 

strictly looking at shrimp. And incidentally, Mr. Sosin mentioned 

shrimp are a bycatch; I have to respond to that. 

When I go recreational fishing, I tend to catch a lot of topsail catfish and hardhead catfish, maybe ten of those for every speckled 
47 

trout I catch, so I guess the speckled trout are a bycatch when I 

go to doing that, too. 

Incidentally, the number is down to around three or four pounds 

to one now; we are learning more about what actually comes up. 

Anyway, as far as specifically what would we be willing to accept 

in the Gulf of Mexico, I hope that, given the same circumstances, 

we would look at a limited entry scheme. I think that that is certainly a reasonable fall-back; and maybe even way before you get 

to crisis mode, look at limited entry schemes as possibilities. As 

long as you look at limiting the entry for all users of the resource. 

And, again, I am aware of a shrimp fishery in South Carolina 

where inshore recreational cast-net take on the shrimp is beginning to limit what the offshore commercial take is. That is a very 

difficult situation. So looking at limited entry on just the commercial side, without the recreational side in that case, and in the Gulf 

as well, would be a real tough situation. 

I am not sure how we would go about dealing with it, but that, 

I would say, a limited entry scheme in the Gulf would be something I would hope we would look at. 

The gentleman's time has expired. 

I would like to just note for the record that Mr. Pallone is with 

us today. Mr. Pallone is not an official Member of the committee, 

but we are very pleased that he is here; and I was going to recognize him for questions, but in the interest of time, he has volunteered to pass at this time, and so we appreciate that very much. 

He is an active participant in these proceedings, and we appreciate 

it very much. 

[The statement of Mr. Pallone follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR. , A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW 

JERSEY 

The Fisheries Management Subcommittee of the old Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee spent a considerable amount of time addressing a number of con- cerns that this important legislation contains. As in H. R. 780, which was marked up in the Fisheries Subcommittee last Congress, I was pleased to see that user fees were not included in this bill. Implementation of user fees would result in a loss of income and jobs, severely hurting an industry that is already in dismal shape. 

Additionally, I was pleased to see that an amendment I sponsored and the Fisheries Subcommittee adopted in the 103d Congress has been incorporated into H.R. 

39. The amendment was included as a discretionary provision that states that any 

fishery management plan which is prepared by any council may assess and specify 

the effect which conservation and management measures of a fisheries management 

plan will have on stocks of fish in the ecosystem of the fishery which are not part 

of the fishery. 

I was disappointed not to see language in the current bill to ensure that the Secretary will make appointments to the councils that are fair and balanced. It is important to have a balanced council composition and have equal input from the participants in the commercial and recreational fisheries, as well as non-user groups 

that have displayed an in depth knowledge of fisheries. Furthermore, I still feel there is room to strengthen the habitat language in the 

bill. I had a situation in my district where a Federal agency was engaging in an action detrimental to marine fish habitat and the council and NMFS Northeast Region wrote letters to the agency expressing their concern over the action, yet their 

letters were ignored by the agency. In the current bill, the offending agency must 

provide a detailed response within 15 days after receiving a recommendation from 

the Secretary. However, the agency is not required to follow the Secretary's rec- ommendation. 

I realize that many believe that giving the Secretary veto authority over Federal 

projects that adversely affect fish habitat was too extreme a position. However, I 
48 

believe that there can be a middle ground reached in a situation where an impasse arises between a Federal agency and NMFS with regard to a Federal action that 

might jeopardize essential fish habitat. It may be possible to require the Secretary 

of Commerce and the head of the other agency to enter into a mandatory consultation period. 

Mr. SAXTON. I would like to thank this panel at this time for 

being with us today. The information that you have shared with us 

today and the information that you will share with us on an ongoing basis is very much appreciated. 

And I would also note that the Members of the subcommittee 

may have some additional questions for the witnesses, and we will 

ask you to respond to them in writing and the hearing record will 

remain open for those responses. Thank you for being with us. [The information may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. At this time I would just like to say that in approximately 10 minutes there will be another vote. Mr. Gilchrest is 

going to leave here a few minutes before the vote, and he will come 

back in very prompt order so that he will take over for me so that 

I can go, so that we won't have to take a break in the proceedings. 

So I thank the gentleman from Maryland for his cooperation on 

that. 

I will now introduce the next and final panel of witnesses: first, 

William Amaru, who is a commercial fisherman; Ellie Dorsey of the 

Conservation Law Foundation; Margaret Hall, Treasurer of United 

Catcher Boats; Paul Seaton, President of the Alaska Marine Conservation Council; and Tom Casey, of the Alaska Fisheries Conservation Group. That was quick, thank you. 

I would once again like to remind our witnesses that under the 

committee rules, they must limit their oral statements to five minutes, but that their entire statements will appear in the record; because we are conducting this hearing with so many witnesses, I 

once again state that we can't be generous with time, and when the 

yellow light goes on, please proceed to conclude your statement and 

when the red light comes on, please conclude it. 

In addition, we will also allow time for the entire panel to testify 

before questioning the witnesses. I now recognize Bill Amaru to testify. Mr. Amaru. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. AMARU, COMMERCIAL 

FISHERMAN 

Mr. AMARU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to meet 

in front of the committee that has my Congressman, Gary Studds, 

on the committee-subcommittee. I am one of those commercial 

fishermen from New England we have been hearing about. My speech is going to be more or less monothematic. It is going 

to be about resource and lack of it, which is what we are suffering 

from so dramatically in New England. I would rather not reiterate 

the problems the fishing fleets are having-! originally put down 

"around the country," but that doesn't seem to be the case, so I'll 

say "for New England." We all know what they are. 

Instead, the best thing I can talk about to help fishermen and 

others who have an interest in our marine fish resource is to address resource as what it is, living. The living resource is composed 

of individual wild animals, not cubic tons or bushels ending up as 

catch statistics at NMFS's offices. The marine environment is a 
49 

world apart from ours, yet in it wild fish reproduce in mind-boggling numbers and give rise to new generations without any help 

from us. It has been a common resource available to all with very 

few limitations. 

Along the way, fish have provided Americans with an ongoing 

supply of healthful food, outdoor recreation, and represent a substantial contribution to the national economy-a continuous, renewable resource, the only one we have that needs no maintenance 

from man. 

Is this billion-dollar national treasure in jeopardy? In my area it 

is. Are my generation and this committee going to be remembered 

as failing to save it? 

Until very recently, the surplus production of fish was enough to 

satisfy. What has happened, at least on Georges Bank? Have we 

forgotten some subtle understanding of the living resource? Are 

fishermen different today than they were a hundred years ago? I 

don't think so. 

Fishermen are survivors, always have been, and especially the 

ones still operating today. To paraphrase Professor Garrett Hardin, 

as a rational being, each fisherman seeks to maximize his gain. We 

will continue to catch the common public resource until the cost of 

putting our nets and hooks in the water is greater than the value 

of what we catch. 

What fishermen do is not wrong. To fish in the sea in open competition is rewarded by success in our society. But what you must 

do is set down new rules by which our common resource is protected. You must act on a mandate which government gave itself 

when it took up the responsibility for stewardship of this resource. 

I am not ready to accept the tragic loss of our last common, nor 

am I willing to see the end of my way of life because those whose 

responsibility it is to protect and conserve were unwilling to do so. 

The changes you must make will not be fair and they will not 

be easy. They will take insight and tremendous courage. Many who 

are not responsible will suffer. Again Professor Hardin reminds me, 

we have increased without limit in a world with limits-at least in 

New England, we have. 

Members of this committee, that pain will not be anything compared to the humiliation and the national economic tragedy of the 

failure to save our greatest renewable resource. Therefore, the following recommendations to the committee are based on my experiences over 20 years of fishing in New England, and may help to 

prevent the pain we are now suffering in the New England area 

in the rest of the country. 

Number one, lower direct conflicts of interest on the Management Councils. Members must be present who are not necessarily 

conflict-of-interest free, but who simply represent divergent views 

for the good of the public resource. This can be accomplished by 

placing scientists, representatives of mainstream conservation organizations and consumer organizations, along with fishermen, on 

the Councils. 

Number two, provide a means for vastly improved scientific research into fish populations and their interactions. You have been 

hearing that all day today; I don't think I need to reiterate it. 
50 

Number three, establish a dedicated fund, supported by industry 

and government, to enhance long-term management needs and to 

create a sense of ownership and, therefore, a sense of responsibility 

as well for the resource. 

Increase substantially the enforcement of fisheries regulations. 

In our area, it is a tremendously underfunded budget, the Coast 

Guard's budget. Make the penalties for breaking fisheries laws 

more than an acceptable cost of doing business. 

Number five, end government assistance programs that provide 

the private sector with initiatives that increase the catch potential 

of an user group. Let the private sector be responsible for the capitalization of private fleets. 

Mr. Chairman, let me finish with this thought. The governmental department responsible for the management of a living resource should be one familiar with natural resource management, 

not trade. The Department of Commerce deals with the Nation's 

fishery as a reluctant parent to a stepchild, one it has never fully 

accepted as its own. An agency of government that looks upon the 

populations of fish as wildlife, to be used sustainably for the longterm good of the entire Nation should be favored over one that has 

as its goal an ever-increasing GNP. 

Those are a few comments. I hope they can help you in your 

work toward reauthorization of the bill. There wasn't anything terribly specific about what I said, but I think in a general way you 

understand where I am coming from. Thank you. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Amaru may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. Ms. Dorsey. 

STATEMENT OF ELEANOR M. DORSEY, CONSERVATION LAW 

FOUND.\TION 

Ms. DORSEY. Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee, 

my name is Eleanor Dorsey. I am a marine biologist and a staff 

scientist at the Conservation Law Foundation, on whose behalf I 

am appearing today. The Conservation Law Foundation is a regional environmental advocacy group headquartered in Boston, 

Massachusetts; we are a member of the Marine Fish Conservation 

Network. 

I am grateful for this chance to testify about the Magnuson Act, 

and I will focus my comments on overfishing and stock rebuilding, 

which are the most pressing fishery management issues in the New 

England region. 

For almost six years now, I have closely followed the New England groundfish fishery. What I have seen can only be described as 

a gross failure of management. Cod, haddock and flounder stocks 

have collapsed from too much fishing, stocks which for centuries 

supported New England's fishing industry. We now need to close 

Georges Bank, one of the most productive fishing grounds in the 

world, and keep it and other fishing areas closed for a number of 

years to let the stocks rebuild. 

You have all heard of the social and economic costs of this failure 

to prevent overfishing; as New England imports more cod from 

Norway and Iceland to replace the fish we can no longer produce 
51 

locally, the region is exporting the jobs and income th at fishing 

families and communities used to depend on. The resulting personal tragedies are all the more distressing because they were preventable. The fisheries collapse didn't have to 

happen. Biologists warned of the dangers of high fishing pressure, 

but management failed to respond until it was too late. 

Mr. Chairman, when the Magnuson Act was first passed almost 

20 years ago, we had a choice of where fisheries management 

would go for Georges Bank. There were two doors to choose from, 

but the choice wasn't between the lady and the tiger. Behind door 

number one, was 103 million pounds of haddock, the stock's potential yield, which we caught every year for almost 30 years before 

1960. Behind door number two, was a mere 9 million pounds of 

haddock. That is the current yield for 1993, most of which goes to 

Canada, and that is the choice we made because of poor management on both sides of the Hague Line. The biologists told us which 

door we were reaching for. Had we chosen the other door, the U.S. 

and Canada could be catching more than ten times as much haddock from Georges Bank as we are now. 

The essential reason why we made this foolish and irresponsible 

choice in New England was that the Magnuson Act allowed it. The 

laudable goal of preventing overfishing that is expressed in the 

first national standard of the Act needs to be buttressed by new 

language that assures that this goal is met, and additional language is needed to see that stocks depleted from overfishing are allowed to rebuild. 

The United States must meet the stewardship obligation for fisheries that we took on when we extended jurisdiction out to 200 

miles offshore. H.R. 39 contains several good provisions that move 

the Magnuson Act in the right direction. The bill's requirement 

that each management plan contain a definition of overfishing is 

an essential first step. The new section describing action by the 

Secretary on overfishing clearly and appropriately assigns responsibility for acting to rebuild overfished stocks within a set time 

limit. But two critical changes to assure the prevention of overfishing 

are missing in H.R. 39. First, the definition of optimum yield must 

be revised to make it clear that harvesting at a level above the 

maximum sustainable yield is not optimum and is not acceptable, since that will inevitably lead to stock depletion. Second, provisions 

must be added to assure that corrective action will be taken before 

stocks collapse. 

Once a fishery deteriorates as badly as groundfish in New England, the options for management are very few and the costs to society are huge. My written testimony contains some specific suggestions for these improvements. 

I am very pleased to see the sections in H.R. 39 that are designed to identify and protect essential fishery habitat. The oceans 

will continue to produce a bounty of fish only if the habitats they 

need to grow, to feed and to reproduce are maintained; and I will 

be happy to help explain to Mr. Young what fishery habitats are. 

Mr. SAXTON. We thank you. If you get through, you will be doing 

very well. 
52 

Ms. DoRSEY. I also support the measures in the bill to reduce 

bycatch. We cannot afford to continue the wasteful destruction of 

sealife that fishing is capable of. 

I would like to make one final point, Mr. Chairman. Some people 

have been saying recently that all governmental regulations are 

bad. I hope that you and all the other Members of the Committee 

on Resources realize that in the realm of fisheries management, 

such blanket criticism of regulations is sheer nonsense. With a publicly owned renewable resource like the fisheries governed by this 

Act, the only way to achieve continuing benefits to society from the 

resource is to have adequate regulations on fishing. This is especially true with the dramatic increases in harvesting efficiency that 

allow us now to catch the last fish in the ocean. 

Thank you for your attention and for this opportunity to speak. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. We thank you for being here. 

And you should be aware that in spite of the fact that Mr. Young 

has problems with the term "habitat," he is, as we speak, or was 

recently, on the Floor, where he entered into a colloquy to try to 

preserve the regulatory authority over the fisheries within the legislation which is being voted on later today or tomorrow. So we 

think we have been successful in regard to that. 

We thank you for bringing that up. 

[The statement of Ms. Dorsey may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. Ms. Hall. 

STATEMENT OF MARGARET HALL, TREASURER, UNITED 

CATCHER BOATS 

Ms. HALL. Thank you very much. My name is Margaret Hall, 

and I am a member of a family of fishermen who range back 50 

years on the Pacific coast, and more recently in the North Pacific 

waters. My family is unique in that I feel we are a regionalized 

family enterprise. My brother lives in Alaska and manages vessels 

there. My parents live in Oregon; my father is very actively involved in the vessels also. And myself, I live in the State of Washington. 

I am representing today "United Catcher Boats," which is an organization of 50-plus trawl vessels who fish groundfish in the 

North Pacific and the west Pacific Ocean. These vessels have a tremendous history. They were the pioneers, particularly in the North 

Pacific. These vessels were also supporters of the original Magnuson Act legislation, and as you know, Don Young was instrumental 

in the initial passage of that legislation. 

The open access fishery system used to work. Now there are double or triple the number of vessels that we need in the North Pacific. They are vying for the same limited number of fish. Seasons 

and fishing days have been reduced by 75, 80 percent of what they 

once were. For their economic survival, these boats now fight rough 

weather and life-threatening conditions, racing against time and 

each other to harvest the most fish that they possibly can. 

The problem is exacerbated by economic costs. Those who expend 

the most fishing effort by investing more money to make their 

boats wider, as my family has done, to make their boats longer, as 

my family has done, to buy the biggest, the most equipment, not 

only to have the best on the boat, but to have backup available dur-
53 

ing this very short fishing period. Then you sit, while you watch 

your investment sit idle during the rest of the year. This system 

is nuts! 

To resolve the problems of the North Pacific, our organization, 

United Catcher Boats, supports the adoption of ITQs in the groundfish and crab fisheries. We are sharing in the support also by other 

catcher vessel organizations that, together, comprise 85 to 90 percent of the vessels who are harvesting those North Pacific fisheries. 

I think that is a very important number. 

However, we are not asking for a legislative mandate through 

H.R. 39. What we are asking for is just an endorsement. We need 

a clear message to our North Pacific Fishing Management Council 

that says that "quota share" is a viable management system, and 

that it should be used in those fisheries where it is deemed most 

appropriate. A fishing vessel quota system presents a whole new 

scheme for effective fisheries management. Its principles are based 

not only on sound economics, but on resource conservation, backed 

up by personal accountability-and I think that that is an extremely important part of this issue-and through an observer program. 

Moreover, an ITQ system shifts the competitive pressure from 

the fishing grounds to the marketplace. What better place? Although quota shares are a marketable commodity, fishing remains 

a privilege, and quota shares could be revoked for cause witkut 

compensation. 

So what are the benefits of an ITQ system? First and foremost, 

I want to point out the benefit of safety. This last fishing season, 

at the beginning of our crab fishery, we lost six men on one boat. 

Fishermen would be allowed to slow down their fishing pace. They 

would be allowed to select when to fish; if the weather's bad, you 

don't have to be out there. 

One of my captains lost a whole trawl net. He couldn't retrieve 

it because of the weather. This adds up in costs. 

Other countries employing ITQ programs cite reduced morbidity 

and mortality incidence. Yesterday, in the P-I, the Seattle morning 

newspaper, Bruce Ramsey's editorial quoted: "British Columbia 

went to an IFQ system in halibut several years ago. Fisheries officials list safety as the number one benefit." 

Second, improved resource conservation and accountability: A 

slower fishing pace will enable fishermen to be more selective in 

what they catch and how they catch it, thus reducing bycatch, reducing mortality handling, reducing ghost fishing. 

I hope you understand the terms. Ask me if you don't. 

Under a quota share system, each vessel would also receive a 

"bycatch quota," which puts the onus on the individual operator 

and gives the Councils still the power to determine catch levels. 

ITQs would also result in a 100 percent observer coverage for 

most groundfish and crab to prevent high grading and guarantee 

accountability and compliance. 

Third, enhanced product quality and improved markets: Absent 

the race for fish, the fleet's competitive challenge would be turned 

to delivering high-quality products for the American and international markets. Fishermen and processors can coordinate to-
54 

gether the most opportune time to harvest fish and crab, depending 

upon the biological and market conditions. 

Fourth, economic stability: ITQs promote efficient fishing. Fishermen could cooperate rather than compete. A quota system reduces 

operating expenses. There would be less concentration, as I was 

saying before, of costly investments-this, in particular, makes vessel owners susceptible to financial failure-and there would be less 

vessel damage and loss of gear. 

I cannot tell you-I sit on two hull self-insurance boards and, again, there is so much damage done in bad weather when it 

breaks windows, damages electronic equipment, and you have to 

replace it because of the salt water. Why are we fishing? 

The last one, I think, is of particular importance to government 

officials: Increased value of tax base. Quota shares would maximize 

fish value, and increased fish value would maximize taxable value, 

an economic benefit to the Nation. Members of our organization--

Mr. SAXTON. Ms. Hall, may I ask you to try to wrap up as quickly as you can? 

Ms. HALL. Oh, I am sorry, I was looking right over it. Yes, OK. 

More safety and conservation regulations improves seamanship. Reduced seasons are not long-term solutions. 

Please, just add quota shares as an opportunity to be explored 

in the Council deliberations. 

Thank you. I am sorry. Mr. SAXTON. Well, we thank you for bringing your very personal 

economic and other points of view, which are very meaningful to 

us. And thank you for being with us. 

[The statement of Ms. Hall may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Seaton. 

STATEMENT OF PAUL SEATON, PRESIDENT, ALASKA MARINE 

CONSERVATION COUNCIL 

Mr. SEATON. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity totestify. For the record, my name is Paul Seaton; I am a commercial 

fisherman from Homer, Alaska, where I fish halibut, crab and Pacific cod. I am also President of the Alaska Marine Conservation 

Council. AMCC is a broad-based community organization comprised of Alaskans, many of whom live along the coast of Alaska 

in small, remote communities. We have seen alarming declines in 

Tanner crab, king crab, rockfish and halibut, fish that many Alaskans depend upon for their livelihood. We also see plunges in populations of indicator species such as Steller sea lions, harbor seals, 

fur seals, and bird species such as murres and kittywakes. These 

warn us of distressing changes in the North Pacific. 

While the North Pacific has been managed more conservatively 

than other regions, it is clearly not good enough. Despite congressional intent, the Magnuson Act has not prevented fisheries across 

the country from being managed to the brink of ruin. We salute 

this committee's effort in amending this Act, and we are proud that 

our own congressman is taking a leadership role in strengthening 

the Act. 

H.R. 39 makes great strides in placing emphasis on conservation. 

In our written testimony, we make five recommendations for fur-
55 

ther strengthening the Act: one, clearly establish conservation over 

economics as a top priority of the Act; two, mandate a reduction in 

bycatch, discards and habitat disruption through economic incentives that reward clean fishermen; three, institute a precautionary 

multispecies approach to management and research; four, acknowledge the role that people and sustainable communities play in a 

healthy marine ecosystem; and five, make marine habitat protection a priority. 

I will spend the balance of my testimony highlighting these first 

two recommendations. The Magnuson Act often uses the word "conservation," but in many instances, economic and other considerations override the conservation principles. For example, National 

Standard 1 states that "conservation and management measures 

shall prevent overfishing while achieving optimum yield." 

Overfishing is not defined in the law. However, optimum yield is 

defined as maximum sustainable yield as modified by relevant economic, social or ecological factors. Fisheries managers are pressured to subordinate conservation objectives to short-term economic 

interests. The National Academy of Sciences found that the result 

is often an optimum yield higher than the sustainable biological 

yield. I can give you examples if you wish. H.R. 39 takes important strides in defining overfishing for the 

first time. However, without changes to the definition of optimum 

yield, the job is only half done. AMCC recommends: One, amend 

the definition of optimum yield so that sustainable yield can only 

be lowered and not raised by social, economic or ecological factors; 

and two, define optimum yield in terms of sustainable yield over 

the long-term, rather than maximum sustained yield. We have provided suggested language in our written testimony. 

In 1993, 16 million pounds of halibut, 16 million crab, and over 

370,000 salmon, were discarded in the North Pacific. Amazingly, 

the 1993 figure was a 50 percent increase from 1992. AMCC proposes that Congress mandate reductions in bycatch through economic incentives. Such incentives would reward those fishermen 

who successfully minimize bycatch, waste and disruption in the 

habitat, by giving them access to a reserve portion of the total allowable catch. Rapid conversion to directed fishing practices and 

technology will result as fishermen come up with their own innovative solutions to minimize bycatch. The best fishermen in each fishery will push for further reductions in bycatch because such reductions provide a free market competitive advantage. 

The Alaska Harvest Priority proposal has been endorsed by the 

Alaska House of Representatives, and by numerous other groups 

and agencies. H.R. 39 includes important new language designed 

to allow incentive programs to minimize bycatch in our fisheries. 

However, our experience before the North Pacific Council teaches 

us that even stronger language is required to overcome bureaucratic inertia. AMCC recommends that the H.R. 39 be strengthened 

by, one, requiring managers to minimize bycatch to the maximum 

extent practical; two, authorize incentive allocations both within 

and between gear groups; three, requiring such measures be implemented in the North Pacific by a certain date; and four, removing 

the priority for reduction of processing waste over bycatch. 
56 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify and I would be happy 

to answer any questions. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Seaton. 

[The statement of Mr. Seaton may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Clancy. 

Mr. CASEY. I wish my name were Clancy, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SAXTON. Casey, I am sorry. 

Mr. CASEY. I think he is up to about 4 million a year now. 

STATEMENT OF TOM CASEY, ALASKA FISHERIES 

CONSERVATION GROUP 

Mr. CASEY. My name is Tom Casey. I am here with my friends. 

This is Dick Powell, his boat is in the Aleutians catching deep 

water king crab; Gary Painter and Mike King and his wife Karentheir boats just got into Dutch Harbor after finishing the Opilio 

Tanner crab season in the Bering Sea. 

I guess we are the other 15 percent, Mr. Chairman, that Margaret Hall talks about. Mr. SAXTON. Welcome to you all. 

Mr. CASEY. I would like to refer to the document I submitted to 

you for the testimony. If you can just look at page 1, and if there 

is any way you can just substitute one word in this bill, Mr. Chairman-or add it, just the word "between" where we talk about itit would do a lot of things real quick and real cleanly to reduce 

bycatch. 

On page 2 and 3, you can see a proposal to make the selection 

of the industry advisory panel on the Council much more open. 

First time in 20 years, I saw the Chairman of the advisory panel 

call a fix on what happened in Alaska last January. He said the 

people got together and conspired to put industry people on the 

panel in a ratio that really hurt the fixed gear fishermen with pots 

and long lines. So we hope you will consider page 3. 

Then I would like to talk about ITQs, because we are the silent 

minority, the 15 percent that Margaret talks about. Mr. SAXTON. I am going to have to excuse myself. However, Mr. 

Gilchrest is here, and you may continue. Mr. CASEY. OK. Just like to say a couple things about ITQs. We 

don't believe Margaret Hall. We don't think that ITQs will solve 

bycatch-I mean, solve vessel safety problems until Puget Sound 

becomes the Bering Sea. It is very dangerous to fish in the Bering 

Sea. Two members and one organization were fishing up there in 

January. One vessel sank, the other hid from the weather and had 

to be abandoned when the ice closed in around it. Either way, they 

had troubles. Being up there is very dangerous; it is not like Puget 

Sound. Number two, the surf clam fishery, as you know, has shown that 

vessel safety problems there continue, even after ITQ implementation. And I hope that you will let me submit for the record this 

analysis of the problems they had with vessel safety there. On page 

7, you can see what ITQ does to jobs; it just destroys them. And 

I thought Newt's "opportunity society" was about creating jobs. 

Here is a guy in Kodiak who told us that he and five skippers 

with ITQs are going to get together and go fish their quotas together, and therefore they don't need any crews. So the net loss on 
57 

those boats is 20 jobs, right down the chute. And there is a Kodiak 

Island Borough resolution telling you what they think about it. On page 10, you can see what happens when social conflict arises 

from these ITQs. The wives of two ITQ owners fought in the checkout line in Safeway. One broke the other's finger. I submit to you, 

this is not good for America. Number 4 on page 12, Mr. Chairman--

Mr. GILCHREST. [Presiding.] Nor their husbands, I guess. 

Mr. CASEY. No. 

We do not want to be responsible with the 85 percent of the fishermen in Seattle or elsewhere who conspire against the American 

consumer to increase prices. You know what Alan Greenspan does 

every time the CPI increases, he raises interest rates. That hurts 

our economy, we go in the hole. If you look at page 13, you will see that the British Columbia 

fishermen engineer their market so that Americans pay record high 

prices for their halibut. 

On page 14, you will see the guys in Homer have found out about 

that, and they want to work with the Canadians to keep the 

consumer prices record high. Our 15 percent minority is against 

that. 

And lastly, on page 15, you see an expert saying fish supplies are 

getting fewer and fewer every year. So we submit to you that it 

doesn't make sense to conspire against the people with the most 

votes in America, consumers. 

Page 16, we watch Newt Gingrich on C-SPAN every day, we love 

him, we believe in his "Opportunity Society." We don't see how any 

of this stuff, which comes right out of the Soviet Union's government plan, the central planning agency, helps get us there. And I just submitted page 17 to show you that the government 

has told the Kodiak fishermen that the way of the past is over. You 

can deliver your fish from 6:00 in the morning until 6:00 in the 

evening and no other time. Call us before you get to town or you 

are going to jail. 

And, Mr. Chairman, if the fisheries on the East Coast would like 

to be improved in a hurry, I recommend they contract the Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game, because they have learned a lot 

since 1959. They know what to do. There is a guy here from Fish and Game. They could really help 

you get down the road to some real tough decisions that will increase the number of fish in the ocean. I hope you do that. And if it is all right with you, Mr. Chairman, can we submit this 

stuff for the record? It is not really finished, but we would like to 

go over it with Dave Whaley and the others, see if we can't make 

some sense of it. Thanks. 

[The statement of Mr. Casey may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. GILCHREST. I think it is all right to submit it into the record. 

The staff, they are nodding their head; I guess it's OK. 

I apologize for not being here. Has everyone given their testimony? I heard part of one, and all of one. Even though it will take 

more than five minutes, I think what I will do is we will sort of 

have a conversation until Mr. Saxton gets back, because I am sure 

he will have a couple of questions. Mr. Casey, I can't see your--
58 

Mr. CASEY. Yes, sir, I am. 

Mr. GILCHREST. It is always compelling when you hear a personal story about the problems of regulatory reform of some sort 

causing two housewives to fight in a grocery store. And I suppose 

we can laugh at that, and to the extent that we are not close to 

it, it does sound humorous; but the personal tragedy that it inflicts 

upon people, that is a whole other story, and I think that is something we need to pay attention to. 

And when I came in, I assume you were talking about ITQs or 

IFQs, and that you were apparently against the implementation of 

that particular policy. And it is my understanding that they havewe call them ITQs down here in Maryland, I guess you call them 

IFQs up thereMr. CASEY. We call them AIDS, sir, AIDS; once you get them, 

you are going to die before long. Like Charles Dickens, A Tale of 

Two Cities, between the haves and the have-nots, your society will 

change. It is the exact opposite of what Newt is trying to accomplish. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Would you-it is my understanding, at least in 

part, that the AIDS or the ITQs or the IFQs or whatever are, to 

some extent at least, an experiment on how we can limit access to 

the limited fish stocks or reduce overcapitalization. 

Would you agree that there needs, in this day and age, to be 

some policy of limiting the number of fishing boats that can catch 

the stock? 

Mr. CASEY. No, sir, because right now we just finished a crab 

season in the Bering Sea where about 280 vessels fished. If we go 

to ITQs, guess how many vessels we get-480. It is a bureaucracy 

to create wealth for the haves versus the have-nots. 

Mr. GILCHREST. You say how many? 

Mr. CASEY. Two hundred eighty under open access now. If we go 

to the ITQs, in tanner crab we are going to have 480 boats, because 

of the way the vessels qualify. 

Mr. GILCHREST. I see. 

Ms. Hall, you are shaking your head. You don't agree with that? 

Ms. HALL. There has been no allocation scheme formulated. 

Mr. CASEY. Sir, one of the Council members is here, a voting 

member from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. He had 

the staff at the North Pacific Council do all these scenarios to see 

how many boats would be in each category if you did such and 

such. And that is where I quoted the 480 from; I didn't make it up. 

The staff gave us the number. 

Mr. GILCHREST. So, Mr. Casey, it would be your recommendation 

that there be no limited access at all to any of the fisheries? 

Mr. CASEY. Yes, I was here 20 years ago when we wrote the Act, 

and we never guaranteed anyone's income. We never guaranteed 

anyone's investment. We just had an opportunity to fish. And see 

this guy right here? He had the best three years of his life in an 

open access fishery in the same fishery that Margaret Hall is crying wolf about. Margaret Hall's father is a 50 millionaire; her 

brother is a 20 millionaire. I mean, the haves and the have-nots 

like you have never seen it before, sir. 
59 

Don't buy this line. Let the natural cream of America's industry 

rise to the top and get what they can. If you insure investments 

on positive things--

Mr. GILCHREST. I think I am going to stick to the question about 

limited access or overcapitalization. And Mr. Amaru, is that how 

you pronounce that? 

Mr. AMARU. Pretty good. Amaru. Always easier than it seems to 

be. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Amaru, could you address limited access 

from a different perspective from Mr. Casey, being from New England? Is this something that, to frame the question, is this something that we in the Federal Government should administer? 

Should we be the ones to make a policy as far as coming up with 

the problem of overcapitalization? 

Mr. AMARU. I think it is an issue that definitely needs to be addressed, but my way of addressing and answering to you would be 

that there are eight regional Councils, and there are eight regional 

Councils because there are specific regions that have different 

needs and different solutions. 

I personally would believe that if the particular area, the Council, the individuals who participate in the fishery, feel that there 

is room for an ITQ in their particular fishery, that is up to them 

to decide. If in New England we feel that there is a need for a moratorium on new entrants into the industry, which is what we did 

believe and was passed, then we have a limitation on the number 

of new entrants into the fishery. I certainly understand the issue that he is making, but I also understand that there is more than one way to conserve a resource. 

I don't agree with him that there should be open and unlimited access to a resource, not once that resource has been overcapitalized. 

In my case, it has been. I can't address their situation; it is quite 

different than mine. But in New England, we have to figure out 

ways to allow people to, yes, make a living, go out into the industry, support their families and the country itself for its fish needs, but not to the extent where you destroy the resource. 

Apparently, their resource is doing quite well, amazing to me as 

it is. Maybe they are 20 years behind us or something, I don't really know; but I also know that in the theory of the loss of the commons, it will eventually get to the point where the capitalization 

will exceed the supply. It has happened on every other common we 

have ever had. It has happened in New England. But to answer your question, I would say if their regional Council feels that this is an area that has merit, then that is the way 

it should be handled, through their regional Council. 

Mr. GILCHREST. If we are looking at the regional Councils-and 

I would like everybody, anyone that wants to respond, just please 

feel free to jump in. But, Mr. Amaru, before I left, you made some 

comment about the makeup of the Councils as far as diversity on 

the Councils was concerned-from commercial fishermen , to recreational fishermen, I guess to people with science backgrounds 

and so on. Would you be in favor of a percentage of each of those 

categories on the Council? 

Mr. AMARU. A percentage? I don't know how I would do it. 
60 

Mr. GILCHREST. Twenty-five percent marine science background, 

25 percent commercial or whatever? 

Mr. AMARU. I think that I agree with most everyone-! am a 

commercial fishermen-who has spoken here today, that there 

needs to be the ability to use the best potential for decisionmaking, 

for the interest of the economy, the regional economies that rely on 

the fish. 

But at the same time there needs to be a way to present the alternative viewpoint. And I don't know about the specific numbers. Somehow-! would say that I would encourage there be 50 percent 

fishermen on a regional Council. And I don't know how you divide 

up the rest of it, 25 percent-we already have fairly good science, 

we have people from the National Marine Fisheries Service, we 

have our State regional fishery directors, all of the States of New 

England have their regional directors or their appointees on the 

Council. 

What we don't have are conscientious consumers. We don't have 

people representing the resource for no other reason than they believe that the resource should be abundant and healthy. 

Fishermen want to have abundant, healthy fish stocks, but for 

completely different reasons: so that they can harvest them. And 

unfortunately, because of the way we operate in our system, being 

an open system, we thrive and we do extremely well in efficiency, 

which is where we are. We have overcapitalized. 

Mr. GILCHREST. You are saying there ought to be someone who 

is concerned about the resource but from a consumer perspective? 

Mr. AMARU. One avenue, yes, one perspective. 

The people in my town have to pay $9, $10, $11 a pound for a 

piece of flounder. Where I can show you catch statistics, I was only 

getting 30 cents a pound for it in 1981, when I was getting 4- and 

5,000 pounds a day. Now I don't get 4 or 5,000 pounds a year of 

those fish. 

Mr. GILCHREST. So you are saying it would be prudent for us to 

entertain the idea of saying, at least in general terms, the type of 

people that should be on the Council---<:ertainly commercial fishermen, people with marine science background, academics, a 

consumer that may not have any experience in the fisheries, 

but--

Mr. AMARU. A consumer advocate, I would say-an individual 

who is not just a housewife, I think that is kind of going to the extreme; I mean, I would like to see a housewife, actually, but that 

is going to the extreme-a consumer advocate, a person who is 

trained in understanding the needs of the industry at the same 

time as representing those individuals who are going to pay the 

final price on the product. I think in my testimony I state fishermen belong on the Council, 

no question about that. They represent the greatest economic impact, although maybe the recreational man, I include him under 

commercial fishing interests. However, there is room for conservation, mainstream conservation organizations, consumer organizations, and the best science available. 

Mr. GILCHREST. I am going to let Mr. Torkildsen catch his breath 

and Mr. Studds-are you ready? 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. Yes; I am ready. 
61 

Mr. GILCHREST. OK. I will yield to Mr. Torkildsen. 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the 

chance to question. I apologize, because in a few minutes I will 

have to again go across the street, but I will try to get back for as 

much of this as possible. Just a few quick questions. 

For Ms. Dorsey, I noticed in your written testimony which I was 

reading through, you did say you thought that Georges Bank had 

to be closed for a number of years. I applaud your honesty, because 

that is at least a statement I have not been able to get from anyone 

for the record from NMFS or NOAA. Could you expand upon that 

a little bit, and what length of time period do you think is necessary for stocks to rebuild? Also, what steps would you advocate 

for transition? 

Because obviously this causes a great amount of dislocation, some of which has already begun. But what is your long-range forecast? How many years do you see necessary to replenish the stocks 

and what other steps need to be taken, in your perspective? 

Ms. DORSEY. The data that I have seen about this has come from 

the plan development team that is working for the New England 

Council on developing Amendment 7 to the groundfish plan. And 

the amount of time needed for the first step of rebuilding the 

stocks on Georges Bank varies from stock to stock for the three 

major stocks of cod, haddock and yellow tail flounder. Yellow tail 

flounder has the shortest time, and it is three or four years if fishing pressure is significantly reduced to get back to the minimum 

acceptable biomass, where average recruitment can be expected. 

Haddock has the longest time period, about 13 years, though it 

is a little shaky because there hasn't been a recent assessment of 

haddock. 

Cod is in the middle, about seven years. And one of the questions 

before the Council, of course, will be what to do when one of the 

stocks on Georges Bank has recovered and the others haven't. That 

is one of the problems with any multispecies fishery. So, in any case, it is going to be a number of years before directed groundfish fishing can be allowed on Georges Bank again. 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. And what would CLF, what are they advocating for a package of steps? I take it that you are not just saying, let's close the fishery and we can worry about the rest later on. I 

mean, do you have a comprehensive plan you have been advocating, or are you just taking-are you just offering an opinion on limited aspects of the problem? 

Ms. DORSEY. Well, obviously, as I think you said earlier, you 

can't just close Georges Bank, because those boats will move someplace else and will create the same kind of problems in the other 

waters off New England and in the mid-Atlantic. Something has to 

be done to make sure that those areas aren't overfished as well. 

The New England Council is talking about a quota approach, setting a limit on how much fish can be taken from those other areas 

and closing the fishery once that limit is established. And I think 

that is probably what is going to be needed. 

There are difficulties with quotas in multispecies fisheries, it will 

have to be sorted out; but I think there have to be limits and the 

fishing has to stop when the biological limits have been reached. 

89-569 96-3 
62 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. Another line of questioning I had with Mr. Schmitten, dealing with discarding of carcasses and whether-or to 

the extent that that poisons the habitat. From your knowledge, do 

you support his statement that, you know, discarding carcasses can 

harm or destroy a habitat for fish spawning? 

Ms. DORSEY. I have to say I have never seen any good information about that. I have wondered what happens to all the fish that 

are thrown overboard. And it is not just haddock discarded for regulatory reasons. I think that number is relatively small compared 

to the number of fish discarded because they are below the minimum size limit or because they are species that can't be marketed. 

I am assuming that those carcasses are going to feed a lot of 

hagfish, which are detritus feeders, and going to feed some other 

detritivors on the bottom. 

But there could well be times when there is a souring of the bottom, a buildup of acidic conditions or loss of oxygen because of all 

those fish. I would not expect this to be a problem on most of 

Georges Bank because botton currents are so strong. But I have 

never seen any good information to know whether or not we have 

any of those problems in New England. 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. I see I still have the green light, so if we could 

talk a little bit more about haddock, you mentioned just a moment 

ago that you believe it takes 13 years to return to critical biomass 

for haddock; did I understand that correctly? 

Ms. DORSEY. If I remember correctiy, that is the figure . It is not 

a very sure figure because haddock has not had a recent assessment; that will come sometime this spring or summer, and there 

will be more information then. But it is going to be a very long 

time for haddock. It is a very discouraging situation for haddock. 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. OK. My understanding is that haddock is ready 

to spawn in usually three to four years. Could you explain why beyond that cycle it takes longer to return to what you are defining 

as "critical biomass"? 

Ms. DORSEY. I think the reason is that haddock seems to produce 

good year classes much less frequently than cod and yellow tail 

flounder do. Also, haddock has been reduced to such a very low 

level. 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. OK. 

Before, Mr. Chairman, if I could ask to submit written questions, 

because obviously I have many more questions than my time will 

allow. But I do appreciate Ms. Dorsey's answer and the testimony 

of all the witnesses. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. SAXTON. Well, thank you. 

Mr. SAXTON. The gentleman from Massachusetts. 

Mr. STUDDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to apologize but 

explain to everybody, in case you are wondering why we are all 

constantly coming and going, it is not because we have no interest 

or respect or affection for you; it is because our life is beyond rational, and we all need to be literally in five places at once. And 

it is very disturbing, and I apologize. I know it may seem inattentive on our part. It is not. 

I want particularly to welcome my constituent and friend, Bill 

Amaru, from Cape Cod. I understand you are having some serious 
63 

back problems, and I appreciate your being here. I assume that is 

for having been kept ashore. It couldn't possibly have happened on 

your boat. 

Mr. AMARU. The muscles are weakening in the lower and upper 

back, especially where it is connected. 

Mr. STUDDS. I know the feeling. You have a very-you are a 

small boat fisherman. Describe your boat and your gear and what 

you do. 

Mr. AMARU. Certainly. I have a 45-foot, what we call in New 

England a "pocket trawler." It basically operates the same way as 

the larger vessels do, with the modified size of equipment. We run 

nets which are considerably smaller, less injurious to the habitat. 

I would like to explain toMr. STUDDS. It is OK to say that when Mr. Young is not here. 

Mr. AMARU. I was hoping I would have an opportunity to explain 

to him what happens when you drag a 4-ton scallop rake across the 

bottom. It is 20 feet wide, and does do some habitat rearrangement. I don't know whether it is destructive in the long run. I 

mean, there was a glacier that plowed through the whole thing 

about 10 thousand years ago. There is a hell of a lot of fish on it 

now, or were. But I am certain that some of the things that we do 

affect the habitat. It makes the environment these fish need to live 

in less homey. 

But at any rate, it is a small trawler. We operate in Chatham. 

I also have a long line operation that I set up on the same boat. 

And we use hooks to catch cod and haddock with the long line 

equipment. And with the net equipment, we pretty much concentrate on the flatfish which live on bottom, very smooth, much 

like the hallway outside the door here. And the hard rocky bottom 

that we have, we use the hooks on-can't efficiently drag a net 

with a small boat like mine over it. 

Mr. STUDDS. I suspect if those scallop trawls came through with 

the same frequency that the glacier did, that it might be acceptable. 

Mr. AMARU. Exactly. Mr. STUDDS. It is a little more frequent. How far offshore do you fish? 

Mr. AMARU. I used to fish out to the edge of the Georges Bank, 

and I don't fish that far now because it is closed. Most of my fishing takes place within 20 miles of the coast of Cape Cod, Nantucket 

Shoals. 

Mr. STUDDS. Now, I mentioned earlier that my fear-where have 

all the big boats gone? Where are the big guys now they can't be 

on the bank? 

Mr. AMARU. They are following us around. 

Mr. STUDDS. Are they really? 

Mr. AMARU. Getting our coordinates from our tows that we have 

worked over many years to establish, because they are closed off 

to the offshore grounds. 

Mr. STUDDS. So, in fact, it is an increased concentration in the 

inshore grounds? 

Mr. AMARU. There is no question about it. The danger that we 

are facing now is to relieve the pressurE' on the offshore grounds, 

they have deflected the effort to the inshore grounds. Georges Bank 
64 

will recover because it is an extremely aggressive conservation 

package that they put together; and at the time that those grounds 

have rebuilt, I have the feeling the inshore grounds will be virtually wiped clean. And I am very concerned about that aspect of 

the recovery plan. 

Mr. STUDDS. Is the inshore fisherman represented at all on the 

Council at this point? 

Mr. AMARU. The smallest vessel that I know of on the Council, 

I believe, is the dragger from-no, excuse me, there is a small boat 

operator from New Hampshire; I believe he has a 50-foot gill-netter. That is the smallest boat that I am aware of that is represented. Mr. STUDDS. I first all want to compliment you. I actually read 

your testimony. I have a habit of doing that for people from Chatham. And as you can see, it is at least-it tends a little bit toward 

philosophy or even, I don't want to say poetry, but it is not your 

average congressional testimony. It is nice to read something like 

that. It must have been-I was going to say it was a severe winter, 

because you had a lot of time to do a lot of thinking, but it wasn't 

that bad a winter, was it? 

Mr. AMARU. No. We can't fish. We have a lot of time on our 

hands. 

Mr. STUDDS. It is a combination of that and winter, not much 

else to do. 

Mr. AMARU. We wax philosophical quite often down on the dock. 

By the way, the dredging is coming along super. 

Mr. STUDDS. Glad to hear that. It was too cold to look at last 

time I was there. 

I looked at your set of recommendations, Bill. What else? You 

have got whatever time we have with the light there. You know 

what we are wrestling with better than we do. You are the first 

commercial fisherman I have ever heard say we ought to put more 

scientists and environmentalists on the Council. I hope you will be 

all right on your way out. 

Mr. AMARU. You will be surprised how many closet fishermen are 

coming out of the closet on that issue, Congressman. I also want to mention something about a means to raise money. 

I don't want the government to do anything further, as I pointed 

out in one of my recommendations, financially, to aid the industry. I think we are independent; I want to remain that way. I don't 

want to become like the Department of Agriculture where we are 

relying on stipends and grants. I would rather see the commercial 

industry, much like the Chatham Co-op did in tb.e late 1970's, take 

1 or 2 percent of our income and on a revolving basis-our period 

of time was three years-they would absorb 2 percent of our income to help defray the cost of running our co-op. 

We own the co-op, but we need to be-we were cash short. We 

all contributed in for three years with no refund. After the third 

year, we started to receive back what we put in the first year. It 

worked out very well. 

Mr. STUDDS. Excuse me. Just in case the winter is prolonged and 

unforeseeably severe and you can't fish and you have some more 

thinking time, I would really appreciate it if you would devote it 

to some imaginative and innovative ideas as to how in the world 
65 

we find the resources, perhaps part public and part industry, to get 

some of these big guys out of there. 

Mr. AMARU. I will try. 

Mr. STUDD. I will appreciate it. Take care of your back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. 

Ms. Dorsey, we have asked, or particularly Mr. Gilchrest asked 

some previous panelists to describe their concept of environment 

and habitat as it relates to fisheries. And incidentally, I might note 

that I am now flanked on my right and my left by two people who 

definitely understand something about habitat. And I would like to 

think that I do as well. 

But the void between us has permitted me to say that, because 

I can't say that when the gentleman from Alaska is here. And I say 

that kiddingly. He gets excited about things from time to time, but 

we really do--we really are interested. And I have had folks in my 

office and folks communicate with me who are interested in the 

fishing industry, fishermen who recognize how important habitat 

is; and we are very interested in your concept of, at least from your 

vantage point, what it is that we ought to do within or outside of 

Magnuson to address issues that have to do with habitat. 

Ms. DoRSEY. Well, I actually think that what you have in H.R. 

39 is quite good. You say that the Secretary of Commerce should 

define essential habitat for each of the fisheries. If I understand it 

correctly, that would not put the burden on the Council, as Joe 

Brancaleone was fearing, but the work would be done by the scientists at the National Marine Fisheries Service, which are, I 

think, the appropriate people to do that. The first step is to figure 

out for each stock what is the essential habitat, so then we can 

make sure that we are protecting it. 

And I would like to give one example of that, for herring on 

Georges Bank, which are just now coming back from being completely wiped out by the foreign overfishing in the 1960's. Herring 

on Georges Bank appear to spawn in quite a limited area along the 

northern edge that is gravelly on the bottom. They need areas that 

are swept by strong enough bottom currents, and the eggs of the 

herring stick to the bottom and stay there for the two or three 

weeks it takes before the eggs hatch. It is a restricted area where 

the herring eggs are, and it is a restricted time period when they 

are sitting there on the bottom waiting to hatch. During that time period, it seems to me that no mobile gear 

should be allowed in that part of Georges Bank, to make sure that 

the eggs survive to hatch and then swim up into the water column. 

That is one example, with herring. 

With groundfish, there is a lot of concern about what happens to 

the juveniles. Groundfish eggs are up in the water column. They 

are pelagic rather than benthic. After the eggs hatch and go 

through larval development, they settle down to the bottom. They 

are quite small and they are very tasty. 

The job of the very young groundfish, when they first settle, is 

to hide from the hungry predators all around them. One of the concerns that I and other people have about the effects, again, of mobile gear on the bottom is that it destroys the small features on the 

bottom, the worm tubes, the sponges, the little algae perhaps, that 
66 

might provide cover for those young fish and might allow them to 

escape from predators and then grow and provide fish for the fishermen to catch. We need to know more about that to know what 

are the most important juvenile areas for young groundfish. But that is another example of the kind of fishery habitat that 

we need to identify and then make sure we protect so the fish have 

what they need to complete their life cycle. I think that Mr. Young 

was acknowledging that anadromous fish need to have their rivers 

to spawn in, but I believe there are comparable areas out in the 

ocean, comparable to rivers for anadromous fish, that the oceandwelling fish need in order to complete their life cycle. 

Mr. SAXTON. And I think you are saying that there are thenperhaps areas of habitat should be evaluated in terms of their critical importance to healthy fish environment. Is that a good way of 

putting it? 

Ms. DORSEY. Yes, that is right. And depending upon the habitat 

and what is going on, there might be different protective measures 

needed. But the first step is to know what the habitats are, to identify them, and then figure out what we should do. 

Mr. SAXTON. And do you believe that this bill moves in that direction? 

Ms. DORSEY. Yes, I do, I think it is very good. Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. 

Ms. Hall, I was taken by your testimony, because you spoke from 

the heart in a very personal way about your situation. And I can't 

help but ask the question-again, I think I know the answer-! 

think you said your family has been in the fishing business for a 

hundred years. But the investment that you seem to make for harvesting a dwindling supply of fish seems to be a losing situation. 

And I guess the question is, why do you bother to do it? And I don't 

mean that in any kind of a flip way. It is just, from a business 

point of view, it seems like you are in effect throwing good money 

after bad. Ms. HALL. Well, as I started to say in my testimony, those who 

put more capital into their vessels are the ones who do benefit and 

do get the most fish. So in order to keep up with the Joneses, you 

have to do that, continue to reinvest in your asset. 

Mr. SAXTON. OK. Well--

Ms. HALL. Does that answer your question adequately? It is very 

simple. Mr. SAXTON. I guess it does. And again, I didn't mean to ask a 

difficult question. I was just curious as to what the answer to that 

was. 

Well, we thank you all for being with us today, and the gentleman from Maryland has one final question. Mr. GILCHREST. I will make it quick; I don't want to hold everybody here too long. I would just like a brief response from each of 

you. 

The question is, should we have an MSY threshold that Councils 

must abide by, given to them by NMFS via the SSC Councils, committees, so that when the Council gets what MSY threshold isand I think we all want the Councils to be independent, we all 

want them to be flexible, we all want them to be sensitive to the 

complicated issues of the fisheries. It seems to me they could be 
67 

that way if the only thing we required of them specifically was that 

they-here is MSY, deal with your situation, whether it is New 

England, North Pacific, Gulf or wherever it is. And I would really 

be interested in just a quick response, starting with Mr. Casey. 

Mr. CASEY. Since 1976, we have had to abide by an MSY in Alaska. I am unaware we have ever gone over it. 

Mr. SEATON. Yes, MSY, unfortunately being maximum sustained 

yield, always pushes us at the edge. It is not a precautionary approach, and is not a multispecies approach. When we look at it as 

a single species, what is the absolute maximum amount that we 

can take, we allow no precaution. We are pushing ourselves to the 

edge. 

Optimum yield, as reduced from MSY, makes a real good thing 

instead of being able to increase over MSY. But it should be re- duced beyond the maximum, because we don't have firm enough 

data. In fact, in the Code of Federal Regulations, we will find optimum yield-there is a real good definition in there. Well, it is not 

a definition, it is an instruction that says optimum yield should not 

exceed the natural mortality of stock unless best available scientific 

data says-you know, allows that. 

The only problem is that whatever data you have is the best scientific data-scientifically available data. We need to clean that up 

and say that unless we have credible scientific data or scientific 

data that we have some confidence in we cannot increase the optimum yield above the natural mortality. If we would do that and 

not let OY go above the natural mortality unless we have good scientific data to substantiate it, we would make great progress in reducing overfishing and getting down from where we are tending toward overfishing. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Ms. Hall. 

Ms. HALL. No, I don't know of any cases that it exceeded it. In 

some cases, as Mr. Schmitten said, the Council has elected to have 

a lesser amount as the TAC, from the recommendation of the scientific committee. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you. Ms. Dorsey. 

Ms. DoRSEY. Yes, for New England, if we had been doing that, we wouldn't be in the trouble we are in now. If there had been a 

limit on the catch of groundfish since passage of the Magnuson Act, I think that the groundfish would be healthy today. And I think 

it would be appropriate for scientists basically to set how much fish 

can be removed from the ocean and then let the Councils decide 

how it should be caught and how that catch should be allocated. 

What happened in New England is there were quotas which set 

a limit on catching groundfish until 1982, and there were lots of 

big problems with those quotas, and the Council chucked the 

quotas out the window in 1982 for understandable reasons. But the 

problem was, the New England Council did not then substitute any 

other limit on the catch of groundfish. There was no limit on the number of fishermen, on the amount 

of time fishing, on the amount of fish landed or anything like that. 

And that is why the fish stocks have gotten so badly depleted. So I think that what you are suggesting is indeed appropriate, 

that a level of catch-! don't know whether it should be MSY; it 
68 

may need to be adjusted downward from MSY in order to make 

sure that the level isn't too high over the long-term-but some level 

of catch be determined by the scientists, and let the Councils decide how to catch that amount. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you. 

Mr. Amaru. 

Mr. AMARU. Oh, gosh, this is a tough one for me. Frankly, I 

think the term is moot. If you can understand that I am coming 

from an industry that has been devastated by overfishing, and we 

understood, I think the people on the Council understood-you 

know, we come from an area that is the home of Woods Hole 

Oceanographic Institute. We had a tremendous amount of available 

research. And the people on the Council, the National Marine Fisheries Service, were putting the information on the line. 

The right decisions weren't being made. Ellie just voiced I think 

what could have happened would have been better, could have 

stuck with what we originally had with the quotas, but for obvious 

reasons they didn't work. 

What I would say about optimum yield is, you have to remember 

you are not talking about a forest where you go in and count the 

trees and you can project and say redwood takes this long to grow 

or blue spruce takes that long to grow. These fish operate within 

a system that we don't understand, not even in the slightest little 

bit do we understand how it works. 

By the way, there are fish in our fishery back in New England 

right now, little tiny ones, showing up all over the place. And it 

really throws a lot of questions as to whether or not haddock are 

going to take 13 years to come back. I predict that in two years 

there will be a reasonably strong supply of haddock on Georges 

Bank again; and we are going to be right in the middle of Amendment 7, which will prevent us from being able to harvest any of 

them. The same goes for codfish. It is extremely dangerous to deal with a sustainable maximum 

yield in terms of true, hard numbers. I don't believe they exist. It 

always has to be cautioned with an idea toward being extremely 

able to lower that-not to increase it, but to lower it. And if you 

err on the side of conservation, you are giving the fishermen a future, something we haven't been doing. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. SAXTON. I thank the gentleman. 

I want to thank this panel for not only your very useful and articulate testimony, but also for your patience in that we have been 

here now for in excess of four hours. And I guess I also should state 

at this point that there may be some additional questions that we 

will be in contact with you about if other Members of the committee have such questions, and the hearing record will remain open 

for your responses. I guess I would also like to say at this point that it should be 

obvious to everyone that we have a difficult, but very important 

task ahead of us. And we will proceed to move forward to try to 

solve the many problems inherent in the fishing industry, and spe-
69 

cifically with regard to the Magnuson Act and the Magnuson process. 

So if there is no further business, I again thank all the Members 

of the subcommittee for their cooperation, particularly the Ranking 

Member; and the committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:17p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned; and 

the following was submitted for the record:] 
70 

TESTil~ONY OF 

ROLLAND A. SCHMITTEN 

ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR FISHERIES 

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE 

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE, AND OCEANS 

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

U.S . HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 23, 1995 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee : I am Roll i e 

Schmitten, the Assistant Administrator for Fishe ries of the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) . I appreciate the opportunity to 

present the views of the Department of Commerce (Department) on 

reauthorization of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (Magnuson Act) and H.R 39, the Fishery 

Conservation and Managemen t Act Amendments of 1995. 

The Department supports reauthorization of the Magnuson Act and 

recommends enactment of H.R. 39 based on the following comments. 

I -will comment briefly on several key provisions of H . R . 39 and 

provide limited suggestions for additions to the bill. Some 

additional comments of a technical nature are attached. 

First, I would like to compliment Chairman Young for introducing 

this J. egi slation. The Administration and the Committee appear to 

be of one mind regarding the mos t pressing needs for effo rts to 
71 

build sustainable fisheries and reauthorize the Magnuson Act. We 

also commend the Resources Committee for its prompt action on 

H.R. 39. We look forward to working closely with the Chairman 

and the Committee in developing amendments to the Magnuson Act 

that will ensure the future of the Nation's marine fisheries. 

Before I discuss our comments on the bill, I would like to 

describe our vision for the future of marine fisheries as 

background to and a context within which amendments to the 

Magnuson Act should be made. This vision will, hopefully, 

provide some common ground for discussions on proposed amendments 

to the Magnuson Act. Our goals are to seek the greatest longterm benefits possible to the American public from our marine 

fishery resources and to manage these resources. Meeting these 

goals will increase the Nation's wealth and, in turn, the quality 

of life for members of the recreational and commercial fishing 

industries and dependent communities. We will achieve this goal 

by building and maintaining healthy fish stocks and habitats 

within which the commercial fishing industry can operate to 

provide more jobs, increased economic activity, and produce safe 

and wholesome seafood. Recreational opportunities and related 

economic activity will also be greatly enhanced by our efforts in 

this area. 

I believe that we must seek to realize this vision by 

concentrating on two areas: (1) refocusing on increased 

2 
72 

scientific information lo qu1de policy developmr:::nl and fisher::>" 

management policy and planning, rather than letting controversy 

and uncertainty drive the decision-making, and (2) undertaking an 

aggressive approach to stewardship of our trustee resources to 

rebuild overfished stocks and maintain them at maximum 

sustainable levels, thereby avoiding the enormo~1s economjc and 

soc1al cunsequc:nces that acc:::0mpany· a:,tcmpls 

resources after it occ~rs. This means being cor1servative in tl1e 

management of fisheries today to assure sustainable levels of 

harvest tomorrow. It also means the use of management approaches 

that discourage both wasteful fishing practices and the 

investment in more fishing vessels than are needed to harvest the 

availablE' fish. 

The first area of action can largely be accomplished through inhouse activities. We have improved, and will continue to 

improve, our scientific data collection activities, resource 

surveys, biological studies, analyses and modelling of fish 

stocks, c1nd advanced fishery· predictions. Our proposed Fiscal 

Year 1996 budget includes an increase of more than 523 million 

for our data collection programs, making them a top priority. 

Progress in the second area is critical and will require 

amendment of the Magnuson Act, as well as a refocusing of inhouse efforts, to achieve our goal of susta1nable fisheries. 
73 

Foremost, we support H.R. 39 for its attention to conservation 

issues. We strongly support the measures in H.R. 39 which 

address ending or preventing overfishing. Requiring action by a 

Regional Fishery Management Council within one year of 

notification that a fishery is in an overfished condition is a 

significant measure. Inclusion of definitions for overfishing 

and rebuilding programs which emphasize maintaining stocks at, or 

restoring stocks to, their maximum sustainable yield on a 

continuing basis are critical to ensuring the continued 

productivity of fishery resources. We cannot afford to continue 

the current practices permitted under the Magnuson Act where 

stocks are legally allowed to be fished down to, and managed at, 

the point where overfishing occurs. We can do better and the 

Nation deserves better. 

The Department supports strongly the concepts of identifying 

essential fish habitat and providing for improved consultation 

with other agencies. We cannot rely solely on regulatory 

measures to restore our fisheries. Measures to increase 

protection of fish habitats will provide the long-term foundation 

necessary for viable commercial and recreational fishing 

industries. Progress in addressing the issues of overfishing and 

rebuilding depleted stocks will be short-lived if we do not 

ensure adequate fish habitat. Given the importance of this 

issue, we are pleased to note that conservation co~~nity and 

fishing industry representatives have been working together 

4 
74 

towards enhancing habitat conservatio n as part of this 

reauthorizat i on. We suppo r t t h e se efforts . 

I would like to highlight two specific recommendations regarding 

the habitat provisions of H.R. 39. First, the description of 

e s sential habi t a t in fishery management plans should includ e 

measures n e c essary to min i mize adverse impac t s on that h abita t 

f rom all sourc es, not just tho se related t o fishing activiti es. 

Second, the actions ot the Secretary should be modified to 

require that the Secretary pre pare guidance on the identification 

of essential fish habitat in general and provide a specific 

recommendation to the councils as to the essential fish habitat 

for each managed species, prior to incorporation of the 

description of e ssential habitat into the plans . 

We also support the provisions in the bill that deal with 

bycatch. Much like habitat degradation, this is a very serious 

threat to a c hiev ing full b e ne fits from our liv ing marine 

r e sources. Large by catches o f undersized and non-target species 

which are not utillzed have significantly reduced the populations 

of many of our marine fish stocks. The emphasis on bycatch, 

focused by the inclusion of a new national standard and the 

mandatory requirement for FMPs to contain inf ormation on bycatch , 

is well taken and essential in our view. The new standard, i n 

particular, would allow fishery managers to develop measures that 

5 
75 

significantly reduce economic and regulatory discards, and the 

bycatch on non-target species. 

In addition to these amendments, we need to, and will, seek 

innovative ways to reduce bycatch, including the use of 

incentives. Incentives might include harvest preferences for 

those fishermen with low bycatch rates. However, we are 

concerned that measures such as incentives and harvest 

preferences must be designed carefully to prevent "due process" 

problems. For example, we do not believe that such programs 

could prohibit some fishermen from receiving allocations of, or 

access to, fish stocks because of their individual bycatch levels 

without also providing for some sort of administrative hearing in 

advance of the agency decision. 

While the Department supports the majority of the provisions in 

H.R. 39, it is opposed to the finding in section (5) (b) that no 

surplus exists in the Atlantic mackerel or herring fisheries. 

The provision is inconsistent with the United Nations Convention 

on the Law of the Sea, which the United States has signed. 

Additionally, the provision may prevent establishment of joint 

ventures between the U.S. fishermen and other countries for these 

species, is likely to affect negatively our GIFA relationships, 

and may affect current fishing agreements between the u.s. and 

other countries regarding U.S. fishing vessels in foreign waters. 

6 
76 

Wi th the co llapse of t he New England ground tish fishery, we 

expect US. fish e rmen to ha r vest an i ncreasing amou nt of these 

underu tilized spec i es i n the coming years . Therefore, we do no t 

foresee the designation of a total allowable level of foreign 

fi s hing fo r the se s p ec ies in the next few years . In fac t , t~e 

Mid -Atla n tic Cou n c il recentJy recommended, and t he Sec r etary o f 

Commt= r ce publ.i[;!1cd, a propo~-;a l for a ::Pro total allowabl e lc "JC>l 

of for e ign fishing for Atlant ic mackerel. The Department 

unde rstands the n eed to allow U.S. fishermen to harvest these 

spec i e s a nd develop markets for t h em. 

We strongly encou rage the Committee to inc lude use r fe es 

associated with individual h arvest share programs in H.R . 39. 

Establishment of an annua l fee on the value of fish alloc ated 

under individual harvest sha re programs, such as individual 

transferable quo ta programs (ITQI, would recover costs assoc iated 

with this spe cific form of management. Eff ect ive i mpl emen t ation 

of ITQ programs requires add itional stri ct enforcement and o ther 

measures to e nsure t hat the r ecip i en ts at ITQs ce~ve the 

benefits that are expe cted to accrue from such programs . Since 

such benefits will a ccrue directly to the holders of ITQs, to the 

exclusion o f o thers, it is mo r e equitable to fund such me asures 

fr om fees paid by the beneficiari es rather than t he general 

re c eipts o t the Treasury tha t r e present a ll tax payers. The 

costs associated with administering ITQs are s ubstantial -- an 

estimat e d $3.5 mi llio n per year f o r the Al aska ha libu t -s a b lefish 

7 
77 

program alone - - and should not be borne solely by appr opria ted 

funds. 

As part of its Fiscal Year 1996 budget request, the Department is 

proposing authority to collect a fee on the value of the fish 

authorized to be harvested under ITQ programs. We estimate that 

s u c h a user fe e would genera t e approximat e l y $1.0 mill i on wh e n 

fully implemented. It is important that these fees be dedicated 

to the manag-ement and conservation of marine fisheries with a 

large portion of the funds going back to the region from where 

they were derived. Specifically, the Department suggests that 

such funds be used for programs important to, and directly 

benefiting, the fishing industry, including: collecting, 

processing, and analyzing scientific, social, and economic 

information; placing observers onboard domestic vessels; 

improving enforcement; and educating resource users. 

The Department supports inclusion of strong provisions that would 

address the appearance or possibility of a conflict of interest 

on the regional councils. With regard to the conflict of 

interest provisions in H,R. 39, we are concerned with the 

definition of a "significantly affected" interest in section 8. 

As written, the definition is too narrow and we do not believe 

that it offers adequate protection against conflict of interest. 

We are also concerned that the bill leaves entirely within the 

discretion of the voting member whether or not to consider 

8 
78 

disqua lifi c a t i o n. Wh i l e the provisi on in H.R. 3 9 is a s tep in 

t he r i ght direc ti on, we woul d like to work with the Commit tee to 

d e ve lop appropriate language to strengthen this provision . 

We strongly urge the inclusion of a nation-wide data collection 

program similar to that proposed in last year's Administration 

bill . Our curre nt autho r i ty i s limited to either the vo luntary 

submi ssion of data o r to individual f i shery mana g e me n t plan 

r ecordkeeping and reporting provisions, and individual fishery 

data collection programs in advance of a plan . To improve the 

management of our marine fisheries, there is a need to gather 

data in a consistent form and manner across the nation to provide 

an underpinning for the various analyses of impacts the Magnuson 

Act and other applicable law require. Our intent with such a 

program is not to increase the reporting burden on fishermen; 

rather, we seek to simplify and reduce it . One significant 

benefit of a nation-wide program to fishermen would be to prevent 

the use of various logbooks that are often redundant, complex, 

and collect data in diff e r e nt formats. This amendment would 

provide the Secretary with the ability to integrate the curre nt 

data collection programs of NMFS, other federal agencies, the 

states, and the fisheries commissions into a comprehensive, 

consistent, nation-wide data c o llection and management system. 

Finally, we suggest that the Committee consider several o t her 

additions to H. R. 39 as detailed in the attachment to my 

testimony. Briefly, we r e commend addition of provisions to: (l) 

9 
79 

extend the applicability of criminal penal ties to assaults on 

persons emp l oyed by or under contract t o NMFS and involved in 

collec ting fishery information; (2) provide for judicial revlew 

of permit sanctions; (3) allow the sums received as fines, 

penal ties, and forf e itures of property for violations of any 

fishery resource law to be used for the enforcement of all 

statutes dealing wi th living marine resources, instead of just 

for fis heries; (4 ) provide observers with t he same lien priority 

for past-due wages as is cu r rently provided for seamen's liens 

under admiralty and general ma ritime l aw; (5) create a rebuttable 

presumption that a vessel wi th gear capable of u se for 

large-scale driftnet fishing is engaged in such fishing; (6) 

clarify the ability to pay provision; and (7) spec ifically 

p r otect observers from harassme nt. 

Thank you, Mr . Chairman. This concludes my testimony. We 

s upport reauthorization of the Magnuson Act, and we l ook forward 

to working with you and the Committee in crafting meaningful 

improvements to H.R. 39. would be happy to answer any 

questions you or other members of the Subcommit tee may have. 

10 
80 

SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON H.R. 39, THE FISHERY CONSERVATION AND 

MANAGEMENT AMENDMENTS OF 1995 

When setting deadlines, we suggest that the Committee consider 

including more general timeframes (e.g., one year, 18 months) 

following enactment rather than specific dates. 

Section 3. FINDINGS, PURPOSES, AND POLICY 

Section 3(a): The current language restricts the findings and 

purposes statements regarding habitat losses and increased 

protection in section 3 (a) (1) (B), 3 (a) (3), and 3 (b) (3) to 

"essential" fish habitats only. We recommend that the bill be 

broadened by referring to fish habitat in general. 

Section 4. DEFINITIONS 

Several of the definitions are vague and should be clarified. 

For example, in the definition of a "fishery dependent 

community," the term "substantially dependent" on the harvest of 

fishery resources should be more specifically defined. It is not: 

clear what percentage of the community's income would need to be 

derived from fishing to be classified a fishery dependent 

community. 

Section 5. FOREIGN FISHING 

Section 5(a): We suggest that permit approvals be addressed 

within section 204(b) (6) of the Magnuson Act. 

Section 5(a) (2): We suggest deleting section 204(d) (3) (D), which 

requires a determination of the capacity of vessels of the United 

States, or intention of these vessels to utilize their capacity, 

to transship fish products before issuing a permit to a foreign 

vessel. Our understanding is that capacity to transship is a variable function of space and time. Schedules in the shipping 

industry change from moment to moment, and, therefore, the 

available capacities to transship fish products at a specific 

time and geographic location change virtually instantaneously. 

Establishing U.S. capacity at a time and location might require 

only notice of an application to transship fish products in the 

Federal Register. However, this process would delay issuance of 

such permits, and work against the basic purpose of this 

provision, which is to provide additional options whereby U.S. 

fishermen may transship their production to foreign markets in a 

timely manner. 

In addition, section 307(3) should require a u.s. fisherman to 

verify that the foreign vessel possesses the appropriate permit 

to conduct a transfer within State boundaries, prior to 

1 
81 

conducting the transfer. The existing prohibition applies to the 

EEZ only and should be e xtended to transfers within St a te 

boundaries as well. 

S?.ction 5(d): Public Law 102-251 already amended section 

201(e) (i) (E) (iv) to add •or special areas." This will become 

effective when the U.S. and Russian boundary agreement takes 

effect. 

Section 8. REGIONAL FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCILS 

Section 8(a): We do not support allowing a Governor to appoint a 

non-sta te employee a s the ''principal State offic i a l." Th e 

principal State officia l s hould be a state employe e and in the 

State's policy-making c ha in. 

Section 8(b) (3): We note that the mandatory removal provision 

does not apply to the Indian representative on the Pacific 

Council or to a non-State employee designated by a Gove rnor under 

302 (b) ( 1) (A). 

Section 8 (c) (1): We suggest that the phrase "who are required to be appointed by the Secretary" be joined with an "and" to the 

phrase "who are not employed by the Federal Government or any 

State or local government." 

Section 8(e) (2): We recommend inclusion of a provision that 

would allow Councils, at t~eir discretion, to extend the deadline 

in proposed section 3 02(i) (2) for major actions or upon request 

of the Federal agency. 

Section B(i) (7): We support a strong conflict of interest 

provision that protects the official processes of the councils. 

We are concerned with the language in this section, however, and 

would like to work with the committee to develop more appropriate 

l anguage. 

Section 9. CONTENTS OF FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLANS 

Section 9(a) (1) (B): The Department recommends that the 

description of essential fish habitat in fishery management plans 

be modified to include the major threats to that habitat, as well as the actions nece ssa ry to conserve such habitat . Additionally, 

the Department does not support limiting the development of 

management measures to minimize adverse impacts to ess ential 

ha bitat to only those impacts "caused by fishing," as the y are 

not a major probl em for habitat on a national scale . 

Section 10. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO MISCELLANEOUS DUTIES OF 

SECRETARY 

Section lO(b) (3): The purpose of the amendment to section 

2 
82 

304(f) (3) (E) to provide a reasonable opportunity to harve st a 

"fishing mortality level" is unclear. 

Sect ion lO{b) (5): Propos ed section 304(f) (4) (A) would establish 

a plan development team (PDT) for each fishery management plan or 

amendment. The PDT would consist of at least 7 members of the 

advisory committee or working groups established under the 

Atlantic Tunas Convention Act {ATCA), and is exempt from Federal 

Advisory Committee Act. The PDT would "participate in all 

aspects of the development of the plan or amendment." The 

Department supports the establishment of this additional group, 

but requests flexibility in having the membership include some 

knowledgeable individuals who are not members of the ATCA 

committee. This would allow the Secretary to fill in the gaps if 

ATCA members do not have knowledge of all highly migratory 

species. 

Section lO(d): The sequence for description/identification of 

essential fish habitat, and resu lting actions by the councils and 

the Secretary, is confusing. The language should be modified to 

provide a streamlined mechanism for identifying essential habitat 

and subsequently commenting on, or making recommendations 

regarding, activities adversely affecting the identified habitat. 

The Department recommends that this section call for issuance of 

general guidance and specific species recommendations for the 

identification of essential fish habitat by the Secretary prior to incorporation of a description of these habitats by the 

councils in fishery management plans. This sequence utilizes the 

information and expertise available to the Secretary and the 

resource-use balancing capabilities of the councils. It would 

permit review of and comment on Secretarially-identified 

essential fish habitat by the councils and draft fishery 

management plan reviewers (e.g ., fishing groups, environmental 

interests, governmental agencies, general public) as part of the 

plan devel opment and amendment processes. In addition, the 

deadline for amendment of plans to incorporate descriptions of 

essential habitat should be replaced by a requirement for the 

Secretary to publish guidelines within a year of enactment to aid 

the councils in describing essential fish habitat in fish ery 

management plans that includes a schedule for the amendment of 

the plans. 

We recommend inclusion of a provision that would allow, at the 

discretion of the Secretary, the extension of the deadline in 

proposed section 304(h) (3) for major actions or upon request of 

the Federal agency. 

Section lO{d): The regulatory amendment provision, proposed 

section 304(j), contains a mandatory 30-day comment period and a 

deadline for publication of the final rul e on Day 60. Regulatory 

amendments can be as compl ex and as conte ntious as fishery 

management plan amendments and have been more frequently used. 

3 
83 

The schedule provided is not sufficient to allow proper review, 

analysis, and deliberaticn of some of these actions. Complex 

regulatory amendments might requi'e 45 days of public comment; 

many routine ones could require on1y lS days. We recommend that 

the section be amended to provide for a public comment period of 

15-to-45 days. Additionally, requiring a decision by the 

Secretary within 60 days on all actions is u~realistic. 

Section 12. STATE JURISDICTION 

Section 12(3): We believe the submission of data from internal 

waters processors required in proposed section 306(c) (1) (C) 

should not be restricted to submission to Councils, but rather 

should include the Secretary as a recipient. 

4 
84 

SUGGESTED ADDITIONS TO H.R. 39 

FEE PROVISION 

Us e r Fee Associated with the Individual Harvest Program: This 

amendment would establish an annual user fee on the value of fish 

allocated under individual harvest share programs, such as 

individual transferable quota programs (ITQs), to allow for the 

recovery of costs associated with this form of management. 

Effective implementation of ITQ programs require additional 

strict enforcement and other measures to ensure that the 

r e cipients of ITQs receive the benefits that are expected to 

accrue from such programs. The Department's Fiscal Year 19 96 

budget request proposes such a fee and estimates that it would 

generate approximately $10 million. 

CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND DATA COLLECTION 

Conflict of Interest: The Department supports the inclusion of 

strong provisions that would address the appearance or 

possibility of a conflict of interest on the regional councils. 

Data Collection: We strongly urge the inclusion of a nation-wide 

data collection program similar to that proposed in last year's 

Administration bill. 

ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS 

The Department recommends adoption of sections 12 through 15 of 

the Administration bill (H.R. 4430/S. 2138) introduced last year. 

These amendments are critical to providing adequate enforcement 

of the Magnuson Act in the future. 

Extension of criminal penalties: This amendment would extend the 

applicability of criminal penalties to assaults on persons 

employed by or under contract to the National Marine Fisheries 

Service and involved in collecting fishery information in their 

official duties. Unlike observers, who were afforded protection 

under the Amendments of 1990, no prohibitions or criminal 

sanctions explicitly address assaults on statistical agents. 

Judicial review of permit sanctions: This amendment would 

provide for judicial review of permit sanctions except when the 

sanction is imposed for nonpayment of a penalty or fine. 

Although the Magnuson Act provides that any person who is 

assessed a civil penalty may obtain a review of the penalty in 

u.s. district court, it does not provide explicitly for such 

review of permit sanctions. The two should be treated the same, 

especially since they may be imposed together in the same 

administrative hearing. However, judicial review should not be 

available when the sanction is imposed for nonpayment of a 

penalty or fine because the issue of liability has been litigated 
85 

previously . The amendment would also delete language regarding 

service to ensure consistency of service procedures with other 

district court actions in accordance with the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. The amendment would add nonpayment of • a ny 

amount in settlement of a civil forfeiture i mposed on a vessel or other property• as potential grounds for permit sanctions. 

Enforcement: The amendment would allow the sums received as 

fines, penalties, and forfeitures of property for violatio ns of 

any fishery resource law enforced by the Secretary to be used for 

the e nforcement of all statutes dealing with living marine 

resour ces, instead of just for fisheries. The Magnuson Act does 

not currently p rovide for such monies to be used for 

enforcement-related activities associated with various living 

marine resource statutes such as the Marine Mammal Protection 

Act. Additionally, it would provide that any person found in any 

enforcement proceed ing to be in violation of the Magnuson Act or 

any other marine resource law is liable for the costs of the 

sale, s torage, care, or maintena nce of fish or property se ized as 

a result of the violation. 

Observer wages as maritime liens: The amendment would provide 

observers with the same lien priority for past-due wages as is 

currently provided for seamen's liens under admiralty and general 

maritime law. This addresses the problem of vessels, or parties 

to an observer contract, not paying for observer services. 

PROHIBITED ACTS 

With regard to enforcing the prohibition against large-sca le 

driftnet fishing, we suggest section 307(1) (M) be revised to 

clarify what vessels are subject to U.S. jurisdiction, by 

including foreign vessels whose nation authorizes the United 

States to exercise jurisdiction, and stateless vessels. It wou ld 

also create a rebuttable presumption that a vesse l with gear 

capable of use for l arge-scale driftnet fishing is engaged in 

such fishing. 

ABILITY TO PAY 

We recommend that the ability to pay provision in the Magnuson 

Act be clarified by deleting the phrase "ability to pay" from the 

last sentence in section 308(a) and the following sentence be 

added at the end of the paragraph : "In assessing a penalty , the 

Secretary may also consider facts relating to abil ity to pay 

established by the alleged violator in a timely manner.• 

HARASSM ENT OF OBSERVERS 

The Department suggests that observers be specifically protected 

from harassment by amending section 307(1) (L) by adding after the 

2 
86 

phrase "interfe r e with" the f o llowing: , o r ha rass (inc luding, 

but not limited to , c o nduct wh i ch ha s a sexua l c onnotatio n)," . 
87 

Statement of 

John J . Magnuson, Ph.D . 

Chairman, Committee on Fisheries 

Ocean Studies Board of the National Research Council 

Before the 

Committee on Resources 

Subcommittee on Fisheries , Wildlife and Oceans 

United States House of Representatives 

February 23, 1 995 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee : I am John J . Magnuson, 

Director of the Center for Limnology at the University of Wisconsin, Mad ison . I 

have pa rtic ipated in several National Research Counci l (NRC) st udies on fisheries, 

recently as chairman of the Committee on Fisheries and the Committee to Revi ew 

Atlant ic Bluefin Tuna . Currently , I am chairman of the NRC 's Committee on 

Prote ct ion and Management of Pacific Northwest Anadromous Salmonide and 

serve as a member of the NRC's Ocean Studies Board. 

On behalf of the NRC, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before this 

Subcommittee on H.R. 39 , a bill to amend the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (MFCMA) . 

First, as background , in 1992 the NRC's Ocean Studies Board established 

the Committee on Fisheries to assess the effectiveness of present U.S. fisheries 

management . The committee' s charge was to study and report on means of 

improving our nation's capability to manage its marine fishery resources . 

Committee members were selec ted with a w ide range of expertise -resource 

economics , commercia l f ishin g, fisheries policy , fisheries science , oceanography, 

marine eco logy , marine t echnology , and fisheries management-and viewpoints, to 

ensure balance and fa ir treatment . The study resulted in the NRC report, 

Impro ving the Management of U.S. Marine Fisheries, which recommends changes 

specifically for consideration during the reauthorization of the MFCMA. 

The primary focus of my comments will be on the report findings and 

recommendations that are relevant to H.R. 39 . 

I w ill address both success and failure of the MFCMA and recommend 

changes needed to prevent overfishing, improve institutional structure, improve the 

quality of fisheries science and data, and move towards an ecosystem approach to 

fishery management. 
88 

The Committee's Findings: Success of the MFCMA 

The study committee determined that "the MFCMA was successful in 

reducing the amount of foreign fishing in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZI. 

Foreign fishing comprised 61% of the total EEZ catch in 1981 and only 1% in 

1991, as U.S. fishing expanded (p.14)." In addition, "the MFCMA successfully 

established a framework for fishery management that gave preference to U.S. 

fishing over foreign fishing in the EEZ, and provided for public participation in the 

decision-making process. Within the established framework, the Secretary of 

Commerce and the regional fishery management councils have made substantial 

progress in implementing fishery management (p. 14-15);" 33 fishery management 

plans have been put into effect. 

Failure and Inadequacies of the MFCMA 

The stated purpose of the MFCMA is to conserve and manage U.S. fishery 

resources. Overall, the study committee determined that "fisheries management in 

the United States has not achieved the conservation of fish stocks that was 

anticipated when the Act was passed originally in 1976 (p. 16)." The National 

Marine Fisheries Service INMFSI of the U.S. Department of Commerce's National 

and Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reviewed the status of 231 

species. NOAA/NMFS reported that 65 were over-utilized, 71 were fully utilized, 

27 were under-utilized, and the data were inadequate to determine the status of 

68 other species lOur Living Oceans, 1993). 

"The MFCMA could hardly have anticipated the rapid rate of expansion of 

the U.S. industry, and did not provide for adequate controls on capitalization and 

fishing effort. Furthermore, the expansion of the U.S. industry was accelerated 

when Congress passed the Processor Preference Amendment, which gave priority 

to U.S. fish processors over foreign floating fish processors, and the American 

Fisheries Promot1on Act, which stimulated the export of U.S. fish products. The 

implementation of federal programs for fmancing f1shing vessels, for example, the 

Fishing Vessel Obligation Guarantee Program and the Fishing Vessel Capital 

Construction Fund Program, also contributed to the rapid expansion of the U.S. 

fleet. As a result, domestic fishing quickly replaced foreign fishing in the U.S. EEZ, 

and the stocks depleted by foreign fishing did not have sufficient time to rebuild 

before the U.S. fishing pressure increased (p.15)." Not only did U.S. fishing 

replace foreign fishing in the U.S. EEZ, for some stocks, U.S. fishing exceeded the 

foreign fishing resulting in more depleted stocks. 

The report specifies several inadequacies in fisheries conservation and 

management that contributed to the current status of U.S. fish stocks. "These 

inadequacies include not only failures to identify and regulate the development and 

growth of fishing industries, but also failure to reduce fishing capacity and effort in 

2 
89 

response to conservation needs and environmental changes . Consequently, stock 

are overutilized and depleted, and are not allowed to recover. Often, political 

pressure for absolute certainty about the status of an overexploited population 

deters managers from taking prompt remedial action. Unfortunately, such certainty 

is rarely attainable under present conditions, given the limited resources available 

to managers and scientists, the lack of adequate fishery data for the assessment of 

stocks and the effects of fishing mortality, and the lack of proper statistical 

treatment of uncertainty . Additional factors contributing to inadequate 

management and conservation actions include a lack of understanding of, or the 

information on, what features and processes at the ecosystem level are important 

to fishe ries management; an unwillingness to plan or respond to relevant 

information on the fishery ecosystem; and/or a failure of managers t o adequately 

define the attributes of an ecosystem that can and should be managed (p. 17)." 

Recommended Changes to the MFCMA 

The report recommendat ions address four important topics , determined by 

the NRC committee: prevent overfishing, including controlling entry and 

capitalization and further specifying the definition of optimum yield; improve 

institutional structure; improve the quality of fishery science and data; and move 

toward an ecosystem approach to fishery management, including reducing 

bycatch , and protecting fish habitats . Provisions within H.R. 39 adequately 

add ress only one of these issues-moving toward an ecosystem approach to 

fis hery management by adding requirements for fishery managers to reduce 

bycatch and protect fish habitats . I w ill address the four topics considered by the 

committee . 

Prevent Qverfishing 

Two recommendat ions in the NRC fisheries report relate to preventing 

overfishing. The committee recommended that: 

Fishery management should promote full realization of optimum yields 

as originally environment in the MFCMA by ensure that harvest does 

not reduce stoc k abundance below levels that can sustain maximum 

yields over the long term . For currently overfished stocks, harvest 

levels must allow rebuild ing the stock over specified periods of time to 

a level that can support sustainable maximum yields . Any departure 

from the above must be supported by persuasive evidence regarding 

natural variability, ecosystem interdependence, sustainable national 

income gains, or truly exceptional socio-cultural considerations. (p.32) 

3 
90 

H.R. 39 amends the MFCMA by adding a provision that requires fishery 

management plans to "include a measurable and objective determination of what 

constitutes overfishing in that fishery, and a rebuilding program in the case of a 

plan for any fishery which the Council or the Secretary has determined is 

overfished. n 

H.R. 39 also includes a definition of overfishing that is consistent with the 

NRC's report recommendation for managers to prevent stocks from being reduced 

below levels that can support maximum sustainable yield over the long term. 

In addition, the NRC report recommends: 

Fishery management should control entry into and wasteful deployment of 

capital, labor, and equipment in marine fisheries. (p.33) 

A finding in the NRC report was that the MFCMA did not contain adequate 

measures to control entry and wasteful capitalization in order to prevent 

overfishing. "It is increasingly apparent that a remedy for the overfishing problem 

caused by open-access fisheries is to be found in some controls on entry. 

However, limited entry alone has not prevented and will not prevent 

overcapitalization or reduce the pressure to exceed acceptable biological catch 

levels; some form of control of fishing effort and/or total catch is also needed. To 

be effective, the methods used to control entry and capitalization must be 

responsible and equitable, and have adequate phase-in periods. (p.3)" 

The report also discusses briefly the problem of the current definition of 

optimum yield. "Unfortunately this definition is so broad that it can be used to 

justify almost any quantity of catch. Consequently, an optimum yield might easily 

conflict with conservation goals. The implementing regulations, known as the 

'602 guidelines,' do not provide the specification and guidance needed. (p.19)" 

Congress should consider strengthening the MFCMA to prevent overfishing 

by adding specific provisions for managers to control entry and capitalization in 

marine fisheries and by further specifying the definition of optimum yield so that it 

will not conflict with conservation goals. 

Improve Institutional Structure 

The NRC report discusses several inadequacies in the current institutional 

structure for fisheries management, including lack of independent oversight of 

fisheries management, unclear delineations of authority and responsibility between 

the Secretary of Commerce and the regional councils, lack of a satisfactory 

mechanism for conflict resolution involving objection to specific management 

measures and/or actions, possible conflict of interest by voting members of a 

4 
91 

council, inadequate use of scientific and statistical committees by councils, lack of 

a consistent organizational process for scientific decision-making, and insufficient 

process for developing, approving, and implementing fishery management plans. 

The report includes several recommendations to address these inadequacies, 

however, time does not permit me to describe them all in detail. Therefore I refer 

you to the section in Chapter 4 of the report on "Improve Institutional Structure (p. 

34-40)," but I will highlight some of the recommendations: 

An Oversight body should be established as an independent mechanism 

responsible for strategic planning, review of management decisions and 

actions, and conflict resolution. (p.39-40) 

The Magnuson Act should be amended to specify that acceptable biological 

catches be set by scientific advisory committees to the regional Councils. 

Each Council should be mandated to establish a scientific advisory 

committee that could be the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee, 

and that would be subject to membership and operational provisions to be 

specified in amendments to the Act [provisions specified in report]. National 

standards to guide the operations of the Committee should be promulgated 

by the Secretary of Commerce. (p.36-37) 

Congress should consider subjecting council members to more stringent 

provisions to prevent conflict of interest, but should examine the impact that 

such provisions might have on participation by interested parties and on the 

efficiency of the council decision-making process. Administrative remedies 

exist, including reimposition of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 

adoption of a recusal mechanism where financial interests conflict, and 

extended financial disclosure. (p.38) 

H.R. 39 amends the MFCMA to include a recusal process to prevent council 

members from voting on a matter in which they have a financial interest that 

would be significantly affected. 

Although H.R. 39 includes a measure to prevent possible conflict of interest, 

there are still a number of inadequacies that are not addressed by provisions in this 

bill. Congress should consider strengthening the MFCMA to improve institutional 

structure by adding specific provisions, such as those suggested in the NRC 

report-establish an independent oversight body, require that acceptable biological 

catches be determined by scientific experts, clarifying the lines of authority and 

responsibility between the Secretary of Commerce and the regional councils, and 

expediting the process for developing, approving, and implementing fishery 

management plans. 

5 
92 

Improve the Oualitv of Fisheries Science and Data 

The NRC report describes several inadequacies of the science and data used 

in fisheries management that relate primarily to insufficient financial and personnel 

resources. These adequacies include lack of fishery independent data, unknown 

mortalities caused by bycatch/discard, and insufficient information about the 

effects on the environment and multispecies interactions. For the most part, the 

recommendations are directed to NOAA/NMFS, and don't require congressional 

action with regard to amending the MFCMA. However, this issue would benefit 

from additional financial support from Congress for the NOAA/NMFS budget . 

In particular, the report specifies funding issues of importance: 

Current funds are insufficient for conducting appropriate stock assessment 

surveys. In addition, the necessity of find ing observer programs to collect 

bycatch /discard information is paramount. Finally, in some situations, both 

the personnel and time required to process information collected for 

management purposes are lacking, resulting in long delays in getting the 

needed information to the fishery managers. (p.27) 

Another important issue which would benefit from congressional action is 

that often insufficient economic and sociological data exist to determine the socioeconomic effects of management actions-which is mandated by the MFCMA. In 

particular, reliable information is lacking on "fishing costs, supply and demand 

relationships, and effects on macro· and micro-economic impacts." (p.25) 

Another finding is that accurate catch data is essential. The NRC report 

recommends that: 

All fishermen should be obligated by law to report their catch (including 

bycatch, fishing effort, and related biological information) to the program, 

and confidentiality must be assured . (p .42) 

Economic information on fishermen's catch is very useful; it must be 

obtained by methods that provide reliable data . (p.42l 

Congress should consider amending the MFCMA to mandate confidential 

reporting of catch and to promote collection of reliable socio-economic data. Also. 

NOAA/NMFS' budget should provide for funds to improve the quality of science 

and data used in fishery management. 

The NRC's recent scientific review of Atlantic bluefin tuna assessments is an 

example of the need for improving the quality of science and data used in 

management . Atlantic bluefin tuna have been managed for over 20 years by the 

6 
93 

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) and the 

assessments showed continuing decline in the abundance of Atlantic bluefin tuna 

in the western Atlantic since the mid-70s-despite strict quotas imposed for 

conservation measures . The NRC conducted an independent review of the science 

and the results are reported in An Assessment of Atlantic 8/uefin Tuna. 

Recommendations were made to improve data management, analyses, and to 

improve statistical treatment of the data. An important recommendation was the 

recognition that the fisheries for bluefin tuna in the eastern and western Atlantic 

Ocean were not independent, due to significant movement of tuna between these 

two fishing areas. ICCAT responded positively to the NRC recommendations, 

incorporating some recommendations immediately. The most recent ICCAT 

assessment determined that there are more bluefin tuna in the western Atlantic 

Ocean than previously calculated-this resulted in a management decision to 

increase the quota, thus providing a significant economic benefit, estimated to be 

$26 million in 1995, to the U.S. tuna fishing industry. 

Move Toward an Ecosystem Approach to Fishery Management 

The NRC report describes the importance of the interdependence between 

the maintenance of fish stocks and maintenance of the integrity of the ecosystem 

in which the fish live. "Fisheries can directly affect an ecosystem's structure 

through removals or habitat damage, and thus have the potential to alter its 

productivity or the quality of its products. Fisheries also can be affected by habitat 

alterations resulting from damage by other users or from pollution. The most 

serious forms of coastal degradation are the physical destruction of important 

habitats. water pollution, and the introduction of exotic species . (p.27)" 

The report presents several recommendations for addressing these issues, 

and thereby move towards an ecosystem approach to fisheries management: 

Fishery management should increase the use of the ecosystem approach to 

management, and include environmental protection goals in the development 

of fishery management plans. (p.43) 

The Secretary should provide adequate funding for collection of reliable 

discard data and for a major new fishery technology program to improve 

gear and fishing techniques needed to reduce the bycatch/ discard problem. 

(p.44) 

The Secretary of Commerce, through the NOAA/NMFS and under 

advisement from regional fishery management councils, should be 

empowered to protect the habitats necessary to sustain fishery resources . 

A major national program should be developed to determine what habitats 

7 

89-569 96-4 
94 

are critical for fish reproduction and growth, and how they can be protected. 

(p.44) 

In particular, the report recommends some first steps toward implementing 

multispecies management: incorporate bycatch/discard information into fishery 

management decisions; include procedures in management plans to reduce 

wastage; investigate possible direct and indirect effects of bycatch on nontarget 

commercial, endangered, and protected species in addition to target species; and 

incorporate provisions in plans to minimize both bycatch and waste . (p.43) 

H.R. 39 contains several noteworthy provisions aimed at reducing bycatch 

problems and protecting fish habitats: a requirement for fishery management plans 

to include conservation and management measures necessary to minimize bycatch 

including incentives and harvest preferences within a fishing gear group to promote 

avoidance of bycatch; a requirement for the Secretary of Commerce to identify the 

essential fishery habitat for each fishery and for the council to include a description 

of the essential habitat in management plans along with conservation and 

management measures necessary to minimize adverse impacts on that habitat 

caused by fishing; an opportunity for councils to comment and make 

recommendations to any State or Federal agency concerning any activity that may 

have a detrimental effect on the essential fishery habitat of a fishery under its 

jurisdiction, with a requirement for a response from the agency within 15 days; 

and inclusion of a discretionary provision for allowing managers to assess and 

specify the effect which conservation and management measures in a plan will 

have on stocks of nontargeted fish in the ecosystem of the plan's targeted fish. 

Congress should consider further steps to move toward an ecosystem 

approach to fisheries management: including promoting multispecies approaches to 

fishery management-factoring in nontarget species and ecosystem interactions 

among target fish and other species, such as marine mammals and birds; 

developing a major national program to define the environmental components 

essential for fish reproduction, survival, and production and to identify and 

understand current causes of habitat degradation; and promoting various agencies 

with shared responsibility under different federal and state laws to coordinate their 

efforts and programs for habitat protection and management of habitat resources. 

Some of the changes specified in H.R. 39 are similar to those recommended 

in the NRC's report and if enacted, will take an important first step in moving 

toward an ecosystem approach to fisheries management, which is a noteworthy 

goal. However, there is still an opportunity to make further improvements in the 

MFCMA based on the NRC report recommendations-which would make it less 

likely that we will be returning to these issues in a few years facing a further 

decreased fish supply. 

8 
95 

Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee for your 

interest in the NRC's recommendations for improving fisheries management and for 

the opportunity to discuss them with you with regard to H.R. 39. I would be 

pleased to answer any Questions. 

9 
96 

New England Fishery Management Council 5 Broadway. Saugus, Massachusens 01906-1097 

TEL (617) 231·0422 FTS 565-8457 

FAX (617) 565·8937 FTS 565-8937 

Chairman 

Joseph M, 8rancaleone 

Testimony of Joseph Brancaleone 

New England Fishery Management Council 

On Behalf of the 

Chairman of the Eight Fishery Management Councils 

Before the House Subcommittee on 

Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

February 23, 1995 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Executive Director 

Douglas G. Marshall 

I am here today on behalf of the Chairmen of all eight of the management 

Councils. The Chairmen have not met since HR 39 was introduced and my own 

Council, even now, does not have Senate Bill 5.39. 

However, over the last two years the Chairmen have considered a number of 

draft bills and proposed changes to the Magnuson Act. Following our May 1994 

meeting, we prepared testimony covering a wide range of proposed amendments. 

think the testimony was never delivered to the Subcommittee but I am submitting it 

today as our most recent agreed position. Keep in mind that the Chairmen have reached 

consensus on that testimony but it does not necessarily reflect a full consensus of the 

eight Councils themselves, even though there is substantial agreement by the Councils 

to most of it. 

The general view of the Chairmen is that Magnuson is a good law and does not 

need basic revision, although minor adjustments may be helpful. We believe the 

perception of conflicts of interest on the Councils is greater than any actual conflict. We 

are opposed to mandatory recusal and to NOAA General Counsel determining when a 

conflict exists. We urge you to consider the alternative language proposed in our draft 

1994 testimony. 

We believe Councils should have discretionary authority to establish fees related 

to data collection programs and limited entry programs. A requirement for bycatch data 

(as in HR 39) would make fees even more necessary. 
97 

The Chairmen agree with lowering compensation for appointed members to the 

GS-15 level but there was concern that a large reduction would discourage some very 

qualified and able individuals from serving as appointed members. 

We are all concerned about possible habitat degradation but believe that a 

requirement to define or identify essential habitat would burden Councils beyond the 

limits of their funding and staffs. 

Likewise, we are gravely concerned about overfishing but we doubt that defining 

overfishing in the Act would be helpful. The 602 guidelines are adequate in this regard. 

Overfishing and rebuilding issues are best dealt with at the Council level with NMFS 

guidance. 

We support a 180 day period for emergency actions and for extensions of such 

actions. 

We are in favor of reducing the time required to implement regulations for fishery 

management plans. I believe the 60 day time limit in HR 39 on secretarial review of 

proposed regulations is a step in that direction. 

Mr. Chairman, this is clearly a very brief summary of our views. We did not 

specifically consider the HR 39 proposal that all persons presenting oral or written 

statements must state their interest and their qualifications. Neither did we consider the 

adding of items to a Council's agenda upon the request of two members or the defining 

of Fisheries Dependent Communities. Our view, however, was that flexibility and 

latitude within the parameters of Magnuson are preferable to very detailed prescriptions 

and proscriptions in the Act. The Councils were created to exercise judgement. 

I expect that in the next several weeks most, if not all, of the Councils will 

consider HR 39 and submit specific comments on that bill. I will be happy to answer 

any questions that I can. 

Thank you for inviting me here today. 
98 

PROJtOI!D TIIT1MONY FOR LU ANDI"ION ON IIHALF OF ntl CMAIU OP 'TMI 

liGHT UQIONAL. PIIHIRV MANAGIMINT OOUNCILI IUOM A POMIILI HIAIIINO 

OJI THI HOUII OJI Rl'NIINTAT1YII FIIHUY MANAIIMINT IUICOMIII11TTII' 

COUNCIL COMJIOIITIONICONPUCT OP INTINIT 

TM Council Chelrrnen ''"'' llvlnt lower prtortly to ,.kl alloclatloft ,.p,..elltlthlillft · meklnt COYneR appolntiNMI, Hc&UH IMUitry ~tprutnlatlva hive ..,.,.._ ancl tlmt 

to 11\IC!y 1111.111 and mattrlall 11100lated witt! CouiiOII Hclatona. 'ftley aleo eppoae the 

Qllchreet bill requirement_, 21 .. of appointed memtlera to have llftlweratty, 

environmental or other not'I-YIIt IFOUP aftiQitiOft, Thl Qovttnota and the llcrwtary cen 

nominate and appoint from 1 broad vertety of lntlrata. Advllory Panell end lclafttlfle 

and ltatlltlcal Commlftetl allo provtfa Input from diYaraa btokgrounda. 

The Chairmen oppoat mandetory rtculll and ebatentlon raqulrarnanu which would 

Cltprlvt the Council of IAMrtlfl In cltbltllll llluttlnciiMy IYin rule ollt moat 

Council mambara from votlnt on ceflaln key laluet. 

Tht Council Chairmen tutttlttcl alttmatlvt language to NMFI' proctduraa: 

1. A Council member may not vote on any ftMJt, FMJt tmanclrnent, or regulation 

propoltl which wo~lcl dlaptoportlonettly advantae- thet Council member beyond 

other lndlvldutll participating In 1 partlculer flehary. 

2. Upon raqueet of any Council mel'llbtr, a Councu than mete a determination 

whether an lncllvlcfual may hlvt a dllpropo"'-ntte lnterat In the ftcllton. 

3. Cou~JI may tlltl'lorlal partlolpttlon If the need fvr ctle lndlvldual't partlc:lpttlon 

OlltWtlgha 1he potantlll fllpropoftlon11tlfttlrtft, 

•· Any lntlrttttd pereon wiU'I a tubettntlll trltvtncl mey tubmlt a raQuat to the 

Atllltlnt ACimlnletrator, within 11 dayt tfttr tl'lt vote, to ravltw Ute '"""-•t In 

QUIItlon and ttlt CounciiiCtlon. ""' Alllttlnt Aelmlnlttrator wn ... raqulrtd to 

act "" '-"' than ao ,..,. aflef rteeMnt the .,...,.nee. 

OTHE~ COUNCIL "'OCIDUREI 

Tht Council Ctlalrmtn 18"1 wllh propoaal to amtncl cornptntatlne ratta ID ,.ftact fltw 

Fedt,..l oompenntlon levtlt, tNt It, tht r.ct tNt tht,. It no Jonter a trade , 1. 

They atf'lld tNt Councllllhould 1M allowtcf to main hlependent ltpl oounnt. 

They oppott tht propottd '"""'"""' for a minimum number of klefltlflc end ltltfetlcll 

Commtn• and Advlloty 'entl mtltlnfl. Thllltloulcf 1M ltft to MOh Counol to -•tarmlnt 

1 
99 

ICCOtflllt to their lttrlda, the latutt Mint dlao\lnef, and budget OOftOerN, 

TtiiY 1110 oppoeH lilt ZIJ vote propoaalencltllt propoaal to "''"''" "" can vowa on 111 

cfeolalona. 

OVlN'IIHINOINCOVIIIIY "-'HH 

Co11ncll Chtlrmtn ltrtlff diet VII oumnt overtlahlrlg cleftnltloft In 102 Clulclellnu II 

tufllclant. Ttla Counoll Chelrman ancl ~ Dl~rt PPP'IIIacl oonoem ovtr 

legltlltll'lt rabullclll'lt '"'"'""· aeylrlg 1hlt ovttfllhlrlg m1y not naouaarlly be a mutt of 

flthlng prectiHI. !lor lnatanoa. 1M Paolflo Councn cad ,.acltlc lllrnol'l wMP'I • 

algnlflcent amoum of tl'ltlr mortality Ia non-tlahlnt mortlllitY. 

The Chairmen agrMcl diet aH ·eounclla ahouklmow lllwanl an KD~Y"-"' approach. 

However, a Col'lgrtulonal mandate will only make m~nagamtnt more dltftcult 

without adequate funding 111 achieve the cltaii'H I'Mult. 

With regard to rebuilding plant, dill It belt ltft 111 each Council Ill determine for •ch 

r.ahlry btttd on Information on thl tptclflc tlahlry tncl rttlon. 

OIS!PIVlPIS 

Ple;trdlnt the Gllchrttt amend manta, The Counon Chllrrnan belltve ~ Council& already· 

have the authority to lnltlttt obaerver plana. It Ia not necttllry to amend Act. 

HAIITAT 

Council Ctlalrmen belltw the Megn1110n Aot thoulcl allow for cllacretlonary Credllr thin 

mandetoryl cllllgflat~n of atttntlal habitat Ill ~Pt. If eallntllll'llbltat Ia dealgr\atad In 

an FMP, pro)IC! PfDponelltl W~JIIIcl be I'IQIIIrlciiD 00111111t with NMFS Cllmllar Ill UA 

lectlon 7 oonaul!atlonl on Impact on apacllt In ~P. 

Actlv111ea by all antltlea rtHivlng t.dtrtl fllncllnt for anaclromc111 flah aho111G IN rtQUII"'d 

111 be oonalattnt with ~Pa and die Aot;Kttvltlla wovlcl be Mltaclat 11ut blannuelly. 

Chalrm~n agreed ~It Counolla need to l"'lptiiCIID dll need to provllfe lone-ttrm 

protactlon for ltHntlll flah habltltt, but lfiiY lllecl dll regur.tory mos. 111 acoornpllth 

thla goal, l~ludlnglht ICiclltlonar funding requli'ICI. 

OTH!PI 'Ill 

Ttla Counon Chalrm~n oonolllded that Councllllhoutd bl allowH to lltNIIIh fMI for 

lmplamentetlon and ll'lllntel\lnce of data colllctloft """'""" llftCI OOrllfOHICI aoea11 

eyatamt. ,. .. ahould Ill 1111111d on rttiOnal INtlt throuth Counon plant or 

I 
100 

IIMftdmatiU ancl ""' 1ft • ftflcetM ~ • H UHd IP••Iflelllr tDr IWOfN"' fer wtlllfl 

oonutH. A.., on feu ahoukl " ... 

If"" lto,.,.ry """'" ...... ·~' "'*'"' ef the ..... ooiiHtM 1ft • ,..~on ehoulcl 10 • Ullt teglot\'1 JtOgi'MIIIftd the '"' colleGtM hm feteltn """"' 101M Ill 

"'" wtlerevtr neiCIItd 1ft tNt ,.,.,.., ~lit ey~~ll. If tt11 horltary ~ flel, 

CouiiOIII lhoi.IN hiVe !ftttut II flO tfll IOIIecnlofllftd ... f1f tN MI. 

IYCATCHIWAm 

The Chairman favorecf 1M bycat~ll cflmonwatlon Protram. They felt that optlofte • rt~IIOt "YOI\CI'I, Willi, II\CII'IIgl\otrtcllng lholllcf M INIIICIICI In VIe ,llcr-1\11\' "" of 

Aot. 

The Cl'lalrman recomrnenlltd tl'lt new Nl"onal Standi~ I tl'lould reiCII: '"Minlrnln llllolrcf 

Of flll'llrlll fiiOUI'OII. • lome diiCirlll lfl III\IYOicllble lnd I OOit of doing bi.IIIMII. 

Cl'lalrrnell feel tl'll r .. t IIIUI II rtduclng dll~lrd I'I'IOrtlftty. 

102 QUIDI!I.INII 

The Council Cl'lalrtnell MIIIVI tt11 IOZ Gulci1H11u already "'"' • hive the fat'Ot of llw 

end tl'le Seornry can raject env reoommendltlon which 11011 not 0011'-mn to the 

Ouldellne1 and Netlonal IWtderda. 

CITIZEN SUITS AND CITIZEN mmDNS 

The Councn Ct11lrmen conclucllcl tl'lat providing for cttlun ll.lltl ai\CI cltlnn petltlont In 

U'll Mag111.11011 Act It not MCUiary. Cllilllll lkftdy havl I myrlld Of WIYI to Mvl 

Input Into the flahary manageftllnt prooeat. 

Ttla Co\11\Cft Chairmen '*IOmmend tNt the MlgnuiOI'I Act PM emendecl a .n.nd 

atMorttv to tmpo11 emergency rule • ,10 diY'I, with 0111110 day extenllon. n. 

Aclmlnlttratlon'• euggeetlon of 10 ftYI folloWid -., 170 ''" woulcl not ~ thl 

problem. If the tlrlt period II 110 Cllye, tfllra will 1M fewer lnltanoea for the r.ecl 

.... nCI. 

With regard to the recoti'IMndl\ton tw ._rtrn flllll\ftl• In the GllohrMt bll, Chairmen 

lncfatlef that 1 110 dey tmefiii'CY "* with IIONIIJII ..Unalon Cff 110 uva would 

make thllntarltrl meuura ,.. I'DIIIIry. 

"-elonal Director~ ahollld not ¥Ott on any emere•nav 10\ton In any fllhery. A unanlrnoue .vote. wlthot.n thllm, on emergency IGtlona, lhoulcJ oompel the hcretary 10 ect. 
101 

Tht Aa ahoulcllla amtncl..r to """'' 10 diY t1m1 lmll for ltetetlrlll altlon on 

ragu111ory tlfttncllfttntl tncl require written rati)OIIII dataRing reaaona, If dlaa,roved. In 

fiMrtl, the touncll Chalrmtl\ would rile aome ldiMS of t1m1 frame for prooenlnt tncl 

lniPIImtntrna reoulltorv ICtlona, almlllt to FMI' amtnfmente. 

Acfdltionally, FW1 end arnanctmente lfloYid lie utmpt from the m,act ~M~YM• 

raQ~o~lrtf lty other appncabla llw. " ... ~ II fiOt _.ll»>t, MC!Uira OOMIIUint ravlewl 

and time ICIItclvlll for MPCMAINI,A. In Olhar WIIONa, fhlllltl ravllw end '""'vii of 

amandmelltl by Plavlno the MPCMA end NIPA land other) ravlaw ,.rlocft ODMurr.nt. 

OVI"CAf'ITAUZA TION 

T'tla Co111'1CII Chairman Mllava ttlt Covnclll nttd tflt 1001a to Cltll Wtth overoap~llutlon, 

IM ahould not Itt rtQ~o~lrld to takt apeclflc action. Give tM Councllt audlorlty to 

ra~taroh and tlltbllah ltvybtck proorama If 11'1ey are ftalblt for 11'1t flahary Involved. It 

waa auoouted that NMfS develop 1 I'IVOivlng fund for buyDick ltfOtrtll'll • 

.ALLOCA TIONI 

The Clltlrmtn e;ratd tlllt Congrau ahoulcii'ICt taka 1 poaltlon on whither or not ITQa, 

CDQa, or othtr allocltlvt programa ahould bt aRowtd, ~ rather nctlon 303Cb)lll 

ahould bt amtndtd to glvt tht Counclol clttr tuthor!CY to Ull rTQa, COQa, ltfOCtiiOt 

QUOttl. etc., wltlllufflcltnt QUicltlinll to protect ttla nttiOntilntWtlt. exlttJng 

partlclpanta In tht flallarlta, tnd conatrvltlon of 1M rteourot. 

Council Chairman volctcl concern nt ... , raltrlctlone ooulcl lie 1 dtterNnt to raatarcll 

anCI lltvelopnwnt of new tncl poaalbly mora efllelent tn'· Councllt ahoulll ,..,,. 

tnt right to dtttnnl,. whether to prohibit certain typtt of .. .,. A ~ttrtlcur.t tt•r fi'IIIY lie 

ecctpttblt In ont ftahtry or area tnd totally IMppro,r~tta fOf another. T'tla ability to 

apply for uperlrnenttl ~ttrmltl now aaleta ancf, along with CovncH overalgllt, c:an provlclt 

Jtt'Dt~Ctlon yet allow new ... ,. to lie tlltld. 

FISHI!"'!S UNDEIII MOM THAN ON! COUNCIL JUNIDICT10N 

Tilt Chairmen of 3 ollt of I att.cted Counclle raoofMIIncl mum of Highly Migratory 

lpecita In the Alllntk: !IZ to ,_ Counoll. 1'tlotl DPIIDUd oiled bude-t .,.,.,. .. the 

rataon to lttvt euthorlty with NMJII. Pour out of I etr.ctad Counclla recommend tNt 

actlone bt approYecltry a tlmplt "*rlty of VOting rntmbtra of 1U I Covnclll oomblnacl. 

liST ICIENTIFIC INfiOIWAllON AVAILAILI 

• 
102 

The c.u.ll Ct\elnNn ION""*!.,_ 1W ...... II ...... 1ft_. ,,_, 'nle ,..,..., 

"'" tCreecty flt~PP"'M ICIIofte ...._ on wflttlltr Of ftOt IN Met IOitmtfto lnfomlltlllft 

Wit vtlllnd. The GlloflttiiiiNndtnlm lndlcl111 lftY .... milt. ftOt )ult INiftHI'I of IN 

lcltnUflc aftCf "-tlltlcll Cemmlalet. eould tllltC! • Courlcl recornmtndatlonl and tht 

lec:retary wololffl be COI'I'IIMIIH to 41HJIJI,..,.. 

OntiRIAUII 

111t Chairmen 1\IPponH 1 lmlt on dtaolot\11'1 of lnfomlltlon colltotael "'""'"' to 1M 

Nonh '•clftc l'lthtrlta ,...Mrch '"" lltctlon t1SI when lflformatlon II not rtltvant 

ftlhtry ll'lentllmtnt lnfonnatlon. 

MLATm TO A'T\.AHTIC 1'\INAI CONVINTION ACr 

Co~Jncn Ctltlrmtn lllltlt no rte:OIMienclttlont oonotmlnt c:tlanttt to the Atltntlo Tu1111 

Convention Act. 

FOIIIIIGN "IHINCi PEJIIMITI POIII TIIIANIIHIPMINT 

'nit Ctltlrmtn Nld no racornmtndttlotlln tht trtl of fortlgn flahlnt """"' for 

tranlltli,mtnt. ~ut atrtlltd tht nttCS for NMI':s to oonalder eptclflo ,._"'""""" In tl\tlf 

Ifill, ttlet It, Yllltl trtc:ldng 1\'ltllnl. 

ICONOMIC DATA MOM PROCIAORI 

With regtrd to me ,,. ..... that ,roceaaon~ " requlrtd to aubmlt economic data, tr1t 

Councn CNirmen M \tilt tNI lrlfonNtlon wu very tptclftellly uemptod from IN Ac:t 

to protMt oonftclentllleoonomlc dati. 

S·YIAIII UMIT ON CONmENTIALITV 0, ITATIITICI 

'nit Council Chtlrmtn OJI~H the I'IOOtMIInclatlon tNt ltetlatloa not be oontldeflcl 

contldtntltl after thtH yeare. DIKioaurt of ., oontldtntlallnfomwtlon, pertloulerty •-r 

~Jy "''" yeare. could dltti ""*"-" and ,.....,. from dl\lulllnl rtiUie 

Jnformetlorl. It wu tlao polnad eut m.t 1ta1ta ny not be willing to ahtrt ~fldemlll 

lltto If 1 future I'IIHII Ia tgalnat dlelt IIOIJey. 

NATIONAL DATA COLLIC110N PROGfiAM 

Conotmlnt IN NMPI PfOPOHI for a National *tl oohotlon pro..,n. the CouftoR 

Ctltlrmen oonolucltd met 1M Counollt tlrtedy 111ve IN luttlorttJ to lnltltto. dtto 

• 
103 

DATA. '"OM INT&IIINAL WATIRI "'OCIIIING ONMT10NI 

TN ChalrrNn agrNCS on no FMOII'II'I'IINIWoM on ... IUUI ef '"'*'"' date frOI'II Internal 

Wl\lra Jroolttlftl operat!Orll. 

AIIAULT AGAINIT DATA COL.L.IC'TOM 

Tl'la Cour~en Ctlllrrnen tiki Nit oppoaa VII JropoHI to JlfO'IC'I liN colltnlra. 

L.AIItGI ICALI DIU~ 

ftEFIMIT IANcnONI 

Tl'ltrt were 1'0 recornmal'tlatlona or-oornmtnu on "'- l*flllt unctions 'ropoeall. 

l'l!NAL TY AND FOIItFSIT\JN IIUND 

There wert "' recomrNnd11lone or commenu on Ull penally and fo~lt\ft funcl 

propo11t. 

PACIPIC COUNCIL IIAT ~R TJIIEATY INMAN 

The Chelrman of the Pacific Coyncll nld he woulcl ,.,., II Nit lie PNtrlettll 10 one •""· 

If "' .. el ltadere concuri"'CC, 1 marnlllr lhollld lie lbla 1D IIIW ,_,. than one •rm. 'nitre 

Wll cfiiCYIIIon of wNthtr dllltoralary of tile Interior IIIOullf Ill Involved 1ft the 

'""lntrntnt JN'OCUI. 

ITRIAMUN!D PIIH!RY MANAGE~ PLANS 

Tl'le Olal,.,..n are In fwor of ..,.,_..,. afllolenoy ancl recfuclnlfla time ,.qui,. 10 

tmpramant tlahtry raaula11ona. Thera lltomt oonoam,IIOWI¥9!', over thlamoYnt of 

latitude NMPI MM.Jlcl flllva In lrOiprltlng CoUMIInelnt. 

• 
104 

WEsT CoAST SEAFOOD PRocEssoRs AssociATION 

2130 SW 5TH AVENL'E, SUITE 240 

PORTLAND. OR 97201 

PHONE: 1503 I 227 ·5076 

FAX: 1503 I 227-0237 

February 13, 1995 

TESTIMONY ON H.R. 39 

"FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT AMENDMENTS OF 1995" 

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 23, 1995 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate this opportunity for 

the West Coast Seafood Processors Association (WCSPA) to present its views on 

reauthorization of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MFCMA). 

Our Association represents the major shore-based processors of species 

harvested in the Exclusive Economic Zone off of California, Oregon, and Washington 

In addition to their processing plants, our members have warehouses, distribution 

offices, restaurants, and other seafood related facilities in these and other States, 

including the State of Alaska. They employ thousands of workers and bring millions of 

dollars to their local economies through payrolls, the purchase of goods and services, 

and payment of taxes. Most of the processing plants have been operating for decades. 

and you will often find the top management to be made up of the sons of the company 

founders, or workers who started out cutting fish and now run the daily operations In 

at least one case, the company is owned by its employees, with fishermen and 

processors sitting on the board of directors. Many of our members also own or have a 

financial interest in fishing vessels. 

I'm boring you with all of these statistics because too often the shore-based 

seafood processors have been the forgotten sector of the seafood industry. Yet it's the 
105 

processors who buy fish from the fishermen and convert it into the products you find in 

the grocery stores and restaurants. It's the processors who purchase water and power 

from local utilities and thus often help reduce the cost of those utilities to the home 

owner. It's the shore-based processors who hire local residents at all skill levels. from 

top management to the young man or woman driving a forklift on the plant floor. When 

you think about the American fishing industry, when you think about the economy of the 

coastal towns in your district, remember the shore-based processor who is such an 

integral part of both. 

I hope that the importance of what I'm saying here will become more apparent as 

I get further along in my statement, but for the moment, let me turn to the bill that is 

before you today. 

Generally speaking, WCSPA strongly supports H.R. 39 as introduced by 

Chairman Young. We recognize that H.R. 39 reflects all of the hard work performed by 

Mr. Young, Mr. Studds, Mr. Saxton, and Mr. Manton in the 103rd Congress and we 

appreciate your decision to deal with these issues rapidly and concisely in the 104th 

Congress. In most instances, we much prefer the House approach over the confusing 

and unnecessary rewrite of the Act as proposed by the Senate. 

There are a few changes we would recommend to resolve problems 

unintentionally created by the bill and some clarifications that we think are necessary 1n 

the legislative history. We also would recommend that the House adopt some of the 

proposals made by Senators Stevens and Kerry inS. 39 (and reject others). Finally, 

we have a few new ideas that we think would enhance the conservation and 

management of our fisheries, as well as improve the operation of the Act. 

2 
106 

In regard to the definition of "fishery dependent community". we need to 

recognize a range of possibilities . Dillingham. Alaska. and Warrenton. Oregon. and 

Westport, Washington, are obviously dependent on the fisheries. San Francisco is not. 

However. there are gray areas. Astoria. Oregon has several processing plants and a 

fishing fleet. It also has a thriving tourist industry. Is Astoria "fishery dependent"? We 

believe some report language needs to be developed to get at what is intended. 

The definition of "overfishing" also needs clarification in the legislative history 

As I read the definition. it means that you might harvest above or below maximum 

sustainable yield in any one year. as long as the stock stays above MSY over a 

sustained period. However, what if you have unavoidable incidental harvest of a 

species that is below MSY. a species which perhaps everyone agrees is overfished? 

This issue will come up again in the discussion on Secretarial and Council action on 

rebuilding, but for the purposes of the definitions section. we think appropriate 

guidance in legislative history is essential. We would be happy to work with the 

members and staff to help clarify these issues. 

Turning to section 7 of the bill. we again hope you will clarify in the report the 

intent of the new national standard. We believe that the phrase "to the extent 

practicable" allows recognition of economic and social constraints when Councils 

develop measures to minimize bycatch. We share the concern of this committee. of 

fishermen. and of the environmental community that fish stocks need to be conserved 

After all, if there are no fish. we're out of business. At the same time. we all face one 

irrefutable fact: there is not a single fishery in the world, commercial or sport. that never 

has any bycatch or waste. Even the most conscientious and careful fisherman cannot 

avoid getting a fish that is the wrong species . size. or sex on his hook or in his net. or 

having a fish fall off that hook or harpoon when it is being landed. Minimize bycatch. 

but don't shut down the fishing industry while you do so. 

3 
107 

We also hope that you will adopt the Senate's new national standard regard ing 

the recognition of the impact of conservation and management measures on fishery 

dependent communities. however that term is clarified. Again, shore-based processors 

are part of those communities and we don't want to see communities ruined by 

application of fisheries management measures. 

Finally, we ask that you reject the proposed Senate changes to national 

standard 1. We believe that the House's approach to handling overfishing and 

rebuilding, with a slight change, is much better than this one taken by the Senate We 

also strongly object to the Senate's deletion of the phrase "for the United States fishing 

industry." This phrase was originally added to the Act to recognize the importance of 

the American fishing industry. To quote from the Committee Report filed by the late 

Chairman Jones in 1982: 

"Thus , specific authority is granted to consider the 

best interests of the domestic industry in the 

establishment of optimum yield." 

Now that the United States government has indicated its support of the Law of the Sea 

Treaty - a treaty which was opposed by some members of this committee because of 1ts 

potential to undermine the priority accorded American fishermen and processors under 

the MFCMA- we believe that it is not in the best interests of the American fishing 

industry to erode the support previously provided through Congressional action. 

In regard to section 8 of the bill, dealing with Regional Fishery Management 

Councils, we strongly support the House approach of not changing Council 

composition. Various interests have had, and will continue to have. opportunity to 

participate in all levels of the Council process. We see no reason to provide special 

4 
108 

treatment to any one group. 

Further, we believe that the House approach to the conflict of interest issue is 

preferable, with one minor exception: The House requires the Secretary to establish 

rules for conflict of interest; the Senate requires establishment of guidelines Due to 

the diverse nature of Councils and the fisheries they manage, we think the Senate's 

requirement for guidelines is more practical. 

In regard to section 9 of the bill. we believe that the change to section 303(a)(S) 

of the Act should be dropped. We understand that this was included to help address 

the bycatch and waste issue. Unfortunately, the language as written imposes a burden 

on smaller fishing vessels that they simply cannot carry. Small shore-based vessels, 

such as those that operate off the West Coast. in Kodiak, and in the Alaska Peninsula 

have no ability to record the number and weight of all species taken on board. In fact. 

this requirement could be counter-productive to attempts to reduce mortality by 

returning fish to the ocean as soon as possible. The Councils already have the 

authority to require this data if it is needed in specific instances, and we would be 

happy to work with you to develop report language addressing this subject. However. 

the statutory mandate envisioned here is one that the average small fishing vessel 

cannot meet. 

In section 10 of the bill, a new section 304(1) is added to the Act to address 

overfishing. Here again, one small set of changes is needed. At several points. 

reference is made to the need to "halt" overfishing. As I mentioned earlier, in some 

cases that may be impossible. For example, the West Coast stocks of Pacific Ocean 

Perch may be below MSY. Nobody knows for sure, because much of the historical 

stock data is based on old foreign fishing reports compiled at a time when there was no 

way to determine exactly what species were being harvested. Nevertheless, the Pacific 

5 
109 

Council treats them as overfished and has adopted specific measures to avoid 

depleting the stocks. Unfortunately, even if all commercial and recreational fishing was 

banned on the West Coast. those stocks might not increase above MSY for 10 to 15 

years. Thus, the only way to "halt" overfishing for Pacific Ocean Perch is to shut down 

all fishing for an entire generation. We suggest substitution of some other term or 

phrase - perhaps "appropriately address" or "reasonably reduce" overfishing, both of 

which the Pacific Council has done - in order to avoid an inadvertent problem. Please 

understand, we are not trying to suggest that overfishing be ignored; we merely wish to 

make sure that the cure isn't worse than the disease. 

Also in this section of the bill, in new section 304(j) of the Act, provision is made 

to expedite issuance of regulations. While the House language is acceptable, we hope 

you will add one additional component included in the Senate bill, which requires the 

Secretary to discuss his concerns on proposed regulations with the appropriate 

Council, rather than rejecting the regulations outright. Often, further discussions 

between Council and NMFS staff can resolve difficulties before final action is taken. 

Before turning to new issues. there is one further set of Senate provisions that 

must be examined: those dealing with individual transferrable quotas, or ITQs. 

Frankly, WCSPA would be more than happy if ITQs went away. While they are 

an interesting study in economic and social policy- and NMFS has spent lots of money 

studying them and appears to want to spend more. based on their current budget 

submission - ITQs are completely unnecessary for the conservation and management 

of our resources. ITQs are tools for economic allocation -they dictate who gets the 

fish, not how we make sure that there's enough fish in the ocean to get. ITQs are 

based on protecting economic investments, not on conserving fish stocks. 

6 
110 

Unfortunately, we find ourselves in a dilemma_ ITQs are in place in several 

fisheries . and are being considered for others _ If we simply ignore them, they won't go 

away_ So, our only choice is to make them as reasonable as possible. 

While there are several technical and substantive flaws in the Senate language 

the approach makes sense. The Senate bill calls for a moratorium on new ITQs while 

guidelines are established to protect the public interest The bill requires all new ITO 

plans to meet the guidelines when the moratorium is lifted. and requires existing ITO 

plans to be amended to meet those guidelines_ Finally, and very importantly to shorebased processors, the bill allows processors to receive ITQs _ This is a crucial 

component of the Senate language, one that will make a tremendous difference to 

shore-based processors and coastal communities. 

It's not a matter of simple greed; my members are frightened of what will happen 

to their businesses, the investments they have made. and the economic well-being of 

the coastal communities of which they are a part. if one segment of the fishing industry 

is granted economic protection while another isn't Remember what I said earlier about 

employment, the tax base, the purchase of goods and services and the interrelationship 

of shore-based processors with the local economy and the rest of the fishing industry 

A shore-based processor can 't pick up his plant and move it when the fish run out. 

taking all of his employees with him. He can't suddenly decide to process chickens if 

the select group of fishermen who get ITQs - and the tremendous financial Windfall 

they bring - all decide to join together and custom process their own fish at a new 

location. A plant in Washington isn't going to keep paying property taxes when the 

fishermen all decide to sell to a plant in Oregon. Having an ITQ won 't provide an 

absolute economic guarantee to a shore-based processor, but it will provide more 

protection than having nothing. We hope you will look carefully at the Senate approach 

and consider appropriate language to address these concerns_ 

7 
111 

I suppose I should also take the opportunity to talk about fees. We oppose 

having fees for no reason other than to fatten the budget. We oppose fees that bear no 

relation to what is haNested. We oppose collecting money in one part of the country 

and spending it in another, or collecting money from one fishery and spending it on a 

different fishery in the same region. 

We recognize that - if ITQs are established - there needs to be a way to pay the 

costs and provide some return to the public for the exclusive use of the public's 

resources. When setting fees, however, be careful not to impose a double burden on 

processors. If a fisherman pays a fee for his ITO, he will attempt to recover his costs 

by selling his fish at a higher price. If a fee is also imposed on a processor for a 

processor ITQ, then the processor winds up paying twice for the same fish and - most 

likely -finding that his products are no longer competitive in the world market. If you 

decide to impose fees, make them reasonable, and have them meet the standards I 

suggested above. 

last, but not least, some new ideas. First, we would like to see a requirement 

that - when an economic analysis ·is being conducted of a proposed plan, amendment. 

or regulation - the analysis doesn't simply stop at the point where the fish is sold to the 

processor. Currently, NMFS and OMB require that an economic analysis be a simple 

cost benefit including what it costs to catch a fish and what price the fisherman gets for 

that fish. This completely ignores the costs and benefits experienced by the processor. 

which will have a far greater impact on the economic health of the local community. 

Use of a simple cost I benefit analysis was a clever approach taken by certain Federal 

officials to demonstrate that the inshore I offshore allocation plans developed by the 

North Pacific and Pacific Councils were economically deficient. I note that the plans 

were approved anyway. Nevertheless. if we are going to look at the true costs and 

benefits to the fishery. you need to extend that web of information to the point that the 

8 
112 

processed product goes out the back door of the shore-based plant. Since NMFS and 

OMB have traditionally been reluctant to follow simple Congressional guidance on 

these matters, we hope you will accept an amendment to the Act to make it clear. 

Next, we want to help reduce the Federal budget, prevent overfishing, and 

provide better data for conservation and management. At present, NMFS does a 

resource survey on the West Coast once every three years. The survey is conducted 

by the large and expensive-to-operate vessels of what we call the "NOAA Navy". Given 

the size of the coastline, not all of it can be surveyed, so the results are sort of patched 

together, assumptions are made, extrapolations are performed, and out comes a 

resource abundance index. Now, in spite of the fancy name, that doesn't tell you how 

many fish are out there - it simply tells you whether there are relatively the same 

number of fish there compared to the last time you went through this exercise. The 

data is also plugged into a resource assessment model - which, by the way, was 

developed by a NMFS scientist and is generally a pretty fair model - is further 

massaged, assumptions are made, and you come up with a WAG -that's a wild-ass 

guess - of how many fish you can catch without destroying the stocks. 

As neat as that model is, and no matter how many good assumptions you make, 

if you pour water in one end, it 1sn't going to come out as wine on the other. So, the 

question is: how do we get better data at less cost to the taxpayers? 

For the fisheries on the West Coast, the answer is simple. We propose that you 

mandate formation of a group consisting of NMFS, State, and University scientists; 

Council representatives; fishermen; processors; and environmental representatives to 

come up with a stock survey plan using private vessels and processing facilities. Have 

NMFS charter the vessels, just as they do in Alaska, and put a scientist on board. 

Perhaps the group will decide that there's a better reporting mechanism for discards or 

9 
113 

that better sorting by species at processing plants will provide more data. Regardless. 

we want to see such a plan in effect for three years. so we can get the data we need to 

prevent. rather than address. overfishing. 

The second part of this proposal will also help fisheries in other areas where 

vessel chartering is already used. Right now. a vessel that goes on a 3 month survey 

cruise isn't going to make a lot of money, because the fishery is closed by the time the 

cruise is completed. We propose that the Councils have explicit authority to reserve a 

portion of the total allowable catch in a fishery - including. if necessary. any prohibited 

species -for research purposes. By catching his own fish. or retaining what he catches 

while on the research cruise. a fishermen won't lose money or be left out when an ITQ 

is established for his fishery in the future. If the catch is sold. the processor will be able 

to pay for the additional cost of doing extra sorting at the dock. This proposal will also 

help obtain better and more frequent surveys in the Gulf of Alaska. The taxpayers will 

benefit because it will cost them less. The fishing industry will benefit because they 

have better data to work with. And the fish will benefit because better data means a 

better ability to stop resource problems before they start. 

Last. I want to return again to my main theme: the shore-based processor is an 

integral part of the commercial fishing industry. The term "United States fish processor" 

is defined in the Act. but it covers everything from factory trawlers to floating processors 

to shore-based plants to the guy who buys shrimp at the dock and sells it out of his 

pickup truck. While this definition works in the narrow context for which it was 

developed - U.S. processor preference when joint venture fishing applications are 

being considered - it does not reflect the realities of the fisheries. especially since we 

are now dealing with allocations among processors. as well as among fishermen. 

Further. NMFS conveniently argues that they have no authority to regulate processors. 

while at the same time putting observers in plants. collecting data. and enforcing 

10 
114 

management regulations at the dock. We are willing to do our share to conserve the 

resource and obey the law, but we want to be recognized as part of this industry as 

well_ 

I will be submitting language on all of these new proposals and will be happy to 

work with all of you and your staff to come up with reasonable amendments. 

Again, thank you Mr. Chairman - we look forward to supporting your efforts to 

enact responsible changes to the law. 

11 
Magnuson Act testimony - page 1 

115 

Testimony of 

Nels Anderson, Jr. 

Executive Director 

Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation 

Dillingham, Alaska 

For the 

Western Alaska Fisheries Development Association 

Anchorage, Alaska 

Thursday, February 23, 1995 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

Committee on Resources 

U.S. House of Representatives 

H.R.39 

"A Bill to amend the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act to improve fisheries management." 

MR CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE .. . ON BEHALF 

OF THE MEMBERS OF THE WESTERN ALASKA FISHERIES 

DEVELOPMENT ASSCX:IATION, I WISH TO THANK YOU FOR THE 

OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY. 

FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS NELS ANDERSON, JR. I AM THE 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE BRISTOL BAY ECONOMIC 

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ONE OF SIX CORPORATIONS FORMED 

TO PARTICIPATE IN THE WESTERN ALASKA COMMUNITY 

DEVELOPMENT QUOTA PROGRAM. TODAY, I SPEAK FOR BRISTOL BAY 

AND FOR THE THREE OTHER CDQ CORPORATIONS THAT COMPRISE 
116 

Magnuson Act testimony -page 2 

THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE WESTERN ALASKA FISHERIES 

DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION ... 

• THE YUKON DELTA FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION 

• THE COASTAL VILLAGES FISHING COOPERATIVE, AND 

• THE NORTON SOUND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 

CORPORATION. 

THE WAFDA MEMBERS REPRESENT 50 OF THE 56 COMMUNITIES THAT 

PARTICIPATE IN THE CDQ PROGRAM, 96 PERCENT OF THE 

POPULATION OF THE CDQ-ELIGIBLE REGION, AND HAVE RECEIVED 74 

PERCENT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVEWPMENT QUOTA. 

I WISH TO BEGIN MY TESTIMONY BY DESCRIBING THE 

SITUATION IN WESTERN ALASKA AND HOW IT RELATES TO THE CDQ 

PROGRAM. 

FIFTY-SIX COMMUNITIES ARE EUGIBLE FOR CDQ'S. ACCORDING 

TO THE 1990 FEDERAL CENSUS, THE COMBINED POPULATION IS 21,400. 

TODAY, IT WOULD BE CLOSER TO 25,000. THE OFFICIAL 

UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IS OVER 50 PERCENT, ONE OF THE HIGHEST 

LEVELS IN THE NATION. IN SOME VILLAGES IT IS AS MUCH AS 75 

PERCENT. THE AVERAGE ANNUAL INCOME IS LESS THAN $11,000. 

THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE LIVING BELOW THE POVERTY LINE IS AS 

HIGH AS 40 PERCENT IN SOME REGIONS. SUBSISTENCE PUTS FOOD ON 

THE TABLE. LOCAL COMMERCIAL FISHERIES PROVIDE SOME INCOME, 

BUT THERE ARE FEW OPPORTUNffiES FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH. 

ALCOHOLISM AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS ARE COMMONPLACE. 
117 

Magnuson Act testimony- page 3 

THE MOST IRONIC ASPECT OF THIS TRAGIC SITUATION IS THAT 

ALL THESE SOCIAL PROBLEMS OCCUR IN A REGION THAT IS 

IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO ONE OF THE WORLD'S RICHEST 

FISHERIES. THE BERING SEA IS HOME TO HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS 

OF METRIC TONS OF POLLOCK, CRAB, PACIFIC COD, AND MANY 

OTHER COMMERCIALLY VALUABLE SPECIES. IN MOST CASES, OUR 

PEOPLE HAVE HAD NO ACCESS TO THIS RESOURCE BECAUSE OF THE 

HIGH CAPITAL INVESTMENT REQUIRED TO PARTICIPATE IN THESE 

FISHERIES. THEY ARE WELL BEYOND THE MEANS OF A FISHERMAN 

WITH A SKIFF, AN OUTBOARD, A NET, AND A LIMITED INCOME. 

YEARS AGO, SOME OF WESTERN ALASKA'S COMMUNITY 

LEADERS WONDERED IF THERE WASN'T A WAY THIS RESOURCE 

COULD BE USED TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE REGION'S CHRONIC 

PROBLEMS. 

AFTER WESTERN ALASKANS SPENT SIX TO EIGHT YEARS 

TESTIFYING AND WRITING LETTERS, THE NORTH PACIFIC FISHERY 

MANAGEMENT COUNCIL AND THE U.S. SECRETARY OF COMMERCE 

APPROVED AN ALLOCATION OF 7.5 PERCENT (APPROXIMATELY 100,000 

METRIC TONS ANNUALLY) OF THE HARVESTABLE BERING SEA 

POLLOCK FOR 56 ECONOMICALLY-DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES 

LOCATED WITHIN 50 MILES OF THE BERING SEA COAST. 

THESE 56 COMMUNmES FORMED SIX CORPORATIONS AND SET 

UP PARTNERSHIPS WITH ESTABLISHED SEAFOOD PROCESSING 

COMPANIES. WESTERN ALASKA BENEFITS IN TWO WAYS. FIRST, 
118 

Magnuson Act testimony -page 4 

VILLAGE RESIDENTS CAN NOW OBTAIN EMPLOYMENT ON VESSELS 

THAT HARVEST BERING SEA POLLOCK. SECOND, THE REVENUES 

FROM THE SALE OF THE POLLOCK ARE INVESTED IN FISHERIES 

DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN WESTERN ALASKA, CREATING MORE 

JOBS. 

EVEN THOUGH THE FIRST CDQ FISHERY OCCURRED IN 

DECEMBER, 1992, THE PROGRAM HAS DEVELOPED A TRACK RECORD 

AS ONE OF THE MOST INNOVATIVE AND SUCCESSFUL ECONOMIC 

DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS EVER CREATED. AT THE END OF 1993, THE 

CDQ PROGRAM COUNTED FOR EIGHT PERCENT OF THE REGION'S 

ENTIRE ECONOMY AND 18 PERCENT OF REGION'S PRIVATE SECTOR 

ECONOMY. IMAGINE THAT, ALMOST ONE-FIFTH OF THE PRIVATE 

ECONOMY IN LESS THAN TWO YEARS. BY THE END OF 1993, THE CDQ 

PROGRAM HAD CREATED 556 JOBS. BY THE END OF 1994, THE TOTAL 

WAS 1,676 JOBS. 

THIS YEAR THE POLLOCK CDQ'S WILL BE SUPPLEMENTED BY 

SMALL BERING SEA HALIBUT AND SABLEFISH CDQ'S, CREATED AS 

PART OF A NEW INDIVIDUAL TRANSFERABLE QUOTA PROGRAM. 

THE CDQ CORPORATIONS HAVE ARRANGED FOR HUNDREDS OF 

WESTERN ALASKANS TO BE TRAINED IN NEW JOB SKILLS AND 

AWARDED THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN SCHOLARSHIPS. OUR GOAL 

IS NOTHING LESS THAN TO INVOLVE WESTERN ALASKANS IN ALL 

LEVELS OF THE BERING SEA FISHING INDUSTRY, FROM HARVESTING 

TO MANAGEMENT. 
119 

Magnuson Act testimony - page 5 

MANY PEOPLE WOULD SAY THIS PROGRAM IS THE BEST THING 

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS EVER DONE FOR THE PEOPLE OF 

WESTERN ALASKA. AND THE GOVERNMENT DID THIS WITHOUT 

THE APPROPRIATION OF A SINGLE FEDERAL DOLLAR. WHAT WAS 

REQUIRED WAS THE ALLOCATION OF A SMALL AMOUNT OF THE 

NATION'S FISHERIES RESOURCE. 

I WISH TO STRESS THAT THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM, 

NOT AN ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM. THE BENEFITS ARE ONLY 

AVAILABLE TO THE COMMUNmES AND THE INDIVIDUALS WHO 

HAVE THE INmA TIVE TO UTILIZE THIS PROGRAM TO THEIR BEST 

ADVANTAGE. IT IS STRUCTURED COMPETITIVELY SO THAT THE CDQ 

CORPORATIONS THAT ARE NOT USING THEIR QUOTA EFFECTIVELY 

MAY HAVE IT TAKEN AWAY AND AWARDED TO OTHER CDQ 

CORPORATIONS. 

ANOTHER IMPORTANT ASPECT IS THAT THE IDEA FOR THIS 

PROGRAM CAME FROM WESTERN ALASKA, NOT FROM OUTSIDE. 

LOCAL PEOPLE HAVE A VESTED INTEREST IN SEEING IT SUCCEED. 

UNDER PRESENT MANAGEMENT PLANS, THE POLLOCK CDQ'S 

WILL EXPIRE AT THE END OF THIS YEAR. THE NORTH PACIFIC 

COUNCIL IS CONSIDERING A PROPOSAL TO EXTEND THEM. 

ONE PERSON WHO DESERVES MUCH OF THE CREDIT FOR CDQ'S 

IS YOUR COLLEAGUE, MR. DON YOUNG OF ALASKA. HE SUPPORTED 
120 

Magnuson Act testimony - page 6 

THE IDEA FOR MANY YEARS AND WORKED WITH THE FEDERAL 

FISHERIES ADMINISTRATORS TO MAKE CDQ'S A REALITY. ANOTHER 

PERSON WHO WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN CREATING CDQ'S IS 

FISHERIES ADVOCATE HAROLD SPARCK OF BETHEL, WHO IS NOW 

BEING TREATED FOR CANCER IN AN ANCHORAGE HOSPITAL. IN 

MANY WAYS, THE EXISTENCE OF CDQ'S IS A TRIBUTE TO HIS 

DETERMINATION AND ABILITY. 

ONE SUBJECT THE WAFDA MEMBERS EMPHASIZE IS 

CONSERVATION. THE PEOPLE OF WESTERN ALASKA HAVE SPOKEN 

OUT FOR DECADES ON THE NEED FOR FISHERIES CONSERVATION. WE 

REMEMBER VIVIDLY THOSE TERRIBLE YEARS WHEN THE FOREIGN 

FLEETS FISHED OUT OF CONTROL OFF ALASKA'S SHORES TAKING 

SALMON, HERRING, CRAB, AND WHO KNOWS WHAT ELSE. 

THERE WAS SOME SPECULATION THAT ONCE WE BECAME 

PARTICIPANTS IN BERING SEA LARGE VESSEL FISHERIES, WE WOULD 

LOSE OUR ENTHUSIASM FOR CONSERVATION. IF ANYTHING, OUR 

PARTICIPATION HAS ONLY INTENSIFIED OUR INTEREST BECAUSE WE 

NOW HAVE A DIRECT STAKE IN THE RESOURCE AND BECAUSE WE 

BELIEVE WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. WE WANT TO SEE THIS 

INDUSTRY REMAIN VIABLE NOT ONLY FOR THIS GENERATION OF 

WESTERN ALASKANS, BUT FOR THE NEXT GENERATION, AND THE 

ONE AFTER THAT. WE WANT TO REDUCE BYCATCH TO THE LOWEST 

LEVEL POSSIBLE BECAUSE OUR VILLAGES DEPEND ON THOSE BYCAUGHT SALMON FOR SUSTENANCE AND INCOME. 
121 

Magnuson Act testimony - page 7 

THE CDQ PROGRAM HAS SET A NEW STANDARD FOR 

CONSERVATION IN THE NORTH PACIFIC. WE HAVE DEMONSTRATED 

THAT A COMMUNITY QUOTA -WHEN FISHED BY A CONSCIENTIOUS 

SKIPPER AND SEAFOOD COMPANY -CAN RESULT IN LOWER 

BYCATCH, WASTE, AND DISCARDS. 

ALL CDQ VESSELS CARRY TWO OBSERVERS, REPORT CATCHES 

DAILY, AND HAVE FISH HOLDS THAT ARE EQUIPPED FOR 

MANDATORY VOLUMETRIC MEASUREMENTS. IN THE FUTURE, 

WE'LL BE MOVING TOWARD MANDATORY WEIGHT MEASUREMENT. 

THESE MEASURES PROVIDE THE FEDERAL MANAGERS WITH THE 

MOST RELIABLE OAT A POSSIBLE. 

THE CDQ CORPORATIONS PAY THE COST OF THESE ADDmONAL 

REQUIREMENTS. WE DON'T MIND BECAUSE WE WANT TO BE PART 

OF THE SOLUTION IN MAKING THIS A BETTER FISHERY. WE BELIEVE 

THESE STANDARDS SHOULD BE MET BY ALL PARTICIPANTS IN THE 

NORTH PACIFIC FISHERIES. 

MR CHAIRMAN, I HAVE PROVIDED YOU WITH ALL OF THIS 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION ABOUT THE CDQ PROGRAM IN ORDER 

TO DEMONSTRATE THE IMPORTANCE TO US OF A REAUTHORIZED 

MAGNUSON FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT. AS 

ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS IN EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE (EEZ) 

FISHERIES, WE ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE LAW THAT 

GOVERNS FISHING ACTIVITIES IN THE NORTH PACIFIC AND 

DETERMINES THE LONG-TERM VIABILITY OF OUR INDUSTRY. 
122 

Magnuson Act testimony - page 8 

BECAUSE OF OUR PRIORITIES, WE STRONGLY ENDORSE H.R. 39. 

IT CONTAINS MANY PROVISIONS THAT WILL GREATLY IMPROVE THE 

MANAGEMENT OF OUR NORTH PACIFIC FISHERIES. 

TURNING TO THE ISSUE OF MOST IMMEDIATE CONCERN, WE 

APPRECIATE THE LANGUAGE IN THE BILL THAT DEFINES A "FISHERY 

DEPENDENT COMMUNITY" AND THAT ALLOWS MANAGEMENT 

COUNCILS TO RESERVE A PORTION OF THE TOTAL ALLOWABLE 

CATCH FOR THE USE OF FISHERY DEPENDENT COMMUNITIES. 

WE HAVE BEEN INFORMED BY STAFF THAT THE INTENT OF 

THIS LANGUAGE IS TO AUTHORIZE THE MANAGEMENT COUNCILS TO 

DEVELOP CDQ PROGRAMS AND THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE TO 

ADOPT REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING CDQ PROGRAMS, AS WELL AS 

ACCOMPLISH OTHER GOALS. 

AT THE CURRENT TIME, WAFDA IS PARTICIPATING IN AN 

EXPENSIVE LAWSUIT THAT CHALLENGES THE EXISTENCE OF THE CDQ 

PROGRAM UNDER THE MAGNUSON ACT. IN DECEMBER, THE 

FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN ALASKA RULED THAT CDQ'S ARE 

AUTHORIZED BY THE MAGNUSON ACT. HOWEVER, THE CHALLENGE 

IS PENDING APPEAL. BECAUSE THE INTENT IN H.R. 39 IS NOT READILY 

APPARENT, WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT LANGUAGE BE ADDED 

TO REINFORCE THE POINT THAT THE EXISTING WESTERN ALASKA 

CDQ PROGRAM WITH THE EXISTING ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS IS 

AUTHORIZED. ACCORDING TO CONGRESSMAN YOUNG AND 
123 

Magnuson Act testimony - page 9 

SENATOR TED STEVENS, THIS IS WHAT CONGRESS INTENDED AND 

THIS LANGUAGE WOULD CLARIFY THAT THIS WAS ALWAYS THE 

CONGRESSIONAL INTENT. 

WE ALSO WISH TO PROVIDE YOU WITH OUR COMMENTS ON 

OTHER KEY SECTIONS OF H.R 39. 

THE BILL CONTAINS LONG OVERDUE DEFINffiONS OF 

"BYCATCH", "ECONOMIC DISCARDS", "ESSENTIAL FISHERY HABITAT", 

"REBUILDING PROGRAM", AND "OVERFISHING". 

IN THE DEFINffiON OF "ESSENTIAL FISHERY HABITAT", WE 

WISH TO SUGGEST THAT THE SUBCOMMITfEE ALSO ADD AREAS 

THAT ARE "ESSENTIAL TO MAXIMUM SUSTAINED YIELD" ALONG 

WITH THE SPAWNING, BREEDING, AND REARING GROUNDS. IN THE 

DEFINITION OF "OVERFISHING", WE WISH TO SUGGEST THAT THE 

SUBCOMMITfEE CONSIDER NOT ONLY THE ''THE ABILITY OF A STOCK 

OF FISH TO PRODUCE MAXIMUM SUSTAINED YIELD" BUT ALSO "THE 

CAPACITY OF A FISHERY TO PRODUCE MAXIMUM SUSTAINED YIELD". 

WE FEEL THESE CHANGES WOULD. STRENGTHEN THE DEFINITIONS. 

WE SUPPORT GIVING THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE A 

SPECIFIC ROLE TO PLAY IN THE PROTECTION OF ESSENTIAL FISHERY 

HABITAT. 

WE SUPPORT THE PROVISIONS THAT GIVE THE SECRETARY OF 

COMMERCE THE AUTHORITY TO TAKE STEPS TO STOP OVERFISHING 
124 

Magnuson Act testimony- page 10 

AND TO REBUILD THE FISHERY IF THE AFFECTED COUNCIL WILL NOT 

TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION. 

H.R. 39 INCLUDES A NEW NATIONAL STANDARD FOR 

MINIMIZING BYCATCH. WE REQUEST THAT THIS STANDARD BE 

STRENGTHENED BY SAYING, "TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT 

PRACTICABLE", RATHER THAN JUST "TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE". 

TWO ADDITIONAL NATIONAL STANDARDS HAVE BEEN 

PROPOSED IN THE SENATE LEGISLATION. WE HOPE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE WILL CONSIDER ADDING THESE SAME STANDARDS 

TO PREVENT OVERFISHING AND THE RECOGNIZE THE IMPORTANCE 

OF THE HARVEST OF FISHERY RESOURCES TO FISHERY DEPENDENT 

COMMUNITIES. 

WE SUPPORT THE REQUIREMENTS THAT FISHERY 

MANAGEMENT PLANS ADDRESS "ESSENTIAL FISHERY HABITAT", 

THAT THEY INCLUDE FISHERY REBUILDING PLANS WHEN NEEDED, 

AND THAT THEY INCLUDE "INCENTIVES AND HARVEST 

PREFERENCES" TO PROMOTE TilE AVOIDANCE OF BYCATCH. THESE 

ARE METHODS THAT WE ARE TRYING TO PROMOTE WITHIN OUR 

OWN CDQ FISHERIES. 

CDQ'S ARE, IN FACT, A LABORATORY FOR CONSERVATION. WE 

HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT THE INDUSTRY CAN MEET STRONG 

STANDARDS IF IT HAS THE PROPER INCENTIVES. 
125 

Magnuson Act testimony- page 11 

IN THE CDQ FISHERY, WE MADE OUR INDUSTRY PARTNERS 

AWARE THAT WE CONSIDER HIGH BYCATCH UNACCEPTABLE. WE 

WORKED WITH THEM TO INSTITUTE PRACTICES THAT ALLOW THE 

RESOURCE TO BE HARVESTED ACCORDINGLY. 

WE SUPPORT THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE NORTH PACIFIC 

COUNCIL BE GIVEN DEADLINES FOR TAKING ACTION TO REDUCE 

BYCATCH AND TO ENSURE TOTAL CATCH MEASUREMENT. 

TOTAL CATCH MANAGEMENT IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL FOR 

THE PREVENTION OF OVERFISHING. WE CANNOT HOPE TO 

DETERMINE THE OVERALL HEALTH OF A FISHERY OR STOCK OF FISH 

UNLESS WE KNOW EXACTLY HOW MUCH WAS CAUGHT. 

THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST PROVISIONS IN H.R 39 STRIKE THE 

PROPER BALANCE IN PREVENTING SELF-SERVING ACTIONS AND IN 

ALLOWING INDUSTRY PEOPLE TO PUT THEIR FIRST HAND 

KNOWLEI:X;E TO USE IN DETERMINING HOW FISHERIES WILL BE 

MANAGED. 

FOR EXAMPLE, THE PRESIDENT OF ONE OF OUR CDQ 

CORPORATIONS NOW SERVES AS A VOTING MEMBER OF THE NORTH 

PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL. HE ALSO IS A 

COMMERCIAL SALMON FISHERMAN. DURING DELIBERATIONS, HE 

PROVIDES THE COUNCIL WITH INVALUABLE INFORMATION ON 

CDQ'S, SALMON FISHERIES, AND LIFE IN WESTERN ALASKA. IT 

WOULD BE EXTREMELY DETRIMENTAL TO THE COUNCIL'S ABILITY TO 

89-569 96-5 
126 

Magnuson Act testimony - page 12 

MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS IF THIS INDIVIDUAL WERE PREVENTED 

BY CONFLICT OF INTEREST RULES FROM VOTING ON CDQ AND 

SALMON BYCATCH ISSUES BECAUSE OF THE POTE.'I\ITIAL ECONOMIC 

BENERT TO THE THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE IN HIS SEGMENT OF THE 

INDUSTRY. 

THE DEFINITION OF "AN INTEREST THAT WOULD BE 

SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECTED" OFFERS A COMMON SENSE APPROACH TO 

THIS PROBLEM. OUR ONE CONCERN IS THAT THE SECRETARY OF 

COMMERCE - BECAUSE HE HAS A VESTED INTEREST IN THE 

OUTCOME OF THE COUNCIL DELIBERATIONS- SHOULD NOT BE THE 

INDIVIDUAL WHO ESTABLISHES THE RULES THAT PROHIBIT 

AFFECTED INDIVIDUALS FROM VOTING ON SPECIFIC MATTERS. 

THE BILL INCLUDES A CHANGE IN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 

IN REGARD THE OPERATION OF LARGE-SCALE DRIFT NET FISHING 

FLEETS OUTSIDE ANY NATION'S EEZ. NOT LONG AGO, THOUSANDS 

OF PACIFIC SALMON DISAPPEARED ANNUALLY BECAUSE OF HIGH 

SEAS INTERCEPTIONS. AGAIN, IT WAS HAROLD SPARCK WHO 

HELPED BRING THIS PROBLEM TO EVERYONE'S ATTENTION AND 

FORCED ACTION TO STOP THIS DESTRUCTIVE PRACTICE. THE 

PROVISION IN H.R. 39 WILL ALLOW THE UNITED STATES TO 

CONTINUE MONITORING THE SITUATION AND, WE HOPE, PREVENT 

IT FROM AGAIN BECOMING A MAJOR PROBLEM. 
127 

Magnuson Act testimony - page 13 

MR CHAIRMAN, IN CONCLUSION, I URGE THE COMMITIEE 

MEMBERS TO LOOK FAVORABLY ON THE WESTERN ALASKA CDQ 

PROGRAM DURING THEIR DELIBERATIONS ON H.R 39. 

WE'RE DOING THE BEST WE CAN TO INSTILL IN OUR 

COMMUNffiES A NEW SENSE OF HOPE AND SELF-ESTEEM. WE'RE 

CREATING AN ECONOMY WHERE NONE PREVIOUSLY EXISTED. WITH 

CDQ'S, WE'RE OPERATING PROJECTS THAT CREATE JOBS, AWARD 

SCHOLARSHIPS, RETAIN LIMITED ENTRY PERMITS, PROVIDE 

TRAINING IN NEW SKILLS, AND SO MUCH MORE. 

AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, OUR PARTICIPATION IN NORTH 

PACIFIC FISHERIES IS HELPING TO SET A NEW STANDARD FOR 

CONSERVATION AND INNOVATIVE FISHING PRACTICES. WHERE 

OTHER MEMBERS OF THE INDUSTRY MAY SAY, "WE CAN'T', WE SAY, 

"WE CAN". WE CAN REDUCE BYCATCH, WASTE AND DISCARDS. WE 

CAN FOLLOW FISHING PRACTICES THAT PRESERVE THIS RESOURCE 

FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS. WE CAN UTILIZE OUR FISHERIES IN A 

MANNER THAT IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE NATION. AND, WE 

CAN DO ALL THIS WITH AN ALLOCATION OF FEDERAL FISH, NOT 

WITH THE APPROPRIATION OF FEDERAL DOLLARS. 

MR CHAIRMAN, I AGAIN WISH TO THANK YOU FOR THE 

OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY. 
128 

TESTIMONY OF 

JEF'F HENDRICKS 

GENERAL MANAGER OF 

ALASKA OCEAN SEAFOOD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 

ANACORTES, WASHINGTON 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS 

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

February 23, 1995 

Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Jeff 

Hendricks. I am General Manager of Alaska Ocean Seafood Limited Partnership in 

Anacortes, Washington. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Committee 

on Resources and the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans as you 

consider reauthorization of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

("Magnuson Act' or 'the Act'). 

The Alaska Ocean partnership owns and operates the vessel ALASKA OCEAN, 

a picture of which is attached to this testimony. At 376 feet, the ALASKA OCEAN is 

the largest and one of the most modern surimi factory trawlers ir. the United States 

and represents an investment in excess of $65 million. The ALASKA OCEAN operates 

in the Alaska groundfish industry for a target species of Alaska pollock. 

I am principal captain of the ALASKA OCEAN. In addition, I manage and 

through my companies have an ownership interest in the F/V AURORA and the F/V 
129 

- 2-

AURIGA, which are 190-foot stern trawlers that harvest pollock and other species for 

delivery to Alaska shoreside processors. 

My current involvement in the North Pacific fisheries is the culmination of a long 

family history of such involvement. My grandfathers operated halibut schooners in the 

Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea, beginning in the 1920's. One of my sons captains 

the AURORA, and another is employed as a fisherman on the AlASKA OCEAN. I 

personally have participated in the crab and groundfish fisheries for over 25 years. In 

the early 1980's, I owned and operated trawlers that delivered catch to foreign 

mothership processors in joint venture operations. Later, we contributed to the full 

Americanization of the industry by constructing the AURORA and AURIGA for delivery 

of catch to U.S. shoreside processors, and introduced the AlASKA OCEAN with atsea harvesting and processing capability. 

Given our large investment and long-term involvement in the fisheries, we are 

understandably concerned with the way in which the fisheries are managed. We 

believe that our years of experience have provided us with valuable insights on 

management issues, and we applaud Chairman Young's introduction of legislation to 

improve fisheries management. 

Briefly, we would like to see a management system that rationalizes the 

fisheries, that insures the integrity of the Council system, and that prohibits the direct 
130 

- 3-

or indirect exclusion of current industry segments from the fisheries. The following 

comments address particular aspects of H.R. 39 on the basis of these principles. 

I. Rationalizing the Fisheries 

(A) Overcapitalization. In our view, the major problem facing the Alaska 

groundfish fishery is overcapitalization. While the combined efforts of the National 

Marine Fisheries Service, the scientific community, and the North Pacific Fisheries 

Management Council have insured that the resource is healthy, there nonetheless are 

too many vessels harvesting the resource available. 

The North Pacific Council has identified the following problems as flowing from 

that overcapitalization: 

A race for fish 

Allocation and pre-emption problems between industry sectors 

Pre-emption conflicts between gear types 

Excessive participation and surplus fishing effort on limited grounds 

Dead-loss such as with "ghost fishing· 

Bycatch loss 

Economic loss and waste 

Disregard of vessel and crew safety 

Economic instability within industry sectors and fishing communities 

Inability to provide a long-term, stable fisheries-based economy in 

adjacent coastal communities 
131 

- 4-

Reduction in ability to provide a quality product to consumers at a 

competitive price 

Possible impact on marine mammals, birds, and habitats 

Inability to achieve long-term sustainable economic benefits to the nation 

A complex enforcement regime 

Our experience confirms the existence of all of these problems; we believe that 

their existence amply demonstrates that, in an overcapitalized fishery, an open access 

system - one in which the fishery is open to all comers -- is the very antithesis of 

good fisheries management. Equally obvious, we believe, is the conclusion that the 

North Pacific Council cannot fulfill its management responsibilities under the Magnuson 

Act unless it moves away from an open-access system for the groundfish fishery. 

(B) The Council's Solutions To-Date. The North Pacific Council has in fact 

recognized the inevitability of this conclusion and in recent years has moved to 

implement various mechanisms to address open-access problems. For example, in 

1990, the Council announced its intent to establish a control date beyond which no 

new vessel would be allowed in the fishery. In 1992, the Council approved a 

moratorium on new entries; final regulations implementing that moratorium hopefully 

will take effect some time this year. Also in 1992, the Council made specific 

allocations of the resource to the inshore and offshore segments of the industry. 

Currently, the Council is in the process of implementing a license limitation program, 

which is basically a fine-tuning of the moratorium. 
132 

-5-

These piece-meal programs, which might constitute good first steps, all suffer 

from a common flaw - they do not correct the problem of overcapitalization and the 

resultant race for fish. Each of these programs essentially attempts to curtail or limit 

one or more of the factors that go into the effort to fish. For example, the moratorium 

and the license limitation programs seek to limit the total number of vessels that are 

engaged in the fishing effort. But a vessel is only one of the 'input factors· in the 

fishing effort. Our experience suggests that limiting one input factor simply 

encourages participants to expand other factors, to engage in what is called 

"technology creep' or 'capital stuffing". For instance, a participant who wants to 

increase his share of the harvest, but is prohibited from adding a new vessel to do so, 

will find other ways, such as increasing horsepower, adding crew, improving 

technology, etc. As a result, the race for fish just continues -- and accelerates. 

The same is true of industry-sector allocations. Under the inshore-offshore 

allocation, for example, it is true that those two sectors no longer race with each other, 

a desirable result. But the participants within each sector continue to race each other, 

and for a smaller amount of resource. 

In other words, programs that limit the effort that can be put into fishing are 

akin to squeezing the air in a balloon. As one factor is "squeezed" or curtailed, the 

pressure -- the capital input -- simply shifts to another factor. 
133 

-6-

(C) ITO's As The Solution to Overcapitalization. We believe that the only 

viable solution to an overcapitalization problem such as exists in the Alaska groundfish 

fishery is a system which limits ~ -- the amount of resource that an individual 

participant may harvest andjor process. Such a system is commonly called an 

Individual Transferable Quota, or ITO system. 

Briefly, an ITO system is one in which individual participants in a fishery are 

allocated a specific percentage of the total allowable catch, or T AC. The advantages 

of such a system are myriad; the most basic is that it stops the race for fish. No 

amount of capital investment, capital stuffing, or technology improvement can alter the 

amount of a participant's harvest beyond that which is fixed in the quota itself. 

Elimination of the race for fish of necessity eliminates the problems that flow 

from that race. It is for this reason that the staff of the North Pacific Council 

concluded that an ITO program -- unlike the other measures the Council is trying --

would eliminate virtually all the problems listed above. Among the benefits that can be 

expected from an ITO program are: 

Increased and enhanced use of the fishery resource 

Decreased by-catch and waste 

Rational and meaningful reduction of capitalization 

Increased safety and financial security for crew members 

Economic stability and improved planning capability for harvesters and 

processors 
134 

- 7-

Resolution of allocation disputes 

Improved market opportunities 

In 1992, the Council implemented the Community Development Quota program, 

pursuant to which a percentage quota of the pollock resource is given to certain 

coastal communities. The COO program therefore is actually a 'mini" ITO program 

and its results can provide valuable insights. We understand that the Subcommittee 

will receive testimony from representatives of one or more COO communities. We fully 

expect that their testimony will confirm what we are suggesting -- that ITO's are the 

~ way to manage the Alaska groundfish fishery. 

(D) Legislative Changes That Are Needed. The North Pacific Council has 

begun consideration of ITO's for the groundfish industry, but has deferred the 

immediacy of that consideration in favor of more piece-meal, less effective measures 

such as the license limitation program. Our observations of the Council's deliberations 

suggest that the Council feels constrained from implementing ITO's, at least in part, by 

certain actual or perceived legal and political impediments to such implementation. 

We respectfully request that the Subcommittee amend H.R. 39 to remove these 

impediments as set out below. 

1. Authorize and Mandate ITO's. We believe that the Magnuson 

Act already contains authority for Councils to implement ITO's, and it is our 

understanding that the existence of that authority has been affirmed in at least two 
135 

- 8-

recent court cases. Nonetheless, concerns on this issue remain and can be put to 

rest by legislation that unequivocally authorizes Councils to implement ITO's. 

In addition, we ask the Subcommittee to approve legislation that requires the 

North Pacific Council to implement an ITO program for the groundfish fishery. and to 

do so within two (2) years. The groundfish resource is healthy, but its future health 

and that of the entire industry are threatened by continuation of piecemeal, ineffective 

programs. 

2. Initial Allocation Parameters. One of the most difficult factors in 

designing an ITO program is devising initial allocation parameters that will survive legal 

scrutiny and political pressure. Various formulations have been suggested and some 

tried in other ITO programs. Among these are allocation of equal shares to all 

participants, allocations based on vessel length, allocations based on catch history 

over various sets of years, allocations based on level of investment in the fishery, etc. 

The legal and political. problems arising from allocation formulations result from 

the tendency of those formulations to create winners and losers -- for some recipients 

to receive "windfalls" at the expense of other participants. We believe that winner-andloser issues can be greatly minimized in the Alaska groundfish industry by a simple 

concept: 
136 

- 9-

ANY INITIAL ALLOCATION SCHEME FOR A FULLY UTILIZED GROUNDFISH 

SPECIES SHALL NOT RESULT IN MORE THAN A FIVE PERCENT (5%) 

REDUCTION IN STATUS QUO FOR EACH PARTICIPATING HARVESTING 

~. 

ANY INITIAL ALLOCATION SCHEME FOR A FULLY UTILIZED GROUNDFISH 

SPECIES SHALL NOT RESULT IN MORE THAN A FIVE PERCENT (5%) 

REDUCTION IN STATUS QUO FOR EACH INDUSTRY PROCESSING SECTOR. 

The appeal of this concept is that it leaves those that are presently harvesting 

and presently processing the resource virtually where they are right now -- there 

simoly are no winners and losers. Thus there are no windfalls. Nor is there any threat 

to the economic well-being of crew members and others who depend on those who 

would be losers under other formulations. In other words, the parameters areJQir. 

We therefore urge the Subcommittee to approve legislation mandating the use 

of these initial allocation parameters in the Alaska groundfish fishery ITO system. 

3. Processor Quotas. The shoreside processing segment of the 

groundfish industry has made clear that it cannot and will not support any ITO system 

that does not include processor quotas. Unfortunately, the General Counsel of the 

National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration has opined to the North 
137 

- 10-

Pacific Council that shoreside processor quotas are not authorized under the 

Magnuson Act. 

As suggested by our discussion of allocation parameters, we believe that there 

should be offshore and shoreside processor quotas, and, in our view, the various 

industry segments are close to reaching a consensus on the details and mechanics of 

such quotas. We therefore ask the Subcommittee to approve legislation authorizing 

Councils to issue quotas to all processors, including both offshore and inshore 

processors. 

4. Nature of ITO's. There has been considerable concern and 

debate in the industry, in the government, and among environmental groups as to the 

legal nature of an ITO. The basic issue is whether an ITO is a property right. If it is, 

revocation of an ITO could lead to "taking• claims under the Fifth Amendment and 

potentially subject the government to liability. 

We suggest that the Subcommittee eliminate these concerns by approving 

legislation making it clear that an ITO is not a property right. 

II. Bycatch and Reduction of Waste Provisions 

(A) Alaska Ocean's Efforts. We are proud of the measures we have taken 

to minimize bycatch and to utilize fully those fish that we do harvest. As a surimi 

vessel we target pollock and whiting. Because these species typically are found 
138 

-, , -

concentrated with few other kinds of fish, and because they tend to swim in large 

schools, we are able to avoid much of the bycatch problem experienced in some other 

fisheries. This allows us to fish cleanly simply because of our target species. 

Our commitment to sound bycatch management and to full utilization of the fish 

we catch is no better evid\')nced than in the design of our vessel. Like many vessels in 

the factory trawler fleet, in planning the ALASKA OCEAN we included not only state-ofthe-art fish processing machinery to ensure high production efficiency; we also made 

the additional investment necessary to utilize as much of the fish as practical. Our 

vessel is of a size sufficient to allow for a modern fish meal plant on board which 

enables us to turn that portion of the lish that is not used in the production of surimi 

into fish meal. Although obviously lower in value than our surimi product, we believe 

that this capability is an important part of our responsibility to meet the efficrency 

objectives of the MagnusC¥1 Act. We also have an oil plant on board the vessel which 

gives us the ability, through a centrifuge process, to recover the fish oil from our 

processing operation. We are able to put that oil to good use to fuel our boilers to 

make fresh water and process fish meal. Frnally, we have made the investment in 

state-of-the-art scales permitting us to weigh accurately the fish we catch. This allows 

us to determine with a higher degree of certainty exactly what we are doing in the 

fishery. 

In turning to the by.atch provisions of H.R. 39 appearing in Sections 3, 4 and 7, 

we have no objection to the goal of minimizing bycatch to the extent practicable, nor 
139 

- 12-

to the proposed additions to the policy section of the Act or to the National Standards 

of such language. Because of the differences among fisheries and in fishing 

conditions, however, we believe that any further effort to legislate bycatch issues 

should be left to the Regional Councils. 

(B) Incentive Programs. As is evident from the design of our vessel, we 

support the goals of reducing fishing waste that appear to have motivated the addition 

of the waste provisions in Section 14 of H.R. 39. However, again we have 

reservations about efforts on the part of Congress to "micro-manage" issues that are 

more properly left to the Regional Councils. In particular, we are concerned with the 

provisions that operate on the basis of incentives rather than penalties. We see these 

as potential avenues for discriminating against the trawler fleet even though, on a 

percentage basis, ours is one of the cleanest fisheries. Section 14 of the bill would 

require the North Pacific Council to recommend for each fishery management plan 

under its jurisdiction incentive measures to reduce bycatch. Similarly, harvest 

preferences based on lower levels of discards create the same problems. 

These kinds of incentives have been identified and are already under review by 

the North Pacific Council. Among the concerns are practical and legal problems in 

proving that one fisherman has in fact fished ~ than another sufficient to justify the 

kind of reward a harvest preference would reflect. It is one thing to penalize a bad 

actor, upon presentation of evidence of a violation of law; it is another to establish that 

someone else has acted sufficiently positively to warrant the benefit. This is 
140 

- 13-

particularly true where data collection is an imperfect science and is potentially highly 

variable depending on the observers on bo:trd the vessel. These concerns are 

detailed in a Memorandum from Clarence G. Pautzke, Executive Director of the North 

Pacific Council, to Council, SSC and AP Members, re: Harvest Priority /Full Utilization 

(Apr. 17, 1994). 

Given the already recognized administrative and other problems associated with 

incentive programs, we believe it unwise for Congress to mandate specifically the 

inclusion of such programs in all fishery management plans of the North Pacific 

Council. If they are to be mandated, however, we believe that the July 1, 1996 

deadline contained in Section 14 (2)(f}(1) is insufficient to allow these to be formulated, 

particularly given the heavy schedule to which the Council is already subject in dealing 

with Comprehensive Rationalization Planning, the sunset of inshore/offshore, the 

moratorium implementation and other major issues already in the pipeline. 

(C) "Targeting· the North Pacific Council. We have one final concern with 

the Section 14 waste reduction provisions of H.R. 39. It is widely recognized, 

especially compared to other regions, that the North Pacific Council has done a pretty 

good job in conserving and protecting the resources under its jurisdiction. Why then 

is it singled out for this micro-management? By their express terms, these reduction 

of waste provisions apply Q!}]y to the North Pacific Council. There are certainly areas 

in the country where this kind of mandate might be warranted, although we see no 

reason why the North Pacific Council should even be on the list, let alone constitute 
141 

- 14-

the entire list. To the best of our knowledge, today's hearings are the first in either the 

House or the Senate to address the so-called ·waste issue·. This is hardly the record 

needed to justify this kind of regulatory intrusion in the first place, let alone the 

discriminatory manner with respect to our region in which it has been proposed. If 

these kinds of provisions are to be required, they should be based on a sound record 

as to why they are needed and they should be required of every one of the councils. 

Ill. Fishery Dependent Communities 

We understand the benefits that Community Development Quotas can bring to 

a local community, particularly since our company is currently under consideration as 

a finalist to work with one such community in harvesting and processing its quota. To 

the extent there have been questions about the authority under the Act for the creation 

of COOs, we understand that recent court cases have been read to uphold their 

legality. Should the Committee decide that more is needed in the form of a specific 

legislative grant of authority, we have no objection to such a change. It is not clear to 

us, however, that the new fishery dependent community provisions in H.R. 39 

accomplish that objective. 

Section 9 of the bill adds new discretionary provisions that a Council may 

include in a fishery management plan, including conservation and management 

measures reserving a portion of the total allowable catch for the use of fishery 

dependent communities. These are defined as rommunities which are substantially 
142 

- 15-

dependent on the harvest of fishery resources to meet social and economic needs. 

That is all that is said, leaving a number of questions unanswered. Many in the 

industry from communities in all of the states under the Council's jurisdiction have 

been dependent on the fisheries for their economic and social needs. Yet it is not 

clear which communities would be eligible and which would not, with the answer 

varying greatly depending on the economic diversity in those areas. It is also unclear 

what the real objectives are and what standards are to be applied in determining the 

"conservation and management" purposes that appear to limit such allocations. 

Finally, we assume that this bill expands CDOs beyond pollock to all species because 

the provisions of Section 9 of H.R. 39 would give Councils new general authority to 

reserve a portion of any T AC for use by fisheries dependent communities. In short, if 

amendments to the Act are needed in this area. we recommend that general 

guidelines be developed to define the scope of the program and to be sure that any 

such allocations meet the intended needs and objectives of such a program. 

IV. Council Reforms 

(A) Background. The Regional Fisheries Management Councils are a 

unique experiment in the regulation of a natural resource and the industries that 

depend on it. The Council system brought public participation in the decision making 

process to a new level by allowing those who have an economic stake in the fisheries 

to sit on the Councils and to vote on maners that have a direct impact on their own 

wallets or those of their constituencies. The inherent tension between the Council 
143 

- 16-

member's role as a trustee of the resource responsible for its conservation and sound 

management on the one hand, and the economic temptations, and indeed necessities, 

of that member's business on the other, has never been fully resolved. In fact, in the 

1980's the Act was actually amended to exempt Council members from the federal 

conflicts of interest statutes - the only such exemption on the books. 

Because the Magnuson Act gives a statutory priority to U.S. vessels, for many 

years -- as long as foreign vessels were in our waters catching and processing fish --

allocation decisions were relatively easy. However, once the foreign vessels were 

displaced by U.S. flag vessels the decisions became much more difficult, as an 

increasing number of U.S. user groups competed for a larger piece of the same pie. 

With a billion dollar resource at stake, it has become important to avoid both actual 

and perceived conflicts of interest in the management process. The Inspector General 

of the Department of Commerce has studied the situation in the North Pacific, 

identifying a number of past abuses and problems and making detailed 

recommendations for amendments to the Act which were presented in hearings in the 

last Congress. Testimony of. Frank DeGeorge, Inspector General of the United States 

Department of Commerce, before the Subcommittee on Fisheries Management of the 

House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee (March 23, 1994). 

(B) . We are pleased to see that H.R. 39 takes a step in the right 

direction by incorporating some of these reforms. In particular, the adoption of a 

recusal mechanism, as well as the procedural improvements regarding roll call votes, 
144 

-17-

better notice of meetings, better identification of witnesses, detailed minutes, and the 

ability of members to add to agenda items will all help improve decision making in the 

Council system. Similarly, putting the Executive Director back under the federal 

conflicts of interest statute, like all other federal employees, is an appropriate change. 

There remains, however, room for improvement in several areas. 

First, the recusal mechanism falls short of providing a full safeguard against 

conflicts of interest. The triggering event for a Council member to be recused is if the 

Council member (or a close relative or business partner) has "an interest that would 

be significantly affected". This in turn is defined to mean: 

a personal financial interest which would be augmented by 

voting on the matter and which would only be shared by a 

minority of other persons within the same industry sector or 

gear group whose activity would be directly affected by a 

Council's action. 

By limiting the relevant "interest" io one that is "personal' it would appear as 

though actions benefiting an employer or corporate entity would not be included 

unless the voting member had an equity interest in the company or could earn a 

"success bonus· or had some other compensation arrangement that could be viewed 

as resulting in a ·personal" benefit to the individual. Council members who, for 

example, are salaried employees of an environmental, trade, or other association·· 

which association would clearly benefit from the outcome of a management decision •• 

would apparently be free to vote for that measure without the need for recusal. 
145 

- 18-

In addition, the reach of the regulations could also be escaped simply by 

defining the class to be benefited so narrowly that all would benefit. For example, a 

proposal to give an allocation preference to the industry sector described as "factory 

trawlers greater than 375 feet in length" would affect only ~ vessel in the entire fleet, 

the ALASKA OCEAN. Yet presumably if I were on the Council I would not have to 

recuse myself since all members (which in this case happens to be my company) of 

that industry sector (and not just a minority) would share in the benefit. 

Finally, the practical problems with the recusal mechanism as proposed are 

very real. Because recusal is either voluntary with the individual member, or at the 

direction of the NOAA General Counsel, it provides no mechanism for another Council 

member to raise a conflict issue concerning a colleague on the Council. Significantly, 

there is no appeal mechanism, should the NOAA General Council's decision at the 

Council meeting be shown to be erroneous. Moreover, there would be no invalidation 

of a Council's action, even if the deciding vote were cast by a member who ultimately 

was found to have violated the conflicts prohibition. 

(C) Judicial Review. In addition to refining the recusal mechanism, we 

recommend that the Committee consider some further changes. In particular, H.R. 39 

does not address the appropriate standard of judicial review of Council actions. The 

integrity of the Council system cannot be fully insured without increased judicial 

scrutiny of Council actions to ensure that those actions are both in compliance with 
146 

- 19-

the National Standards and other relevant law and are arrived at fairly and with full 

regard to due process. 

Few would dispute the fact that the substantive decisions with respect to 

fisheries management are made at the Council level, not the Secretarial level. 

Fundamental fairness demands that those substantive decisions and the process by 

which they were made be subject to judicial review. Unfortunately the courts have 

failed to do this, choosing instead to evaluate only the ministerial actions taken by the 

Secretary in promulgating the Councils' substantive decisions. 

Section B(h){4) of H.R. 39 takes an initial step toward correcting this problem by 

requiring the Councils to produce detailed, certified meeting minutes, and by 

specifying that those minutes are to be made available to the courts. We do not 

believe that this provision goes far enough, however; even in cases where courts have 

had Council records before them, they have decl1ned to evaluate them and have 

viewed Council actions as being "cleansed" by the Secretary's ministerial functions. 

We therefore propose an amendment which would clearly subject Council 

actions to review under the provisions and standards of the Administrative Procedures 

Act. By this proposal, we neither desire nor intend that Councils or Council members 

be subject to direct suit with respect to their actions on fishery management plans or 

proposed regulations. Our purpose is merely to ensure that Council actions on those 

matters are reviewed and evahJated by the courts in the context of legal challenges to 
147 

- 20-

the Secretary's promulgation of regulations. This becomes even more important in 

light of the proposals in H.R. 39 that increase considerably the Council's authority. 

We suggest an amendment to Subsection 305 (b)(1) of the Act that would insert 

between "act" and "and" the following: "Council actions upon which such regulations 

are based". We also suggest adding the following new subparagraph (b){1)(C): 

"Nothing herein shall be construed as authorizing any suit against any Council or 

Council member on the basis of the actions referred to in this subsection." 

This concludes my prepared remarks, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to 

answer any questions you or other Members of the Committee may have. And thank 

you again for this opportunity to appear before you today. 
148 

Testimony of 

Nelson R. Beideman 

Executive Director 

Blue Water Fishermen's Association 

Before the 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

Commiltee on Resources 

United States House of Representatives 

February 23, 1995 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommiltee: 

Thank you for inviting me to speak to you about the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (MFCMA) 

I am Nelson Beideman, Executive Director of Blue Water Fishermen's Association (BWFA) I had 

served as Blue Water's President from December 1989 until April 1993 when my boat and all hands 

were tragically lost at sea. I have been a fisherman since childhood and began commercial fishing 

year-round after my graduation from Maine Maritime Academy in 1975. 

Blue Water Fishermen's Association (RWFA) represents commercial fishermen, vessel owners, fish 

dealers and supporting supply companies with an interest in Atlantic highly migratory marine species, 

with members from Maine to Texas and California to the Caribbean Islands. These family-nm small 

businesses are comprised of hard-working Americans who are proud to carry on the tradition of 

providing healthy food for other Americans who cannot or do not want to catch their own 

Thank you for delaying the mark-up of the current reauthorization of the Atlantic Tuna Convention 

Act (ATCA). The extra time has given your staff and industry the opponunity to work to improve 

the Bill. Because NMFS can choose either Act to implement regulations for highly migratory 

species, it is also necessary to incorporate comparable enforcement provisions in the Magnuson Act 

to ensure fairness and equity for U.S fishermen who harvest internationally shared resources. 

The reauthorization and strengthening of the MFCMA is a critical part of the revised management 

program for highly migratory species (H.M.S.) that Congress initiated with the last amendments to 

the MFCMA and the ATCA. Congress did the right thing then, and now it is essential that Congress 

reaffirm its commitment to a balanced approach that coordinates domestic and international efforts. 

Many of the proposed amendments to HR-39 will strengthen this important Act First, I will review 

some concerns with the current bill and then raise some new ideas. 
149 

Cum:nL.llilUiR::J2 

!'olicy 

" minimize bycatch. and" 

The bycatch issue is one that affects all fisheries, commercial and recreational It is most acute in the 

trawl and multi-species hook and line fisheries. The reality is that to a "fi!i_l)" -- a baited hook is a 

baited hook and it does not recognize the political ramifications of choosing a hook that is at the 

end of a commerciallongline or a hook at the end of a recreational rod and reel The Atlantic pelagic 

longline fishery and the recreational deep-sea big game fishery use similar tishing methods and many 

times the exact same hook and baits in the same geographical areas. oHen within sight of one 

another. Why then is a commercially-caught unmarketable species deemed as "HJ •caf<'h " while the 

other fishery refers to such a catch as "a l.udy J>ay "? 

Definitiom 

Bv-mtch: 

The important issue is to eliminate waste of fishery resources to the extent practicable. We 

need to address the regulatory waste in all fisheries. The focus should be to document ~1! fish 

mortalities and eliminate wa ste of by-catch to the extent practicable 

h1hery d~J!!tlldei!L Cot!W!!!llif.l~: 

This is to address what is mostly a regional issue in the Northwest. It could have unintended 

and unwanted consequences if applied over the entire country A regional issue should have a 

regional solution. 

While we have no objection to the proposed definition. we think that most communities with 

any amount of fishing and/or processing businesses could rightly claim to being depender.! on 

fisheries. This may involve municipalities in these diflicult allocation debates I low will this be 

applied to IIMS vessels that migrate with the seasons? 

Qwrfisl!i!!JL 

It is biologically impossible for all species to be at maximum sustainable levels all at one time 

Fishery managers need flexibilit y to make choices for the benefit of the fisheries as a whole and to the 

Nation overall. 

[/egu/at<>IJ'.Jllscm·~()_; 

While we support the proposed definition. the goal for tisheries management should be to 

move toward ecosystem management that wi!! ~iminM~ !b~ need fm reg\llations th~t ~~me wastell•l 

QL<l.l<!ices. Regulations should not mandate waste. As far as we know, the ll S is the o nly country 

that appears to be relying more and more on this wast eli• I practi ce. 

['ro()( >sedN_g!f!!nc•LSU !!!>I!.IJ:d.!i 8 

The present wording of the proposed National Stmulmd ''I! could take our nation further 

down the road of regulatory discarding, depending upon how it is interpreted . Although that may 

benefit the political agendas of some groups, it will do little for conservation and nothing li>r 

addressing the prohlem of waste. U.S. management measures should begin to resolve the prohlems 

associated with implement at ion of wasteful regulations. 

We su;.:;.:est: "t~ coura:;e utilization (){the .fisher1 • resource:.\· to the: fullest <' riC: lit f!/'acticahle 

while reducin;.: amiclahle hycarch and cliscarcl,· as tc:clmolo;.:ical(l' ancl c:cmwmlnd/,•fc:mli>lc:. " 
150 

( 'ontl~J;L'2flll!~rest 

Standards should apply equally to all Council members including those alliliated with private 

organizations that seek members with an interest in fisheries or other marine issues Lven the State 

representatives have potential conflicts of interest due to Wallop-Rreaux funding derived primarily 

from the spontishing industry Proof of a direct signiticant tinancial impact will atfect only 

commercial Council members. We think that recent proposals would nullity one of basic purposes of 

the Magnuson Act-- to have those who are managed be an integral part of the management process 

!>iscreliQJI{!/J' l'tQ~/"'"'5 

We question the intent of allowing ··allocation of a portion of the lAC to tishcry dependent 

communities" We think that this will invite municipalities and states into the heated allocation 

debates. This will result in resource management that is less based on science and more based on 

politics Again, this is a regional issue that has implications for the entire nation 

HMSsec/lf!/1 

We think that Congress should retain the subsection heading "Highly Migratory Species" 

We oppose the subsection heading "Fisheries Iinder Authority of More Than One Council" to 

encompass Atlantic highly migratory species because the Secretary has management authority "" 

those fish Oue to the international nature of these species, their management requires different 

considerations apart !rom species that are harvested only within the ll S ITZ 

Fislung_M<!!"![!/!!J' !.~r.;h 

We agree that by adding the term "tishing mot1ality levels" Congress has claritied its intent 

that U.S. fishermen should not be required to do more -- or less -- than !(>reign competitors for 

conserving these !ish that migrate throughout the Atlantic Ocean If an internationally negotiated 

management recommendation is phrased as a reduction in "tishing mortality levels". NOAA has 

determined that it does not have to follow this section because the recommendation is not specitically 

called a "quota or allocation" 

l'lill! I k!·~/riJ'!!!e/11 !~Will 

We support the current hill amendments that address the need t(>r Plan Development Teams 

(POTs) which include outside non-NMFS Scientists and members of user groups NOAA has 

resisted industry requests for this type of approach based on perceived probkms with the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (FAC A) This amendmem will improve the Secretary's management 

process by opening it to more constructive outside involvement All lli\1S user groups arc interested 

in participating directly through an open public forum By establishing teams tiom the ICCAT 

Advisory Committee. it will enhance the linkage between etfective domestic and international 

management programs 

J{f/_![!!~i>J'lbi,;Se,.,.rt<lll' 

We are concerned with the Secretary's "requirements to halt overtishing"' llow would this 

apply to HMS that are harvested internationally° For IIMS, overtishing dctinitions and b02 criteria 

must only apply if incorporated at the international level to all harvesting nations Clearly with the 

small U.S percentage of Atlantic-wide catches, the Secretary cannot etl'cctively wntrol overtishing 

without international cooperation 
151 

New Ideas for MF..cMA 

Specific to Highly Migratory_Species management 

Despite the recent progress in highly migratory species management, we still have a long way to go, 

especially internationally. I hope that we will begin to see some benefits for our efforts soon . There 

are certainly indications of potentially good things to come for bluefin tuna. There must be a similar 

level of priority and focus to establish workable rebuilding regimes for other highly migratory 

species. 

In October 1993, I reported to you that the scientific data indicated a gentle recovery occurring with 

the stock of North Atlantic Swordfish. As you may know, recent updated landings by many 

countries changed that prospect to one of considerable concern. This is a very serious situation, 

especially since the U S. has been doing all of its fair share and then some while other nations have 

ignored the ICCAT recommendations and increased their landings. These increased landings are 

literally a "theft" of the resource cau'sing the stock status to decline. The injury is compounded 

because many of these increased landings end up in the U.S. marketplace resulting in lower prices to 

American fishermen and long-term losses to the U.S. economy. This situation will require far more 

international cooperation then we have been able to gather to date. We .. hope •. thaLintrnsl: 

~alilllLQJl thi~ iSS\II:..l'iiJlquidlyjurnJhiuitt.liltiQJl.iiHlurulin.l22 5. 

Policv: 

Congress should develop a forrnal policy directive that unilateral U.S. management actions 

must seek to maintain the existing U.S. share of international harvests to ensure fairness and equity 

for U.S. fishermen and the American seafood consumer. 

According to NMFS and ICCAT's latest statistics, the total U.S. share of Atlantic highly migratory 

species landed is only 3.5% of the total Atlantic catch reported to ICC AT BWFA fails to see how 

unilateral restrictions on U.S. commercial tishermen can have any significant impact on conserving 

most of these resources when our share is less than five percent of the total catch. This clearly 

illustrates the need for international management for effective conservation. Regulating only the 

U.S . commercial and recreational fishermen will not conserve these fish . How successful can 

conservation negotiations be if other countries across the table know (before we even sit down to 

negotiate) that the U.S. will sacrifice its own industry in the name of conservation even if they do 

nothing? What incentive do they have to agree to international management and conservation 

measures? Where will the U.S. be in the future when our ability to harvest food fish from the 

offshore waters has been reduced or eliminated? What further actions could the US then take to 

conserve these species? What benefits will come from the lost jobs that will result ? 

Amend the Act to include the Highlv Migratory Species Comparable Consen•ation Prfwisions to 

encourage compliance with lmemationalllecommendations (attached) 

Congress should consider implementing mechanisms to ensure that access to U.S. markets 

does not provide incentives to circumvent conservation and management recommendations for 

species under international management agreements to which the U.S. is a party. This may prevent 

problems of overfishing international fish stocks in the future and offset the economic hardship to 

U.S. fishermen who already bear more than their fair share of the conservation burden. The proposed 

amendment will grant Secretarial authority to support and enhance international management of 

shared highly migratory species resources. The amendments require that the Secretary establish 
152 

reporting and compliance requirements for internationally managed stocks. Capping or restricting 

imports from these stocks to levels consistent with international management recommendations will 

encourage compliance and prevent the U.S. market from providing an incentive for competing 

international fleets to expand their catch and effort while U S fleets are restricted . Unlimited access 

to the US market has encouraged fleet expansion in the Caribbean and Latin America where lCCAT 

management recommendations are not enforced. Swordfish landings and exports from "minor 

harvesting nations" have increased substantially in the period from 1989 through 1993, while U.S. 

landings have been reduced by 3 7%. 

Most of these provisions are included in the current amendments to the ATCA. However, the 

difficult problem of notifying U.S governmental and U.N. programs that continue to develop 

fisheries on fully exploited and over-exploited stocks of fish has not yet been resolved. 

Gram flerihility to the Secretary to implement access comrols for HMS 

There appears to be a prohibition on implementing access controls for HMS managed by the 

Secretary unless there is Council approval -- yet the Councils do not have authority for HMS. The 

POTs and lCCAT Advisory Committee should fill that role for HMS. These fisheries are in danger 

of being deluged with new entrants because they are one of the few that remain "open" . 

General Su~ested .lmproYt~nts.lll.HB.:.12 

Defimtiom 

The Magnuson Act has references to several pertinent terms that should be delined. These 

include the terms: "comf!!~rrc ial fiili!.ruC " recreational fishing", and "!_Mget speci~~" Coast Guard 

regulations and various FMPs have provisions for commercial fishing vessels (or fi shermen) and 

recreational fishing vessels (or fishermen). The Magnuson Act should also clearly define these terms. 

The language crafted to define "target species" must keep in mind that many U.S. fisheries are multispecies fisheries. Fishermen often intentionally catch a variety of species on the same fishing trip. 

All useable species are kept to comprise the total catch. Legislation should clearly promote a more 

holistic approach to management, not regress to species-specific management. 

lher Fee!>_ 

If user fee discussions arise again, I encourage Congress to find a way that such fees would 

not fall solely on the harvesting sector. BWFA strongly opposes the "ex-vessel Fees" as described by 

some current proposals. Small businesses that are being strictly regulated cannot form a new tax 

base. We agree that NMFS needs adequate funds to improve the conservation and management of 

our living marine resources. Budgetary constraints demand that new funds he generated if 

government services need to be expanded. User fees must he fair and equitable for ;ill fisheries users, 

recreational, commercial and include all consumers of seafood products including aquaculture and 

imported fish. An advisory group must be formed and consulted to direct funds to specilic 

programs. A portion of these timds should be used to support programs of direct benefit to users 

such as national fishery associations, generic marketing and/or U.S fisheries public relations. 

lmprowd matlagemet![J!I_IJCesses 

BWFA has testified several times since 1990 on management of II. M.S. and our eftorts to 

support an open regulatory process that recognizes the necessity of an international focus. The public 

process continues to lack an open forum for debate with the actual policy makers and decisionmaking in open meetings. At the moment. this can only be accomplished by traveling to Silver 
153 

Spring if a meeting can be arranged If properly implemented, the incorporation of PDTs may help 

to alleviate this situation; however, we suggest that all interested parties work toward a ~l~m!~n\iz~d 

lllihl~ proce~~ for all necessary fishery forums, including the Regional Councils, International 

Advisory Committees and State Commissions. 

flat tonal Scie11Uf!£!l!!!f! ( 'o/&_c;/_lonj):m:ram 

The almost complete absence of permit and reporting requirements for charter, party, and 

headboats is telling. These small businesses reap the same financial benefits that small family 

commercial fishing businesses gain by having access to these oftshore resources. Commercial fishing 

businesses have mandatory permits, mandatory daily logs, mandatory dealer reports of sales and sizes 

of all species caught, mandatory observer programs, and several other voluntary research programs 

Congress should demand comparable regulations and monitoring requirements for il]l 

businesses that prolit from access to these resources and demand that the Secretary enhance NOAA's 

research efforts and ensure fair treatment for all U S. fishermen . To address the other issues, 

Congress could require licenses for ;!.!.! harvesters of H.M.S., mandatory permits. logbooks, and 

sampling sheets for all businesses, including party, charter, and headboat businesses, prohibit sale hy 

non-commercially registered vessels, prohibit all purchases by restaurants and others from nonpermitted commercial sources 

(lllocat!!!!!ls.\·l!~lYLS~'i~!'iifl.fc· I'\'11~1 

The issue of tishery allocations continues to be a difficult and trust rat in~ area. As the debate 

continues to portray this as being commercial vs. recreational, where do the consumer's rights enter 

into the equation'' For HMS, the primary focus must be on retaining the 1.1 S share of these 

international resources. How will the U.S seafood-consuming public lose if we continue to diminish 

our capacity to harvest these food resourcesry If commercial fishermen have to pay fees to provide 

food for US consumers, shouldn't recreational anglers have to pay when species are declared to be 

"gamefish" and the non-fishing public is therefore denied access to these resources'' 

We appreciate Congressional efforts to hold all nations who harvest internationally-sought species 

accountable to a similar degree as American fishermen We ask you to continue and strengthen that 

policy for the sake of the resource and the benefit of the Nation 

I thank the Chairman and the Subcommitlee t<1r the opportunity to testify today and I will he happy 

to answer any questions that you may have 
154 

19941CCAT Swordfish 

Our country cannot afford to continually give away the rights to the U.S. share of these natural resources. 

U.S. fishermen have led the way in support of conservation and management for Atlantic Swordfish. We must 

seek to reward llll1..iiUDWI compliance with ICCAT agreements. 

The U.S. must not fullJ' ame to tbe present 1994fCCA T SwardOsh PCQJ10sal 

Pereentllge of lncruA 

Country 1911 1995 1tH or DecruA of Sh.lra 

from 1911 compared to 

11M 

USA 31 .4% 25.2% 24.3% 2U%Dec,.... 

Spain 49.9% 39.5% 38.3% 23.2%Dec ..... 

Canada 4.6% 9.5% 9.7% 110.1%1nc ..... 

Portuaal 4.2% t.5% 9.7% 1:10.11%1nc,.... 

Venezuela 0.5% 0.7% 0.7% -Inc,.... 

Trinidad 0.2% 3.5% 3.t% 1110%1nc,.... 

Japan 3.2% 7.1% 7.8% 143.7%1ncru .. 

Morocco 1.0% 2.9% 3.1% 210%1ncruA 

Chi-Taiwan 0.1% 0.6% 0.7% lOG% Inc,.... 

.................. 1). An International allocation Program that recognizes U.S. compliance with paS11CCAT Swordfish 

Recommendations and that reinstates the past U.S. proportional share of harvest. 

2). Mechanisms to monhor and ensure compliance among contracting parties and to encourage non-contracting 

parties to participate. 

3). A rebuilding program (targets IUid timetables) for Atlantic·wide Swonlfisb. 

It iJ unacceplable to us that those nations that did not comply wi .. the previous ICCAT Swonlfish Recommendations have 

been rewud<d; while Spain hut cspocially the U.S., due 10 ow axnpljancc must sulfer further reductions disproportionately to those 

nations that increased their harvest contrary to ICCAT's advice. 

De Uptted States should hnplemept a t99S Oapla gulsteat wltll the 1924 JCCAT Swordfllh RecwmndiJion. 

POJ'IDal wrtnca objutioa mult be meds to the 1996 Cou1tri Allocation• beclldt tltn art igadeguate to 11bulld tbs moun:c 

aad pafalr Ia PUt ol Put compliaacs aad lliJtork:al IIIR[Jado!al parg. 

ICCAT- bo inl ....... tht tilt U.S. 1.-te _. Swonllltlo II<JIIIda- ropnli .. ,...Co otlou- prior to 

IUid .rt .. doe ICCAT C..,•llllooo Mood .. Ia N ........ r 1995. The U.S. fllloel)' -•l"n - ogreamty JIOI'- I•p-.- ol -'tort .. 011d trade_,... to ... re c_.iooct by ••-ulaJ ..,. ••rt.etpiKe. The U.S. l-oll)' 

.... be pnvldHI witll coafi.-.-d nidcnec Oat all Atlutk llarvcsten IR partklpatt•c before t.rtller U.S. redltdiolll arc 

coalideftd. 1k U.S. mult bqin today to develop a ltntq:y to ftlli• oar riptful intcrnatioeal share Ia a way that 

recopiza our put compliance. 

,all we """"forward togdhu a11d aggr...Jvdy pursue a bdrer futuro for U.S. Swordfuh Fuherme11? 

For-~ ....... -AE .. cutlwDtrodor,-R. -111;\lolco: JIMJ'M-'07I,orFu:ttM}4M-72M. 
155 

Much of the following suggested amendment was presented to Senate staff in the fall of 1994. Recent 

House and Senate drafts of the ATCA and MFCMA have partially incorporated these suggestions. Recent 

events at JCCAT relating to the management program for swordfish highlight the need for stronger 

compliance mechanisms that can :strengthen the U.S. negotiating position when other member and nonmember nations ignore JCCAT recommendations. BWFA thinks that it may also be necessary to develop 

specific provisions of the ATCA that would allow the U.S. to formally object to ICCAT recommendations 

that are inadequate in terms of stock protection or that unfairly place an excessive burden only on U.S. 

fishermen. The following suggested language will provide policy guidance to ICCAT Commissioners and 

help to ensure fairness to U.S. fishermen in international conservation. BWFA would like House Staff to 

re-consider the underlined portions of the following amendment 

Highly Migratory Species Comparable Conservation Provisions 

The Secretary shall: 

I) Ensure that the conservation actions recommended by international commissions and 

implemented by the Secretary for U.S. commercial and recreational fishermen provide fair and 

eauitable sharing of the conservation burden among all contracting harvesters in negotiations with 

those commissions. Further the U.S. oolicy shall be to maintain and protect U.S. international 

harvest shares that have been established since the extension of U.S. jurisdiction to 200 miles. 

2) Provide Congress with a report within 6 months of the passage of this act on the catches and 

imports from 1982 through 1993 of tuna, swordfish, marlin, and sharks from nations fishing on 

Atlantic stocks of these species under ICCAT jurisdiction or Secretarial management authority. 

3) Identify those nations whose production is increasing and determine if those harvests are 

compatible with existing management programs for highly migratory species. If prod.uction is 

incompatible with existing management programs, the Secretary shall issue a finding that 

continued harvests by that nation arc diminishing the effectiveness of an international management 

program. 

4) Identify those nations with expanding fisheries on fully exploited or over-exploited highly 

migratory soecies resources that have received economic aid from U.S. or UN developmental 

agencies. The Secretary of Conunerce and the Secretary of State shall notify U.S. and UN 

organizations responsible for funding fishery development programs that these orograms are 

diminishing the effectiveness of international management prosrams. 

5) In those cases where ICCAT or a similar international organization has recommended that 

harvesting nations limit or maintain their catch levels or harvesting capacity at recent levels for a 

specific stock, the Secretary shall establish imoort quotas for that stock based on the average 

exoorts received during the time oeriod referenced in the management reconunendation. 

6) In those cases where ICCAT or a similar international organization has recommended 

supplementary non-quota management recommendations (i.e. minimum sizes), the Secretary shall 

institute reporting requirements for imported production that will document compliance with the 

management recommendations as a condition for imoortation. 

Rationale: The proposed amendment strengthens the existing language in the ATCA with respect to 

Secretarial authority to support and enhance international management of shared highly migratory species 

resources. The amendments require that the Secretary establish reporting and compliance requirements for 

internationally managed stocks. Capping or restricting imports from these stocks to levels consistent with 

international management recommendations will encourage compliance and prevent the U.S. market from 

providing an incentive for competing international fleets to expand their catch and effort while U.S. fleets 

are restricted. Unlimited access to the U.S. market has encouraged fleet expansion in the Caribbean and 

Latin America where ICCAT management recommendations are not enforced. Swordfish landings and 

exports from "minor harvesting nations" have increased substantially since 1989-1991, while U.S. landings 

have been reduced by 3 7% 
1~ 

TESTIMONY OF CHRIS NELSON 

BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS 

ON 

H.R. 39 

AND 

THE REAUTHORIZATION OF THE MAGNUSON FISHERY CONSERVATION AND 

MANAGEMENT ACT 

FEBRUARY 23, 1995 

Hr. Chairman and Members o! the Committee, my name is Chris 

Nelson, Vice President o! Bon Secour Fisheries, Inc. in Bon 

Secour, AL. Bon Secour Fisheries has been owned and operated by 

my family since 1945. My family has been in the seafood business 

for more than 100 years. I am the fourth generation in the 

business. 

Bon Secour Fisheries is both a shrimp and oyster packing 

house and a vessel owner. We buy oysters from dealers in 

Louisiana and Texas, using our own refrigerated trailers to haul 

the product to Alabama !or further processing. Gulf shrimp boats 

unload at our plant in Bon Secour. We have 37 vessels in the 

fleet, most of which are indep~ndently owned. Bon Secour 

Fisheries also owns and operates a fleet of 11 Gulf shrimp boats. 

T ·~~ra~iato ~hio oppor~uni'y ~o provide ~~a~£mony rcger~~ftg 

the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 and 

HR 39. I vill preface specific remarks regarding the 

reauthorization of the Act and the provisions o! HR 39 vith 

general comments concerning federal fisheries management in the 

Gulf of Mexico. 

General Comments 

Although the Magnuson Act vas effective in the other regions 

through the Americanization of fisheries, the average Gulf 

fisherman did not benefit from enactment of this lav. In fact, 

P.~~~~-~o.~~~ •. ~aan¥~Ra ~R~·s~H~ ~~886e~iBnv~fPv~Rl;r~~n~he~rfy 

spring. Once Mexico exercised her 200 mile limit permits had to 

be obtained to shrimp in Mexican waters in a U.S. flag vessel. 

The conditions for obtaining such permits made operation 

unfeasible. The same can be said of U.S. snapper fishermen vho 

traditionally utilized Mexican fishing grounds in the winter. 
157 

Ther~ is aom~ anacdotal evidence to auggeat that a portion of the 

pre-1976 landinga of Gulf red snapper vere actually caught in 

Mexican vatera and landed and recorded a~ being caught in U.S. waters. These mistaken landings may be causing current targets 

for red snapper atock recovery to be unrealistically high. 

The Act has been improved in recent reauthorization billa. 

These improvements have primarily focused on the Council process, 

such as providing far a balance in the seats on the Council 

between recreational and commercial fishermen. lt is tiae ve 

made the Act work for the Gulf fishermen ·by providing for more 

equitable management, based more soundly on science. 

Although tropical ahrimp in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico are FftP 

speciea, they are not terribly hard to manage. Being an annual 

crop the production of shrimp is more closely tied to annual 

variations in oceanographic and atmoapheric conditions than to th• ••~• o~ ~ho •p•vn~ng o~oa~ . Th•••~•ro, aoft••rv•'~•n ••••~¥•• 

designed to preserve the spawning stock are largely inappropriate ~nr mAn•o•••nt n~ th1• ~1•h•~v eu~~oft~ ••n•••••n~ -·••Y••• 

focus on mitigating potential impacta of this fishery on nontarget species such as finfish and turtles as vell as on 

maximizing economic yield froa the fishery through the Texas 

closure. This regulatory environment will change with the 

implementation of any measure to address shrimp trawl bycatch. 

Bycatch 

Although this hearing vill nat address endangered speciea, 

it ia appropriate to mention the impact vhich the turtle/TED 

issue has had on induatry/governaent relations in our region. We 

learned tvo basic lessons froa the TED issue: Ill that accurate, consensus data must be available before credible, and effective 

managpmpnt measures are possible <2> that fishermen must b• part 

of thv d•velopment of a manage••nt program from thP bPginning. 

WhateY@r worktnn r•1Rtinn~h1n thA NM~C: ho..a v-4+"" +._~ ,..""-<~-r 

fishery prior to the implementation 'of turtle conservation 

regulations vas largPly d•atroyed vhen industry vaa forced to 

iapleaent -TEDS all year throughout the Gulf. Particularly in th• 

offshore Northwestern Gulf, ahriap trawl/turtle int•ractiona were 

and continua to be rare. Thus, it has been difficult to convince 

ahri•pera to accppt a device d•aign•d to perfora in the avant of one of thea• rare interaction& and in the aeantime cau••• hia 

fishing gear to work well only under the beat of conditions. Th• 

effectiveness and necessity of TEDa ar• still hotly contested 

issues betve•n th• industry and th• Ag•noy. Feelings remain 

strong enough that industry ia pursuing the application of OIS 

technology to the shrimp fishery data base in order to develop 

more eff•ctive and practical turtle conservation measures in the 

Gulf. 

2 

89-569 96-6 
158 

One of th• key provisions of HR ~9 is that of addressing 

bycatch in fisheries. Both commercial and recreational fisheries 

have unintended or non-target catches associat~d with them. For 

many years fish~rmen have referred to the non-target catch in 

shrimp trawls ao •trash fish". Shrimpers used this term becauae 

in their view the bycatch vas made up primarily of a mixture of 

finfish and invertebrates of no commercial value. Rec~ntly, the 

amount, makeup and impact on the ecosystem of this bycatch has 

become a popular issue among sport fishing and environmental 

groups as well as within other commercial fishing groups. 

Ac a ~ombor o~ ~ho Gul~ ~nd ~ou~h A~lon~~o F~oh•r~•• 

Development Foundation's Bycatch Steering Committee I vas 

personally involved in organizing the Poundation's bycatch 

research efforts. Ky family's company has also been involved 

since the early 1980's in taking NMFS observers and gear 

specialists aboard our shrimp boats. Kost recently this has been 

in cooperation with the Poundation for the purpose of 

characterizing the magnitude and composition of shrimp trawl 

bycatch as well as the development of effective BRD designs. 

Although we are compensated for providing an observer platform, 

there is a net cost associated with these efforts. However, we 

have always felt that these efforts will pay off in the long run 

with better gear being available and perhapa better understanding 

of those gear by our captains. 

Although thos~ aspPcts of the Poundation's bycatch research 

d~aling with bycatch characterization are fundamentally complete, 

some significant work remains in the gear research and 

development portion of this effort. This is not to say that up 

to nov the gear research results are not extremely encouraging. 

Bycatch reduction ratea are overall quite high in many of the 

trials with currently developed devices. There is also some 

evidence which suggests that significant numb•r• of juvenile red 

snapper, th@ bycatch species of particular concern in the Gulf of 

Hexico, can be excluded from a shrimp trawl. These are important 

results which de~erv~ our attention and should be recognized by 

the public as steps taken by the industry and thP Agency toward 

reducing bycatch. 

WNPC. "-•-._.._., .,.,.)" ~~>• rw•hLn.w '\.o oono.1.w•4...,uo a.ln1YL •l•..&.Yh 

devices are best fit for incorporation into shrimp trawls for the 

purposes of overall bycatch reduction. Other more appropriate 

gear, which could have higher rates of shrimp retention and 

require less maintenance may be rejPcted due to their failure to 

exclude red snapper at an acceptable rate. Also there seems to be continuous confusion regarding the goals of such gear 

research. A ~0X reduction in bycatch has been suggeated as a 

goal. However, there is considerable disagreement regarding the 

baseline from which that reduction should be measured. If the 

baseline is bycatch levels prior to the implementation of TEDs 

then more work mu~t be dona to quantify the level of bycatch 

3 
159 

r~duction achieved by currently certified TED designs. Some 

research suggests that TEDa exclude more than 50X of the total 

bycatch under certain conditions. Hovever the Agency has been 

extremely reluctant to allov comparisons of bycatch in TED 

equipped nets vith that in unmodified or •naked" nets. Gear 

research at the University of Georgia entitled "Credit for TEDs" 

should be continued and expanded into the Gulf in order to 

understand more fully the bycatch exclusion characteristics of 

TEDs. 

One BRD design vhich has shovn some promise is referred to 

as the •extended funnel". As vith early TED designs, there 

remain fundamental disagreements between the Agency and the 

industry regarding the degree of shrimp loss experienced vhen 

using this gear under conditions routinely experienced during 

commercial operations. Meanwhile, the Agency has produced video 

tapes of this gear under ideal conditions - as they did vith the 

TEO. After viewing footage of juvenile red snapper being 

released by this BRO, the lay public vill perceive any industry 

resistance to implementation of this device as foot dragging. 

Industry vas placed in thP. same position vith TEO designs which 

could be ahovn to release turtles but vere, on closer 

examination, also releasing significant numbers of shrimp. 

The Agency and the Foundation should finalize and report 

their findings relative to the characterization of the bycatch. 

This work should continue, but on a less intensive scale than 

before. Further vork on bycatch characterization should focus on 

obtaining data for areas and times not covered in the initial 

program. 

Regarding gear development, the Foundation's efforts in 

conjunction vith NMFS should continue and vill need additional 

funding. Any efforts to implement current BROs or to takQ other 

steps to reduce bycatch should be prohibited unless comparable measures are enforced throughout the range of the bycatch · species. 

Another key question yet to be addressed in th~ overall 

scope of bycatch research is that of the impact on the ecosystem 

of reducing bycatch mortality on species vhich are predators of 

shrimp? Earlier vork by Dr. Joan Browder, vith NMFS in Miami, 

indicated that bycatch reduction could have serious and 

unintended consequences for the ecosystem as a whole. NMFS so 

far has dovn played any need for addressing these very real 

questions through research, even though the Service has for at least a decade been a proponent of •ecosystem approaches• to fishery manag9ment. The Agency should be directed to conduct ID'-~""' .. •t.uu•C"• auu .a. ·ttiJul· c. ~neJ.r 11na1ngs 't.O L;ongr£>ss v1th1n 24 

months. 

4 
160 

The characterization effort within the Bycatch Research 

Program provides important data regarding the composition and catch pvr unit pffort of noft-tQ~et epeciee·. In g~rar-th~e 

data were sorely lacking from the NMFS shrimp fishery data base. 

Poor quality data and data collection methods continue to plague 

all aspects of the data base. The current bureaucracy imparts 

too much credibility to poor data and takes inadequate steps 

toward improving it or addressing legitimate analytical concerns. 

Poor data skew public perception of the problem and handcuffs 

£i=hgry m~n~gQrQ ~~~h ~h~ beo~ ova~lobl~ hut operat~vely UD~~~~~ 

data. 

Industry, in cooperation with the Agency, should be involved 

in a complete overhaul of the current method of gathering data 

from the shrimp fishery. Currently, many of the shrimp fishery 

data are collected by a mixture of state and federal employees 

through direct interviews of boat captains. This system depends 

on a good working relationship between the data collection agent 

and the fishermen. Due to strained relations between the inrltJ~t ry Rnrl NMF~ ~~~mm~ng £rom tho T~D Lc~u~, ~h~o rclo~Lonoh~p 

does not exist in many important areas. 

The total number of interviews conducted decreased by more 

than 70Y. from 1981 to 1992. In 1981, Texas interviews 

represented less than S~Y. of the total while landings in Texas 

ports accounted for 33Y. of the total Gulf landings. In 1992, 

interviews along the rest of the Coast, especially in Louisiana, 

had dropped off precipitously and Texas interviews represented 

75Y. of the total while landings in Texas ports still accounted 

for only 33Y. of the total. Louisiana ports, accounted for 45Y. of 

the landings in 1992, but experienced less than 10Y. of the total 

interviews. 

These interview data are used to extrapolate Gulf vide 

shrimping . effort. Too fev interviews are being conducted .in 

Louisiana where a high percentage of the catch is landed. · Texas 

interviews which are an increasing percentage of the total, may 

not be representative of other areas. In general Texas ports 

have larger boats which make longer trips. These boats catch 

larger shrimp and expend more effort per pound of catch. If 

catch per unit effort data from Texas is over-represented in the 

data base then it is likely that overall Gulf effort will be 

overestimated. 

Currently, the fishery service estimates that the amount of 

fishing effort conducted by the Gulf shrimp fishery is constant or rising. This analysis flies in the tace of information 

regarding numbers of fishing licenses and documented vessels nov 

fishing to those number~ 10 years ago. At our dock alone in 1979 

there were 81 shrimp boats which routinely unloaded with us. Nov 

5 
161 

there are less than 40. I have not talked to another unloading 

facility which has more boats nov than they did 10 years ago. 

At our unloading facility we operate a V9ry successful data 

collection effort by interviewing captains as the trip is 

"shared" <distribution of revenue from the trip among the captain 

and crevl. Data regarding the length of the trip, the amount of 

time spent trawling, the areas and depth zones where trawling vas 

conducted and the amount of shrimp caught within each area and 

depth zone are gathered directly from t~is captain interview. We 

feel this information is more reliable than that which a 

government employee can gather from the boatmen. Similar 

programs should be encouraged at other docks. Fishermen could 

also record, on a voluntary basis, such data in a log book 

similar to those kept in other fisheries. The quality of this 

data could be controlled by comparison with a limited number of 

direct observations aboard cooperation vessels. 

To address this data problem, the Agency should be directed 

to establish a task force, in which federal, state, academic and 

industry interests are represented, to assess the efficiency and 

effectiveness of the present system for collecting and reporting 

catch and effort data in the commercial and recreational 

fisheries for the Gulf of nexico and submit to Congress a 

proposed new system within one year. 

Conflict of Interest 

Regarding conflict of interest within the Council voting 

process I feel that this is not a problem on the Gulf of nexico 

Council. Furthermore, if steps are taken to address the conflict 

of interest issue, the original intent of the Magnuson Act to 

involve participants from the fishery in Council deliberations 

and actions must be preserved. As currently proposed in HR 39, 

conflict of interest provisions focus on financial interests 

alone and are so broad as to potentially preclude commercial 

interests from voting on any issue relating to the fishery in 

which they participate. This is particularly true of fisheries 

and gear groups with many participants. I would recommend that 

the definition for a conflict of interest be more narrowly 

defined. In particular, •a minority of other persons• directly 

affected by a Council's decision should be defined as less than 

10 percent of the total participants in the fishery or less than 

10 people whichever is larger. This should provide for adequate 

protection from conflicts of interest while allowing participants 

in the fishery to vote on the vast majority of issues affecting 

that fishery. 

Net Bans/State-Federal Jurisdiction 

Although this issue is not addressed by HR 39, the Committee 

should be aware of the massive disruption in fisheries, 

6 
162 

particularly the redistribution o~ e~~ort and reallocation o~ 

stocks, caused by the net ban in Florida. White shrimp and 

spanish mackerel, both o~ which are FMP species, will be impacted _.,.,_, -•• ""'"-'• ... .C.h• j.,.• 4o41~~\,.~"'u u& l.o'"''-h l.ht:" 0\A.l..C dU\J LU~ ,:)UU.Lil 

Atlantic Councils. The situation in Florida will at best be 

inconsistent the goals and standards set ~orth in the Magnuson 

Act, and at worst will work at cross purposes with ef~orts to 

achieve optimum yield. 

At a minimum both Councils should be directed to report on 

the status of the ~pacted fisherLes and potential impacts in the 

Federal water·s caused by this disruption in Florida state waters. 

Specifically the report should include the economic and social 

impacts created by the displacement o~ effort and reallocation of 

stocks to other gear groups within those ~isheries. 

Scientific Peer Review of Stock Assessments 

It is becoming more common that industry members in various 

~isheries are asking scientists outside the Fisheries Service to 

conduct reviews of data or analyses gathered or per~ormed within 

the Agency. The distrust of Agency gathered data and analyses 

stems !rom a growing distrust of government in general as well as G 8pe~~L~~ 1~~k uL Ld~LIJ ~n tne me~noas useo ~o gatner data ~or 

use by Agency analysts. Examples of independent review of Agency 

analyses are the 1990 National Research Council review of the sea 

turtle issue and the more recent National Academy of Sciences 

review of the bluefin tuna stock assessment. 

believe that the process in the Gulf would benefit from 

independent peer review of stock assessments and ESA biological 

opinions. The Agency should establish a orocedurP ~nr ·~~~~~ing 

and reporting each year on the status of significant fish stocks 

in the Gulf of Mexico to fishery managers and the public. This 

process would provide !or the systematic peer review of stock 

assessments as well as ensure that qualified scientists outside 

of the Service are consulted in a timely manner. 

Immediately, the stock assessment ~or Gul~ red snapper 

should be subject to just such an independent assessment. 

Serious concerns exist within both the directed snapper fishery 

and in the shrimp ~ishery regarding the status of the stock given 

the rapidity with which the commercial quota is reached each year 

and the fact that the recreational quota has been exceeded by 

greater than 2 million pounds for the last two years. 

Habitat 

Efforts to conserve fishery resources must include habitat 

conservation. Although there is a growing public awareness of 

the need for pres~rving estuarine and wetlands habitat, fishermen 

7 
163 

do not see fishery management agencies taking action or 

participating in ~!forts to conserve habitat. This inactivity 

conveys to the fishermen a lack o! concern by managers for the 

iMpact vhich habitat destruction has on the status of a fish 

stock; vhile these same Managers seem overly concerned about the 

impact of the fishermen and potential overfishing. 

In particular I have three recommendations regarding hoY 

this may be remedied through the Magnuson Act. First, fishery 

management plans should identify the essential habitat !or the 

fishery based upon guidance and recommendation from NOAA. NOAA 

should also use present authorization to conserve essential 

habitat. Finally, federal agenci~s whose actions pose potential 

adverse impact to essential fishery habitat should be required to 

consult vith NOAA. 

Regarding specific r~ferences in HR 39 to essential fishery 

habitat I recommend that you strike the requirement for FMPs to 

describe specific management measures for minimizing adverse 

impacts on habitat as described in Section 9, lalllllBl paragraph 

<7>. These are research oriented activities outside the 

expertise of the Councils. Fishery related impacts are not well 

known nor are management measures to address them. 

Artificial Reef Construction 

Shrimp production off Alabama and Mississippi has been 

hampered significantly by illegal offshore dumping activity 

associated with the recreational reef fish fishery . Recreational 

reef fishermen are continuing to dump "junk" <tires, old car 

bodies, old boat hulls, etc. l in highly productive shrimping 

grounds making shrimp trawling in these areas hazardous to gear 

and crevs. TEDs have made shrimp nets more easily damaged and 

much more expensive to replace and repair. The recreational 

dumping continues unabated despite appeals and threats by the 

Corps of Engineers. Years ago shrimpers gave up a 1000 square 

mile area of productive shrimping ground off Alabama that was 

designated as a permitted artificial reef building zone. Even 

with the existence of this zone illegal dumping continues outside 

the designated area. On shore we refer to such areas as 

unauthorized landfills. In the ocean they are known as 

artificial reefs. 

"Trawlable bottom• (i.e. ocean bottom suitable for shrimp 

trawling> in th& Gulf of Mexico is becoming a scarce resource. 

Artificial reefs as vell as oil and gas' structures and their 

pipelines continue to restrict trawling areas. Some effort 

should be made to conserve this fishery "habitat• through more 

effective control of reef construction and mapping of known 

obgtructions. The Act should also reflect the awareness that 

habitat construction for one fishery can result in habitat 

destruction for another. 

8 
164 

Conclusion 

I believe that fisheries management can work to benefit 

fishermen as well as all participants in the fishery. Fishermen, 

who should be the target of management, need to have confidence 

in the management process and methods. It is time we began 

taking steps through the Magnuson Act to make that happen for the 

Gulf of Mexico. First we should foster progressive programs to 

develop trust and a sound working relationship among federal and 

state fisheries managers, commercial and recreational fishermen 

and non-consumptive users of the resources. These programs 

should include greater opportunity for industry and public 

participation in all aspects of fisheries management including 

data collection and analyses. Fisheries are too valuable to 

allow mismanagement to continue for lack of reliable data. Once 

an atmosphere of trust and cooperation is established we can move 

toward practical solutions for conserving and managing the 

fisheries in our waters. 

9 
-

-

Mark Sosin 

165 

AMERICAN SPORTFISHING ASSOCIATION 

1033 North Fairfax Street, Suite 200, Alexandria, Virginia 22314 

703•519•9691 • FAX 703•519•1872 

STATEMENT OF MARK SOSIN 

FOR 

AMERICAN SPORTFISHING ASSOCIATION 

ON 

THE REAUTHORIZATION OF THE MAGNUSON FISHERY 

CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1976 

Presented to 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

February 23, 1995 

Mark Sosin Communications, Inc. 

681 S.W. 15th Street 

Boca Raton, Florida 33486 

(407) 368-5556 

@ Recycled Paper 
166 

Good afternoon. My name is Mark Sosin. I am here today to testify on 

behalf of the American Sportfishing Association (ASA), the sportfishing industry, and 

the nation's 17 million saltwater anglers. In my professional life, I have been involved in 

the recreational fishing industry for more than three decades. Currently, I am president 

of Mark Sosin Communications . and host Mark Sosin's Saltwater Journal, which now in 

its 11th season is broadcast nationwide on ESPN. My testimony today will address 

the provisions of H.R. 39, "The Fishery Conservation and Management Amendments 

of 1995". Let me add that we support the legislation and intend to offer some suggestions on how certain provisions could be strengthened to improve recreational fishing 

and fisheries management across this country . 

But first, let me take a minute and tell you about ASA and the recreational 

industry. The American Sportfishing Association was created in November of 1993 for 

the sole purpose of representing the resource and trade needs of the recreational 

fishing industry. Through the leadership of the American Fishing Tackle Manufacturers 

Association (AFTMA) and the Sport Fishing Institute (SF I), a number of industry 

organizations including the Future Fisherman Foundation, United Sport Fishermen, the 

Sportfishing Promotion Council, as well as AFTMA and SFI, were consolidated under 

one umbrella organization, ASA. 

The first goal of this new association is to ensure that we have a healthy, 

sustainable fishery resource, because, without that resource, we are all out of business. 

Mr. Chairman, the point I want to make is that unlike many other industries in this 

country, the sportfishing industry is solely dependent on the success of federal and 
167 

state managers providing an abundant fishery resource. Without that healthy resource, 

the sportfishing industry and America's 60 million anglers are in trouble. 

Let me speak for a minute on the sport of fishing. Recreational fishing 

plays a significant role in the lives of one in five Americans. Over the decades, this 

fishing activity has given rise to a wide-ranging industry dedicated to meeting the fishing 

needs of the country's 60 million anglers. These anglers, who collectively spent over 

500 million days pursuing freshwater and saltwater species, support an industry with 

$24 billion in retail expenditures annually. This spending encompasses a wide crosssection of the American economy including fishing equipment manufacturing, travel and 

transportation services. boat and vehicle manufacturing, and fishing and boat licenses. 

This economic activity generates a total economic impact of nearly $70 billion throughout the manufacturing, wholesale and retail sectors of the American economy. 

Angler expenditures give rise to several important economic "products" 

such as jobs and taxes. The U.S. recreational fishing industry in 1991 supported 1.3 

million jobs through the payment of wages and salaries of over $19 billion. This income 

generated state income tax revenues of $227 million and federal tax revenues of $2.1 

billion. Furthermore. angler retail expenditures generated some $1.1 billion in state 

sales taxes. 

Likewise, marine recreational fishing has played a valuable role in the 

economies of local coastal communities. In 1991, 17 million Americans spent 64 million 

days fishing in saltwater. The economic impact of this activity exceeded $5 billion at the 

2 
168 

retail level and generated $15 billion in overall economic activity. Further, marine 

recreational fishing supported 300,000 jobs, many in small rural coastal communities. 

OVERFISHING 

Mr. Chairman, this year you have the opportunity to amend the Magnuson 

Act to fix what time has proved to be the single most destructive element of the Act -- its 

failure to prevent overfishing . The major impetus for the passage of the Act was the 

failure of negotiations at the Law of the Sea Conference and a national uneasiness with 

the exploitation of the coastal marine resources by foreign vessels. Most of those 

vessels fished off the coasts of Alaska and New England and targeted the high-priced 

fisheries, crab, salmon, cod and haddock. 

World fish stocks in the 1970's experienced a downturn principally due to 

improvements in harvest and production technology. The fishing industry was rapidly 

turning away from canning, salting and shoreside processing to at sea processing. 

With the advent of the 200-mile limit, the National Marine Fisheries Service began to 

transfer this technology to domestic operations as part of a comprehensive plan to 

dislodge foreign fleets. The effort was a success but has left this country with a highly 

sophisticated ir.dustry capable of decimating almost any fishery. 

New England is only one example of the industry's ability to decimate 

otherwise healthy stocks. Redfish in the gulf, King and Spanish mackerel in the south 

Atlantic, surf clams in the mid Atlantic and salmon in the Pacific have all been negatively affected by highly efficient gear and detection technology . The same technology 

3 
169 

enhancement can be found in the recreational sector where technology has significantly 

improved recreational anglers ability to locate fish. 

The failure of the management system has been its inability to adjust to 

the new technology and while maintaining the economic viability of all of the sectors of 

the fishery. The management system has failed in certain regions because of the 

managers inability to instill and maintain a conservation ethic. In those regions where 

we have seen conservation successes. the councils have been able to put stringent 

measures to rebuild stocks hit hard by technology or prevent technology from 

overfishing the stocks. The Gulf of Mexico and Alaska are excellent examples. In the 

Northeast. fishing pressure has caused the economic extinction of their fisheries. 

The problem faced by the fishery manager is relatively straight forward . 

Fishermen. both recreational and commercial. argue that the resource is available to 

them as a public resource. Limitations on access can only come about if there is clear 

evidence that the fishery is being overharvested. The evidence of overharvesting is 

usually a decline in the catch per unit of effort or the complete collapse of the fishery . 

The net result is that although the fishery manager thinks the resource should be 

protected. he faces tremendous political pressure to keep it unregulated. 

Almost all of the changes proposed in council structure and operation are 

targeted toward improving conservation. The proposals to redefine optimum yield (OY) 

and overharvesting do the same. Further restrictions on gear have been authorized. In 

order for any of these proposals to work there has to be a conservation baseline that 

limits harvest in favor of the resource. 

4 
170 

H.R. 39 advances the most significant improvement in all of the bills to 

date, however, still allows for the manipulation of OY to increase harvest in excess of 

maximum sustainable yield (MSY). Two simple amendments will significantly improve 

the conservation basis of this statute. The first is to include a definition of MSY similar 

to the existing 602 guidelines. The second is to prevent harvests from exceeding MSY 

in any fishery which is now overfished. 

The following definition of MSY is suggested. 

"MSY is the largest average annual catch or yield that can be taken over a 

significant period of time from each stock under prevailing ecological and environmental 

conditions. 

MSY may be presented as a range of values. One MSY may be specified for a related group of species in a mixed-species fishery MSY shall not exceed the 

most recent six year average, it shall not be specified annually, and shall be based on 

the best scientific information available." 

In addition, there should be a restriction of the ability to increase harvest 

above conservative levels. The following amendment to H.R. 39 is suggested. 

Delete the word ''jeopardize" from Section 4. (5) (39) and insert the word 

"reduces". 

FIXING THE COUNCIL SYSTEM 

Councils should be composed of a broad spectrum of knowledgeable 

individuals with varied backgrounds. Council members do not and should not represent 

5 
171 

one particular interest. They should utilize information and make judgments about the 

best use of the resource for the nation, not the people who are paying their salary. 

The public perceives that there is a conflict in the interests of the council 

members. This perception erodes the public's confidence in the institution that manages the resources and the regulations it produces. It is a perception that this Congress must erase. Give the NOAA General Counsel's office the tools to rule on conflict 

questions at meetings. They can rule based on the understanding of the action at hand 

and some familiarity with the financial disclosure forms now filed with the council. 

There action should not be appealable to the Secretary or in any subsequent court 

actions. This allows all members to participate but limits their voting to those issues 

where there is no clear conflict. 

BYCATCH 

The basic philosophy characterizing much of the management of our 

resources has allowed for the excessive exploitation of our fisheries. Some of this has 

come from the shrimp fishery. We have long been told that there is no need to limit the 

growth and harvest of the shrimp fishery since management limitations will have little or 

no effect on next year's abundance in the fishery. Although this is probably correct for 

shrimp, we are now recognizing the significant impact that the shrimp trawl bycatch is 

having on other resources, notably red snapper. The philosophy in the shrimp fishery 

seems to have permeated the management strategy of most of the federal and state 

marine fishery managers and many of the user groups. This "exploit it to the end of the 

6 
172 

season" view, coupled with a concept that the fishery is open ana free for the taking, 

has created a management philosophy that is causing substantial resource impacts. 

Fishery managers must do more than take bycatch into account. They 

must manage it and prevent waste. We can't go on creating resource problems 

because an industry or the managers concluded that the resource being addressed 

was irrelevant and therefore thoroughly exploitable. Fishery managers have to prevent 

bycatch to the maximum degree practicable. Fishermen need to be encouraged to do 

this through management incentives, gear restrictions and advancements in technology. 

There is a specific problem with the definition of bycatch in HR 39. 

Recreational fisheries are often times less species selective than commercial fisheries. 

As a result, many of them become catch and release fisheries particularly those 

fisheries which may not be the directed fishery but because of intermixing are caught 

and released. The definition addresses this but does not promote catch and release 

fisheries, in fact, it makes the directed billfish fishery in the Atlantic a bycatch fishery. 

We suggest that the insertion of the word "routinely" after the phrase "but which are not 

sold or'' in section 4. (5)(34). 

HABITAT 

Many of this nation's recreational fisheries are highly dependant on 

marine habitat. These fisheries have suffered as greater populations move to the coast 

and resulted in more development. Many more than any other cause is responsible for 

7 
173 

the decline in estuarine dependant fisheries. Locating the cause is far easier than 

crafting the solution. Your bill takes an important step in the right direction by requiring 

the identification and the consideration of habitat modification as part of a fishery 

management plan. It recognizes that there are other important federal statutes, like the 

Clean Water Act that may be a better place to provide remedial action . We support the 

approach taken by the committee. 

AUTHORIZATION 

This is a period of great change in the Congress and only time will tell 

what the effect of this change will be. But if the effects are great, then fisheries 

management as we know it will be affected and a number of questions will need to be 

answered . For example, why can't a state manage most of the fisheries off its coast? 

Could anyone argue that the salmon fishery in Alaska is poorly managed by the State? 

Other than billfish, what recreational fishery needs to be managed through the 

Magnuson Act? What are the least cost alternatives to fishery management? Do they 

result in shoreside enforcement and individual fishing quotas? Do they require 

gamefish laws to enhance the economic return from predominately recreational 

fisheries? How long will Congress allow the exploitation of a federal resource for profit 

without recovering any cost for it? 

The answer to these questions is not apparent today but will become 

increasingly focused in the near future. This Committee should force the debate about 

these issues by limiting this reauthorization to October 1, 1997. During that time, it 

8 
174 

should bring the community together to discuss ways to address these changes to 

ensure that fisheries management and conservation of our marine resource continues. 

Do not underestimate the commercial and recreational industries ability to 

overharvest fisheries or the fishery managers inability to control it. We need your 

support to encourage efforts to impose a conservation ethic in the fishery management 

system. There is more at stake than just the livelihood of the users, both recreational 

and commercial. There is a need to conserve the resource for tomorrow by using it 

wisely today. Conseniation needs to be the paramount concern of the Congress, the 

Administration and the users. We all must be cognizant of the resource's limitations 

and resist the pressure to allow it to be exploited for short-term gain. 

9 
175 

WILLIAM H. AMARU 

Fisheries Production Through Conservation Research 

February 23, !995 

~s nouse of Representat1ves 

C=~~!ttee ~n Res~~ces 

Subcommtttee on Ftshertes. W1ldl1fe ~ Oceans 

Mr. Chatrman, Committee Members: 

TELEPHONE- FAX 

(508) 256-0619 

Thank you for 1nv1t1ng me to speak today. Instead of re1terat1ng 

~r·e ~nany prot<21!ls tr.e f::.s~.i.:-,li f:eets are haYing around the country, 1t 

seems the way to help you help the mar1ne resource, and therefore 

ftshermen, 15 to first address the resource somewhat differently, that 

1s, as a living entity. Th1s lt\ltng resource is composed of 

tndtvtdual, wtld animals, not cubtc tons, bushels, or board feet. 

Thetr world is removed from ours, out of stght and mostly out of mtnd. 

Yet wtld fish reproduce in mtnd boggltng numbers, grow, and gtve rtse 

to new generations, apart from any help from us. 

~-::Ke ~ ... e •;-Ic:.;!~:.;~a! :::;-oC-..:::::~s we raise, wild fishes need no 

Otrec~ cuit1~at10n or heip from man, doing best when left alone; they 

•eec ":;!;emse.!.ves. Clll ~o~.~e :-.eeo co IS harvest wtsely, gleaning the 

e•::ess .- ... --,c-&'::5 =~ .. Illu:::"""s c• pounos that can be taken annually, 

•::-::J~,.o': ,__--::~ -:-,e t::ase =:::c-:attons. 

c.:ang t~.e .,..,,., they crc .... :de Americans "nth an on-going supply of 

wonderfully healthful food, outdoor fun, employment, and wealth, no 

s':rl,gs attac~ec, e•cept the ones to which hooks are placed 

a: ~-e e~s. : :1Ke~ 1t ~~a fteld of tnvtsible otl wells along 

":-·e =~ast =· ':1._.- ::::ountry. -r,ese underwater wells never leak, or 

~lo~out. They don't pollute--everybody loves having them off their 

:=as'::::.""t?s--a,_.: t~::.s lS ":""lE oest part}, they never, never, run out ..• 

~~ e~dless supply of htgh ~ualtty protetn. Catch 1t wisely, and its 

a:ways there --or IS 1t? The ~1racle of continuous wild protein 

p-odJction and a ~ene.able natural resource ~orth bill1ons of dollars 

to our economy, are both 1n very real Jeopardy. 
176 

2 

It wasn't alw~ys so. Until ~ery r•c~ntly, th• •urplus supply at 

f1sn ~as enough to sat1sfy. We hav• not forgotten any subtle 

underst~nd1ng of the l1 v 1ng resource. Ftshermen ar• no dtffvrent 

~oda y t~a~ t~ey were one hundred years ago. What has happened? Where 

were ~• wh1le our last commonly held publtc food r~source near•d 

exha~st 1on., 

"7"he .... ay we catch our f1sh today has evol11ed more tn the las ·t 

twenty f!ve years than 1n tne precedtng centurtes. Twenty y•ars ago, 

Z used a c&st-~•on sash weight, attached to a pt•c• of ltne to see how 

~ee~ t~e water wa~. W1th a dab of grease on the ttp of the weight, 

==---= -:~ .. :~ -:~e ootto- was •ud, sand or giavel !:ly _...._t ltttle btt o• 

sedtment stuck to the grease at the end. Now, I use a ten thousand 

=~~ ~- ~~~~~ ~! o~ ly aces 1t Qlve _. the depth. 1t reve~ls 

v1rtually everyth1ng about the ocean floor. It nas l1teraliy give~ 

me eyes under the sea: the k1nd and number of fish about to vnt•r the 

net. the s1ze, spec1es, and dens~ty of thetr school --everything that 

~ ~ne ~~ld see before, 15 revealed to anyone now. Nearly all bottom 

~:~.-~~ -sec a sash wetght once, •~ I d1d; Just about •v~ry 

commerctal user has a sonar, a video plotter, loran, and satellite 

navigators now. 

There is noth1ng 1nhvrently wrong w1th these tools. Indeed, th•y 

have made the work of commercial fishermen safer and far more 

productive. The problem is these tools and our own efficiency give 

us the abil1ty to catch too many fish. We have gone beyond tak1ng the 

e~cess and have cut deeply into the bas~ of the populations of nearly 

a :: =--..;- .ac-ta~~ ..,. ... 1ne fishes. 

-=-:s.-e-t!tE-"1 are sur .... 1vors. They h&ve to be. They will continue to 

ca~=- :~e =~on. oublic r@SOurce, until the co~t of put~1ng their 

~:~ : - :-~ ~te ... lS gr•~ter th~n the value of ~at ca.es up 1n thPM. 

:~ ,a! :S~e'!'"'~n fis!'"' lS not wrong; efficiency In ope>n cotnpetit10n IS 

-Pw~~~~ by success 1n our society. What you ~st do, ts set down new 

rules by ~htch our common resource IS protected. You must ~ct on the 

~end,at~ ~:ch gov~rn~•nt 9ave itself when it took up the 

-es==~ =:~~ty for st~•~ship of thts publtc r~ourc•~ 

! am ~ot ready to accept the ''tragedy'' of our last ''common'', nor am 

•::: ~ ~o see My ••Y of l1fe lost because those ~ose 

... esoc~ ~1:1ty 1s to prot.ct and con••rve were u~Ill1ng to chang• 

·' tne M~ay 1 t was always done". The changes you mu.,t make wi 11 hurt. 

9-! !~at pa1n •Ill be nothing cOMpar•d to the hu~iltatton, the 

~o~a-ic loss. and th• failure to sav• our greatest natural treasure: 

our marine ftsh resource~ 
177 

3 

Tne following recommendations to tne comm1ttee are based on 

e•pertences over my twenty f1ve ea~s of commerc1• l lshtng !n New 

Eng land . Therefore, they address problems I ha v~ ekper1enced 1n my 

~eg1on. The recommendations wh1ch follow, along w1th others. will 

r.elp the resource 1n New England recover and rema1~ nealtny and coula 

sa ~e ctner reg1ons from tne terrible dtfficultleS ~~ich we ha ~e 

e-:';:e~lenced. 

E:: :- ~~e d;-ec: =~·~::=~s -~ :- ~e-~t - t~~ w.~.sE .. e-~ 

Counc :. ls . 

Management Counctls are apprectateo 1n any Tree en~erpr~se 

s y stem. The f1sh1ng Industry 1s fortunate to have had tnem 

Introduced 1nto the or1g1nal 81ll (5tudds-Magnuson Act ) , 1n 

lq76. Howe v er, representation should not favor commercial 

f1s.,...1 ng ever other-s. P"\emoers •ust be pr.-se'"' t -r-= .1-:-eo '"'C!: 

necessartly conflict-of-Interest-free, but who stmply represent 

dtvergent v1e~s for the good of the publ1c resource. Th1s can 

be accomplished by placing sctenttsts, representat1v.es o1 

main-stream conservation organtzat1ons, and consumer 

organtzattons, along ~tth ftshermen, on the Counctls. 

2) Pro v tde a means 1or v astly I mproved scient1f1c research 1nto 

:. s~ ::cp;.;!a';;.cns a -.c t:~- e:.- :_:"":te -actto,...s . 

.:. .,c-eo comprehens t ve unoerstanc:ng of the mar l~,e ftsh r-e sov.rce 

~:...5': :le gatnec ':;:j e.-,a::;~e 1'lanage-s ax t:s!1er~e- := .. c ... l( :~~et:-.e-:­

tc eee-: "";t,e ;=a!s =4 c=:...,se-vatl~,.., a'"""ll: s....Jsta l-a=: e y:e:=. :atcr 

:ec~r-:oues f~; t""e :awertng c~ .. asteT-...1 dtsca-::s ~~tus-: oe a 

ortO'"'lty. 

~ ~s~A~ltsn a dectcated 1und, sup2ort@d by tndu§~~~ and 

ao~er~me~t, to enhance long ter~ •anagement needs and t~ create 

a sense of ownership and therefore respons1b1l1ty for the 

:-esource. 

The 1und could also be used for the recovery anc enhancement of 

1mportant coastal marine habttat. The cost should be met by 

pr1m~ry and secondary natural resource user fees and agency 

appropr 1 at ions. 
178 

4 

4 > Increase subst•nt1~lly th• enforcement of ftshertes reaulattons~ 

Make tne penal t 1es for oreak1ng f1shery laws more tnan an 

~ccect~c =est of do1n9 ~us1ness. ~1nes for v1ol at1ons should be 

added tc tne e~forcPme~t ~uaget; speed t~e prc:ess ~, wM1cn 

a reoea: off'n~ e~ loses ~~s p~:~::~;e to =ene f~t *l~3~clal iy 

frcm t~e at_-~ : -•s ~~-:@. 

~ En~ ;~ve~nment ~SS!~ti~ ~e proq~~ms t~at pr o~:c~ :~ e ;~1~ate 

sector with tn 1t1at 1v es that 1ncrease the eaten ootentlal oi a 

_s. .. ; -j....; . 

lS now go vernment · s r esponS1D l;.lt 1 :o p:""Ct~: :ne u~.: = 

r esource from over-narvest1ng and h ab 1tat dest ruCtlon, not :o 

accelera t e catch capac1t y. 

6) The gove r nmental department respon sib le for the ~a agement of a 

living resource should be one familiar with natur~l resourc~ 

mAn•gement, not tr~de. 

The Dep~rtment of Commerce deals w1th the nat1ons fishery as a 

r•luctant parent to a step-child, one it has never fully 

accepted as its own . An agency o1 government that looks upon the 

populat1ons of fish as w1ldl1fe to be used susta 1 nable, for the 

!=~ t!!'!"'"' ;~~..: '=" tke ,....at!~"". sk~ d be fa~oo~-=-!"'ec: o .. e~ cr"l.e t-.,o: 

li as as :;.~ s ;:;a :, ._ ,, c ... e:- ..,;-;.:::-e;a.::: .--; :NP. 

tJ~~~a---- • : ~ ~ :a.rr. - • .:.....,-_ 

South Orleans, Massacnusetts 
179 

TESTIMONY OF ELEANOR M, DORSEY 

CONSERVATION LAW FOUNDATION 

before the 

U.S. HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS 

on the reauthori~ation of the 

MAGNUSON FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT 

February 23, 1995 

My name is Eleanor Dorsey. I am a marine biologist by 

training and a staff scientist at the Conservation Law Foundation 

(CLF), on whose behalf I am appearing today. The conservation 

Law Foundation is a regional, environmental advocacy organization 

headquartered in Boston, MA. CLF has over 8000 members, and its 

mission includes improving the management of natural resources 

throughout New England. eLF is also a member of the Marine Fish 

Conservation Network. 

I am grateful for this chance to testify about the Magnuson 

Act, and I will focus my comments on overfishing and stock 

rebuilding, which are the most pressing fishery management issues 

in the New England region. 

For almost six yea=s now, I have closely followed the New 

England groundfish fishery and its management. What I have seen 

can only be described as a gross failure of management. Stocks 

of cod, haddock, and flounder have collapsed due to years of 

overfishing, stocks which for centuries supported New England's 

fishing industry. We now need to close Georges Bank -- one of 

the most productive fishing grounds in the world -- and keep it 

and other fishing areas closed for a number of years, to let the 

stocks rebuild. 
180 

I'm sure you have all heard of the social and economic costs 

of this failure to prevEtnt overfishing. As New Englan~ imports 

more cod from Norway and Iceland to replace the fish that local 

stocks can no longer produce, the region is exporting the jobs 

and income that fishing families and communities used to depen~ 

on. The resulting personal tragedies are all the more 

distressing because they were preventable. This fisheries 

collapse didn't have to happen. Bioloqists warned of the dangers 

o! high fishing pressurE•, but management failed to respon~ until 

it was too late. 

When the Magnuson Act was first passed almost 20 years ago, 

we had a choice of wherE! fisheries management would go for 

Georges Bank. There ~ere two doors to choose from, but the 

choice wasn't between ti1e lady and the tiger. Behin~ door #1 was 

103 million pounds of haddock, the stocx's potential yield, which 

we caught every year for 30 years before the foreign fishing of 

the 1960's. Behind door #2 was 9 million pounds of haddock. 

That is the current yiel d. ~est o: which goes to Canada, and 

that's the choice we made because of poor management, on both 

sides of the Hague Line . The biologists told us which door we 

were reaching for. Had we reached for the other door, the us and 

canada could be catching more than 10 times as much haddock from 

Georges Bank as we are now. I have attached a graph of Georges 

Bank haddock landings for the past 100 years that shows how far 

we have fallen from the potential yield of this stock. 

The essential reason why we mada this foolish and 

2 
181 

irresponsible choice in New England was that the Magnuson Act 

allowed it. The laudable goal of preventing overfishing that is 

expressed in the first national standard of the Act needs to be 

buttressed by new language that assures that this goal is met. 

And additional language is needed to see that stocks depleted 

from overfishing are allowed to rebuild. The United States must 

meet the stewardship obligations for fisheries that we took on 

when we extended jurisdiction out to 200 miles offshore. 

H.R 39 contains several good provisions that move the 

Magnuson Act in the right direction. The new requirement that 

each management plan contain a definition of overfishing is an 

essential first step (how can you prevent overfishing if you 

can't tell when it is occurring?). The new section describing 

Action by the Secretary on Overfishing clearly and appropriately 

assigns responsibility for acting to rebuild overfished stocks 

within a set time limit. 

I offer the following suggestions for small improvements to 

these sections of H.R. 39: 

- On page 19, reword lines 10-14 as follows: "(10) 

include a measurable and objective definition of 

overfishing for each stock or stock complex in that 

fishary, with explicit links to management actions, and a rebuilding program in the case of a plan for any fishery which the Council or the Secretary has 

determined is overfished;" 

-On page 24, line 15, insert", if necessary," before the 

words "to establish". The reason for this small insertion 

is that a rebuilding program is needed only in those cases of overfishing that have resulted in stock depletion. 

Two critical changes to assure the prevention of overfishing 

are missing in H.R. 39, however. 

3 
182 

First, the definition of optimum yield must be revised to 

make it clear that harvesting at a level ~ the maximum 

sustainable yield (MSY) is not optimum and is not acceptable, 

since that will inevitably lead to stock depletion. social and 

economic factors must be allowed only to reduce the harvest to a 

level lower than MSY. For depleted stocks, furthermore, the 

optimum yield must be specified to be a level of harvest that 

will allow the stock to rebuild to a size that can produce MSY in 

the future. I suggest the following redefinition of "optimum": 

"The term 'optimum', with respect to the yield from a fishery, means the amount of fish--

(A) which will provide the greatest overall benefit to 

the Nation, with particular reference to food production and 

recreational opportunities; 

(B) is prescribed as such on the basis of the maximum 

sustainable yield from such fishery, as reduced by any 

relevant social, economic, or ecoloqical factors; and 

(C) provides for rebuilding of a depleted fishery resource to a size that enables it to produce maximum 

sustainable yield." 

second, provisions must be added to assure that corrective 

action will be taken before stocks collapse. Once a fishery 

deteriorates as badly as grcundiish in Ne~ England, the options 

for management are very few , and the costs to society ar~ huge. 

senate Bill 39 conta:~s useful language on fisheries ~at are 

approaching a condition of being overfished. This language 

permits advanced identification of problems and requires action 

to prevent overfishing before serious stock depletion has 

occurred. I recommend that comparable language be folded into 

H.R. 39's section on Action by the secretary on Overfishing on 

pages 24-25. 

4 
183 

I applaud the extension of time for emergency actions 

provided on page 27 of H.R. 39. The existing time limit of two 3 

month periods has proven to be too short, given that it almost 

always takes more time than that to amend a fishery management 

plan. I do not, however, support removing Secretarial discretion 

on emergency actions originating in a Council, as some commenters 

have suggested, by making such emergency actions contingent on a 

3/4 vote of voting members rather than on a unanimous vote (the 

current law) . 

Absent from the list of tools that the councils may use to 

develop conservation and management measures is negotiated 

rulemaking. Only federal bodies defined as agencies under the 

Administrative Procedures Act are authorized to employ this 

process to create regulations. Yet it is clear that Councils 

could also benefit from techniques which involve stakeholders in 

generating management proposals rather than in opposing them. 

To rectify this situation, Senate Bill 39 has included 

pro ~i sions, ori ginall y drafted by the Conser vation Law 

Foundation, which grant regional fishery manage~ent Councils the 

discretionary authority to employ negotiation techniques in the 

ctevelopment of conservation and management measures. Limited 

only by the requirement that certain factors be considered prier 

to the use of these methods, this authority provides Councils 

access to tools readily available to all federal agencies charged 

with the development of rules and regulations. 

Closely modeled upon the provisions of the Negotiated 

5 
184 

Rulemakinq Act, 5 u.s.c.s. S 561-583 (Supp. 1993), the measures 

included in s. 39 have no parallel in H.R. 39. I recommend that 

you consider adding these measures to allow the Councils to use 

this process to create more effective and efficient regulatory 

proposals where necessary and appropriate. 

I am very pleased to see the sections in H.R. 39 that are 

designed to identify and protect essential fishery habitat. The 

oceans will continue 1:o produce a bounty of fish only if the 

habitats they need to grow, to feed, and to reproduce are 

maintained. I also support the measures in the bill to reduce 

.bycatch. We cannot afford to continue the wastef;J.l destruction 

of sea life that fishing is capable of. I ask one question in 

this regard: near the end of H.R. 39 is an excellent section on 

reducing waste in the Nort~ Pacific; why not apply the wisdom of 

this section to the entire country? 

I would like to make one final point, Mr. Chairman. J: hope 

that you and the ether members of the Committee on Resources 

re~::ze t~a~ t~e recer.t ol~~~gt cr:ticis~ of governmental 

regulations are sheer nonsense in the real~ of fisheries 

management. With a publicly owned, renewable resource like the 

marine fisheries governed by the Magnuson Act, the only way to 

achieve continuing benefits to society from those resources is to 

have adequate regulations on fishing. This is all the more true 

given the dramatic advances in harvesting efficiency that a.llow 

us now to catch the last fish in the ocean. 

Thank you for your attention. 

6 
GEORGES BANK & GU

HADDOCK LAN

1893-1993 

USA, CANADA & O

160 

150 •. ... . .... . ...... . .. 

140 •...... ... ... . ... . .. 

j:: 130 % 

~ 120 

~ 110 w 

2: 100 ::! 

Ill 90 

z 

80 0 

1-

(.) 70 ~ 

60 1-

w 

2: 

50 LL. 

0 

.. 40 0 

0 

0 

10 

Ill Ill !IIIII! 11111111 !_II !!IIIII !illlJ.LllWill.lWJJJJ..llJ.LI

1903 1913 1923 1933 1943 19

YEAR 
186 

Statement oiUNITID CATCHER BOATS 

on 

MAGNUSON REAUTIIOIUZATION, 1995 

Submitted to: 

The Houx Committee on Resoun:es 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Cleans 

Washin&fOI'I, D.C. 

February 23, 199S 

My name is Marpret Hall, and I am pleased to be able to present to you United 

Calcher Bolls' views on H.R .. 39. My family has a rich history, fishin& in the 

Pacific Clean since 1939. My father fished tuna, shark, shrimp, and dunaeness c:rab 

off Orqon and North California until 1964, when he became one of the Kodiak Kin& 

Crab pioneers. In the 70's, he entered into trawling for pollock. We now have 

interats in eight catcher vessels (some in pannenhip with the capcains) and in AU 

Alasbn Seafoods, Inc., which operates a mothenhip proceuJr and until last month, 

the larJest on-shcn processor in Kodiak, Alaska. My parents live in Newpon, 

Orqon; my brother in Kodiak, Alaska; and I live near Seattle, Washin&fOI'I. We are 

all activdy involved in this industry. 

I would like to begin by presenting you with a linle undenlanding of my 

orpnization, United Catcher Bolls, then present our views on the CUITellt crisis we 

are experiencing under the present manqement regime in my fisheries, and laslly 

finisll my talk to you by highlighting some of the areas of concern we have in the 

present draft version on H.R. 39. 

I. Beck&rouDd 

United Catcher Bolls is a fishermen's orpnization representing over SO trawler 

catcher veuels active in North Pacific fisheries. Our members' veuels range in 

length from 7' to 190 feet, and while they are primarily involved in groundfisll in the 

North Pacific, nwty also participate in the Alaska Kin& and tanner c:rab fisheries and 

some are involved in the Pacific Whitin& fisha'y as well. We are American owned, 

operated, built and financed through loc:al lcndin& inslitutions. Most of our members, 

who are bued in Alaska, Wasbin&ton. Orqon, and California, bepn operating in the 

groundfisll fisheries in the late 1970's and early 1980's. Collectivdy, we have 

harvested roughly half of all the groundfisll caught by Americans in the North Pacific 

EEZ since the passage of the MFCMA in 1976. 

The members of our organization represent many of the pioneers of the Nonh Pacific 

groundfisheria and crab fisheries. We were the acton of the original passage of the 
United Catcher Boats 

February 23, 1995 

187 

Magnuson Act: we struggled to learn the fisheries, build the vessels and equipment 

necessary, develop new markets, risk our lives. What a success story! In less than 

twenty years we successfully gained control of our fisheries from foreign fleets, with 

an annual worth of over $2 billion. After all the work, all the risk, all the struggles it 

took to develop the Alaskan groundfish fisheries, we stand before you, roughly twenty 

years later, to once again ask for your help. Our fishery has gone from boom to bust 

overnight. We now find ourselves in a panic mode, not because the resource has 

been depleted; in fact, the groundfish stocks in the North Pacific are as robust and 

healthy as they ever have been. Rather we face a dire economic crisis that was 

created by ourselves and the management structure established by the Magnuson Act: 

open access fishery management. 

n. Industry In clUb 

Many of the industry have been advocating to, and working with, the North Pacific 

Fishery Management Council since 1987 to address the problem of overcapitalization 

in our industry in order to achieve more productive and rational efforts and harvest 

levels. These ground fish fisheries, are the largest fishery in the U.S. both in value 

and in total tonnage. 

Over the past five years, the Council has not addressed the problem of 

overcapitalization and the ensuing "race for fish. • In 1992 the Council established an 

Inshore/Offshore allocation scheme as a four-year interim bandage measure, hoping 

that four years would allow them to develop a rational system of fishery management. 

Yet here we are today, with the Council poi..S to recommend extension of the 

Inshore/Offshore allocation because it was W\able to do its work in a timely manner. 

The Council has also attempced, for the put five yean, to establish a Moratorium to 

new entrants into the North Pacific fisheries, a tool we strongly recommended IIWlY 

IIWlY years ago. Has a Moratorium been implemented? No. We are told ·soon·. 

Meanwhile, the overcapitalization spiral continues unabated in all sectors. Rational 

management has retreated further than ever over the horizon, while the Council has 

attempced to bail out a sinkin& ship with a leaky bucket. The industry is taking the 

hit: the race for fish causes us to waste fish and minimize the value of each fish. 

This is approximately an annual $300 million loss to the fleet. Nine bankruptCies 

have occurred within the past two years involvin& $300-$400 million in capital. Lives 

are being lost due to being forced to fish in unsafe weather conditions because 

fishennen are faced with choosin& financial ruin or riskin& one's life. 

2 
United Catcher Boats 

February 23, 199S 

188 

Our orpniz.ation is committed to working with the NPFMC to develop and implement 

an Individual Quota system as rapidly as possible. We realize this work is properly 

addresled at the Council level, but due to yean of gridlock and extensions of existing 

manacement measures within the Council, we see that the Council's solution, that of a 

License Limitation program, is not addressing the problem. 

The crisis in the North Pacific will not be resolved until there is a reduction in the 

OVCR:apilalization that raults from the Mrace for fish•. Freezinc the number of 

liames will not reduce or even freeze capitalization, bcc:ause it does not end the race 

for fish. In fact, the capacity of the fleet will inevitably increase as harvesten find 

ways to circumvent attempts to regulate inefficiency. This response, known as Mthe 

c:atch-n of license limitation• or Mcapital stuffing•, has been experienced in every 

fishery throuchout the world where license limitation has been adopted. 

Under eidler open access or license limitation, the incentive is to maximize the 

production per unit of time, not to ~mize the pocential value per unit of fish. The 

impKts of the race are that it undermines the ability of the industry to produce value 

added products, seasons continue to crow shorter and shorter, quality suffers as does 

our ability to have control of the marketplllce because all the product arrives in a 

pulse fashion. 

Byc:atch is another casuality of the race for fish. We firmly believe that reduction of 

bycatdl can and should occur in our fisheries. The simplest solution to this problem 

is 1 sysrem of individual incentives. Currently, the bycatch of any Jiven vessel is a 

cost which is born by the fleet as a whole. No individual has any reason to clean up 

their perfonnanc:e, especially if doing so will slow down the lwvesa rate of their 

c:atch. Under an Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) sysrem, each vessel will be 

assigned quoca for any species it harvesu, including bycatch. If it exhausts its quoca 

of incidental species it either: (I) buys or leases more of that species' quota; or (2) 

returns to port with unused directed species quoca, foreclosing its opportunity to 

twvesa the balance of its primary larJet quoca. This is the simplest and more 

powerful of all possible incentives for an individual harvester to fish as responsibly as 

possible, and it is intrinsic: in an ITQ sysrem. 11 also allows for the Council to 

detcnninc the lcvd of ~le bycatch, and allows for the Council to easily 

Mnfdlet• the bycatch levds down over time as the fleet learns to fish more cleanly. 

ITQs also provide the opportunity for the industry to consolidate itJelf at optimum 

leveb, 1 sort of 'industry buy-back' program with no federal assistance or allocation 

of buy~t funds. Under an ITQ system, those who choose to remain in the fishery 

3 
United Catcher Boats 

February 23, 199S 

189 

bear the cost of buying out those who leave. While we are concerned that there 

should be some limits on consolidation of quota to prevent monopoly control of the 

resoun;e, some degree of reduction of effort is absolutely essential. 

An additional concern that has been raised relates to the privatization of a public 

resource. We want to stress that what we seek from an ITQ management system is a 

long term access privilege to harv~ fish, not the privatization of the underlying 

public te30Un:e. 

A license limitation system does nothing to addres, the severe problems associated 

with the radical overcapitalization that has occurred in the North Pacific fisheries, 

including control of bycatch and the race for fish . The Council itself has realized this 

yet it continues on a coarse of license limitation. In so doing, our fisheries are being 

managed in a I'IWiller that fails to achieve the National Standards, in particular that of 

attaining the maximum benefit to the nation. 

Therefore, we are before Congres, requesting language in the Act that will encourage 

the Council to consider an ITQ system for North Pacific groundfish and crab. Granted 

this is a contentious issue. You will no doubt hear from others who do not share our 

point of view. However, I can say that over 90 per cent of the harvesting capacity in 

our fisheries are overwhelmingly in support of an ITQ program. 

UCB has been working hard over the past year with other industry members and with 

the NPFMC on development of a fair and equitable ITQ system in our groundfish and 

crab fisheries. In so doin&, many of the finer details of such a program have been 

debated and we would be happy to present to you or your staff this information at a 

later time rather than use up the Committee's time today. 

I also have some suggested draft language you can consider that would advise the 

Council to consider more seriously the mqnitude of the present day problems the 

industry is facing and enc:ourages the Council to worlc aggres,ively in solving the 

problems I've presented earlier. 

m. Specllk Comments OD H.R. 39 

A. Community Development Quotas. 

I would now lilce to focus my attention on other areas of concern in the present draft 

of H.R. 39. With respect to the issue of CDQ's (community development quotas) our 

Members recognize ihe important role they can play in helping rural communities 

4 

89-569 96-7 
United Catcher Boats 

February 23, 1995 

190 

break in!d the fisheries. As you are aware, the North Pacific Council has included as 

part of the Inshore/Offshore allocation , CDQ's in the pollock fishery and also CDQs 

in the sablefish and halibut IFQ program. It is our view that if we are going to 

pursue CDQ's for societal reasons, the cost of this program should be spread among 

ill the fisheries, not just the pollock fishery . All fisheries, like salmon , cra!J and 

halibut, ought to contribute their fair share to helping fishery dependent communities. 

We also have concerns about the lack of feder.U standards or guidelines for this 

program. As you know, w: North Pacific Council gave the Governor of Alaslca the 

authority to distribute CDQ's as he see.s fit. There are no guidelines, no standard!!, 

no checks and balances. Last ye:u CDQ's were valued in excess of $20 million . We 

believe that the Councils or the Secretary should have a bigger role in assuring that 

CDQ's are distributed to the neediest and most deserving communities. We also 

think that Congress ought to incorporate into the law some guidance as to the purpose 

of this program. 

Finally, we think that CDQ' s should be incorporated into a broadel' market based on 

quota share system for the rationalization of the fisheries. As I mentioned earlier, 

UCB has steadfastly supported the adoption of an ITQ management program for 

groundfish. We support linking a CDQ procram with an ITQ program. 

Implementing a stand-alone CDQ program pves preference to certain groups at a cost 

to others and also allows for increase in capacity of the fleet in a time when we are 

struggling to reduce effort. 

B. Bycatch 

UCB is proud of the efforts our members have taken to address the issue of bycatch 

over the past few yean a.t the council levd, including I) the shift in accounting for 

halibut PSC from handled fish to monality of fish and reducing the total allowable 

halibut PSC cap; 2) betu:r accounting methods for counting and/or estimating 

bycatch; 3) voluntary procrams J.ilce the Salmon Rexarch Foundation where our tleet 

bas contributed hundreds of thousands of dollan annually to fund research to assist us 

in reducing the incidental catch of salmon PSC and in determining the effects of 

bycaught salmon to streams of origin; and 4) gear modifications to reduce unwanted 

portions of the harvest, such as mesh size regulations and grid sorting devices. I 

would estimate that the NPFMC has spent more time and energy on issues concerning 

bycatch than any other issue'. These procrarns I mention are just but a few programs 

implemented over the yean by the Council. This is a good start. 

UCB agrees with Chairman Young about the need for a new national standard which 
United Catcher Boats 

February 23, 199S 

191 

a.ddrascs the issue of bycatch. We believe that this would be an appropriate 

indication by Congress about the importance of n:ducing bycatch nationwide. We 

would like to work with you on some improvements to the current language in H.R. 

39 and have provided some suggestions in our legislative proposals. 

Bycatch is also addressed in Section 9(a) of the bill. We understind that the proposed 

new language for Section 303(a)(S) of the Act is intended to require management 

plans to contain uniform or consistent methods of collecting data on bycatch. For the 

most part, this is currently being done in our fisheries. We apee with this intent and 

it is important to us that we have accurate data on amounts and types of bycatch, 

espccially if we are sucxessful in moving into a quota-baxd management system. 

However, we have a problem with requirements that we weigh or count all the fish 

we bring on board our boats. This would be impossible. Again, we would like to 

work with the Committee on perfeCting amendments. 

Section 9 of the bill also imposes a new requirement on the Councils to describe 

essential fishery habitat and prescribe management measures to minimize adverse 

impact on the habitat caused by fishing . We support efforts to protect valuable 

fishery habitat becaUJe our future literally depends on it. However, we think the 

proposed definition of essential fishery habitat is overly broad and could encompass 

the entire ocean. Further, we believe the councils currently have adequate authority 

to protect important fish habitat, we're already doing it in the North Pacific, and do 

not support the requirement that they must include measures in every plan to 

minimize impact on the habitat. UCB recently worked hand in hand with the North 

Pacific Council in designating a no-trawl zone around the Pribilof Islands in order to 

proccct key juvenile blue king crab habitat. We've already ta1k£d with your staff 

about this and want to continue to work with you. 

BecaUJe we support a new national standard on bycatch, we believe that the proposed 

new Sections 303(a)(ll) and (12) are not needed. 

Last year, the Subcommittee reported bill from the Merchant Marine & Fisheries 

Committee had a provision that allowed councib to prescribe management measures 

that were necessary to minimize the incidental catch of birds. We are curious as to 

why this provision was not included in H.R. 39. UCB believes that if there are 

problems with bird mortality in fisheries, that the management councils, not the 

Secretary of the Interior, should be the ones to recommend changes to fishing 

practices. 

6 
United Catcher Boats 

February 23, 1995 

192 

Finally, Section 14 of the bill proposes to add a new Section 313(0 to the Act which 

imposes new responsibilities on the North Pacific Council to reduce "waste" . This 

new section will greatly affect our membcn and concerns us deeply. 

First, we believe that any program to reduce waste should be applied nationwide. 

UCB memben participate in some of the "cleanest" fisheries in U.S. waten. We 

believe that if you compared our performance to other fisheries around the coast, you. 

would see what we mean. Because our volumes of harvest are so large, very small 

pen:entages of bycatch tend to be big numben. But they represent fractions of the 

biomass. While other fisheries may appear to have low levels of bycatch, when 

compared to the overall size of the stocks, it is significant. This is why we believe 

any effort to reduce waste should be nationwide. And as I stated earlier in my 

testimony, UCB believes the most effective way to reduce waste is through an ITQ 

program, where each captain is responsible for his v~'s performance. 

7 
193 

STATEMENT OF PAUL SEATON 

ALASKA MARINE CONSERVATION COUNCIL 

BEFORE THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

HEARING ON THE REAUTHORIZATION OF THE 

MAGNUSON FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT 

FEBRUARY 23, 1995 

WASHINGTON. D.C. 
194 

I'<TROill'CTION 

rhank you for this opportunity to testify today For the record, my name is Paul 

Seaton. I am a commercial tisherman from Homer, Alaska. I am also the President of the 

Alaska Marine Conservation Council 1 A\1CC). The Alaska Marine Conservation Council is a 

broad-based community organization comprised of -\laskans, manv of whom live ami '-'ork ·n 

small remote communities along the Alaska coast. 

Our members come !rom diverse cultural and economic backgrounds and many of us 

depend on marine resources for sustenance, culture and livelihoods. From Ketchikan in 

Southeast Alaska to l)nalaska in the Aleutian Islands to Tununak in the Bering Sea, our 

members are, or have been. gilln•,tters. seiners. crabbers, trollers, long-liners. trawkrs. itl•gers 

and other commercial lishers and !ish v.orkers. 

Some of us come !rom Native communities where we still subsist on marine resources 

as our ancestors did before us. When marine ecosystems are at risk, not only arc our 

livelihoods as tishermen threatened. so is our subsistence way of life. If declines in the h•:alth 

of marine ecosystems are allowed to continue, nur very future is at risk. 

Our membership also includes con sen ationists and scientists who track the health <1nd 

decline of marine resources. The .-\Iaska \1arine Conservation Council is a diverse group. 

Although our personal interests in marine resources are vef\ different. we share a dependence 

on. and commitment to. healthy marine ~cusystems. 

As coastal residents, we have seen alarming regional declines in Steller sea lions. 

harbor seals, fur seals. certain bird species including murres and kittiwakes. along with 

herring, king crah. dungeness. opilliu. shrimp and rocktish. These declines concern us Ihll 

only because of the adverse impact thev mav have on many of our livelihoods. but as 

indicator species they warn us of distressing changes in the North Pacilic. 

Although vw do not fully understand the ecHnple' interactions which occur 111 the 

oceans. \Vt' must ~.xpand our \ision to include fuod chain interactions as \\ell as human 

harvest when exploiting marine resources. \\.1.:' must hi.:' consen ati\ t.: and \\L' must pnlCCL'll 

with caution. 

:\!must two decades ago. Congress bct.:J a similar prohkm. Rccl-dess l~lrcign fi,;J1111:.: 

threatened both the marine t.:l1\irnnment and thl.:' l'COIHHllie...; uf _\[a ... J.a's cnastal c~.lmmunlllL'" 

Congress responded \\ith thL· uriginal \Iagnus~.1n .\ct. Jc-;igncJ to .\m~..·rit..·anilc tht..· !lsh~...·r: 

while putting conservatiun in the l~lfl'frnnt n! tlsht.:rics m~magcm<.:IH ( )ur O\\ n (_ 'ungrt..'S'-llLlfl 

Don Young, helped write that Ja,, 

Yet despite its strong language . ...;umcho\\ thl' \bgnusnn .\ct ha:-; beL'Il impk!llL'Ilt>..·l! !!' 

a \\a] that puts economic cnnsidt.Tatinns hd{ne Clltlsen atiun and pushes !ishL'fiL·:-; ~Llrli"" thL· 

country to the brink of ruin. The tlmt.: Js ript.: tl) amend tht: \Li~nLhPn .\l't \l) gi\L' ~~ th .. ''-' 

din.:ction tn tisheries mana~L·rs. It i.s !itting that ClHlgrL·ssman Young i-.; Ihl\\ chairman 11! 

panel. charged with tl\:ing the \1agnusnn :\ct. ii.R .. ~9 takL·s impllrl~tnt first stL'ps dll\\11 till--

path .. ·\\1CC vvnuld like tn thank him f,,r ltltrPJucin~ such stwn~ k~tslati<H1 
195 

We take this opp<>rtunity to let you know our recommendations for further changes t<l 

the Ma!!nuson Fisherv Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson Actl. Where such 

suggestions are already inwrporated in the Senate bill. S.39. we have so noted. Although 

generated from Alaskan tishing and conservation experiences. we believe they can be 

beneticially applied to all areas of the United States Exclusive Economic Zone ( EEZ) 

SUMMARY 

Our specitic recommendations are explained below. To summarize. however. we propose 

Congress amend the Magnuson Act to: 

I. Clearly establish wnservation over economics as the top priority of the Act: 

II. Mandate a reduction in bycatch. discards and habitat disruption through economic 

incentives that reward clean tishermen: 

Ill. Institute a precautionary. multi-species approach to management and research: 

IV. Acknowledge the role that people and sustainable communities play in a health: 

marine ecosystem: 

V Make marine habitat protection a priority. 

I. CLEARLY ESTABLISH CONSERVATION OVER ECONOMICS AS THE TOP 

PRIORITY OF THE ACT 

In human terms. the consequence of allowing wasteful. destructive fishing practices t<> 

continue is vividly portrayed in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. where entire communities 

have been placed on "dfare rolls and relocation programs are being examined. All this due t.• 

poor fishery practices and gear types. resulting in 30.000 men and women losing their 

livelihoods in just three years. The state of the cod fishery is so dire that the Canadian 

government has announced it is considering boarding "pirate" vessels tishing cod hevnnd the· 

~00 mile Canadian FE/. 

In ~co logical terms th ~ nurth~rn districts of that area are considered manne desert' 

unlikely to recowr due to intense honom dragging and destruction of tish~ry habitat ·\Lhk.t 

and the l_' nited Stat~s cannot afford to make thes~ same mistak~s. :--JLmctheless. we ha' c .u>.l 

continue to do so . 

. \c<:ording tn '\\fFS. in the l.·nited States o5 species or species groups are 

m ertish~d ' This anwums I<' -10° o <>fall those sp~cies ass~ssed. hen in .·\Iaska. "ith the 

nation's flh)St productive fisher: . \\~han~ begun ttl sc:c: prllhlems in the ~ttH.: ks. 1--ur e\,Ull]~i-~· 

!lHlL.ltorium is in place lH1 thL· :\kutian Basin Polln...:k Stock ( Bogusplof District l in thL· lh:r 

Sea Jue hl its L"ollapsL'. \\hich \\'~h caused h;. rampan t tn\:·rfishing lH1 tik' high SL'as as ,,L·I: 

\\ithin the t·. s IT/. including kderall' sanctioned fisheries on spa\\ning p.>l!,,d st<Kk' 
196 

Although the National Standards establish~d m th~ Magnuson Act otien use the word 

"cons~n ation". in many instances L'COnomic anJ other considerations overridt.: tht.: dictates uf 

sound conservation principles. For example. National Standard I states that ''consen at ion and 

management measures shall prevent o\·ertishing while achieving the optimum 'ield from each 

tisheryonacontinuing basis." 16l".S.C. sec. IS51(a)(l). 

Overtishing is not Jetin~d in the law However. optimum yidd is ddined as the 

maximum sustainable 'idd "modi:ied bv an\ rein ant economic. social or ecological factms." 

!s.L sec. 1802( 21 (B). The economic and social factors are put on an e\ en t(Joting with 

biological factors. Fisheries managers arc pressured to subordinate conservation objectiv•:s to 

short-term economic interests. As the National Acad~m' of Sciences has found. the result is 

otien an optimum yield higher than the sustainable biological yield.' 

We can see the interplay of these two otien contlicting concepts -- ovcrtishing and 

maximum sustainable yield -- in the Pacitic Ocean Perch (POP) tishery in the Gulf of Alaska 

Overtished by the foreign tl~~t in th~ 1960s. POP has n~ver recovered. However. facing 

increasing pressure from the now-domestic tlect. the North Pacitic Fishery Management 

Council in 1993 instituted a rebuilding plan and no direct fishery was allowed that 'ear 

Despite the Council's conservative approach. NMFS kit cornpdled by its interpretatinn ,,f the 

~lagnuson Act to allow a trawl ti>hery for POP in 199-l. l"nfortunately. the biomass sunn 

used does not give adequate information about the age structure of the growing POP stock 

with this uncertainty given critical recruitment int(nmation. harvesting at this stage could 

jeopardize the rebuilding of POP. In the face of uncertainty. NMFS felt compelled b' the 

concept of maximum sustainuble '1eld to interpret the Council's action in the least 

conservative. most aggressive wa! possible. This is exactly the path that has kad our tishenes 

to ruin in New England. 

H.R. 39 makes important steps in Jetining tl\ertishing ti1r the tirst time. Ilm\e\er. 

without changes to the detinition of optimum 'iciJ. the )oh 1s on!' half Jone . ..\~ICC 

respectfully recommends the follo\.\ing further ~...·hanges tn estahlish cunsenati\111. anJ nut 

economics. as the top pri<>rit\ uf the \lagnuson .\ct 

II .·\mend the detinitilln ol "optimum 'iciJ" to 

• take into account the prPtectiun ul marin~.: L'Cll-..; ...;t.:m...; ( S 39 l 

• allow sustainablt.: yield Lml; ttl be hn\er.:J not raiseJ h; ""H . .:iJ.l. L'l'illhlll11L-. tlf 

ecological facttns 

• detine <YY in terms tlf sustainahk:: ield 1,1\L'f the [~_111~ t~..:rm rath~...·r th~m m~l\l!llU!ll 

sustainahk vicld 

SLH!gesteJ L.1n12UJ.L!l' 1 111..:'\\ language i-; unJ,:rlin~...·J. Jclt.:h.·J L.1ngu~t:.:e i-; hra~..:k~....·tcd ;md 

capitali;eJJ: 
197 

The krm ·sustainable v idtl" means the 'ield uf a llshen that can be maintained ll\ cr the 

long term. takinl! into accuunt suentitic uncertain!\ and natural variahilit\, 

rhe term "optimum". \\Jth respect to the yield frum a tishery. means the amount uf tish--

1 A) "hich "ill pmv ide the greatest O\era\1 benctit to the '\at inn. "ith 

particular reference to ti.1od production and recreational opportunities: anJ h!_hinc 

into accPunt the protection of marine ecos\ sh:rns: 

il31 "hich is prescribeJ as such on the basis of the [:VIAXI:Vll:M[ susta1nahlc 

yieiJ from such tisher\. as lowered [:V10DIFIED[ hy any relevant economic. sPcial. 

or ecological factor: 

1 ( 1 rmn 1des fur rehuilding of depleted and overtished tishen resources Ill a 

Je,eJ cnnsistent with pmviding sustainable vield. 

(replace "maximum sustainah\c 'ield" with "sustainable yield" wherever it occurs in the .\ctl 

2) Mandate actions to prevent nvertishing hcforc a stock actual\\ reaches such a state tS .~'!I 

II. MA:"IIDA TE A REDlTTIO:"II IN BYCA TCH, DISCARD AND HABITAT 

DISRliPTIO"' THROl GH ECONO'\liC INCENTIVES THAT REWARD CLL\:\ 

FISHERMEN 

A guiding principle of the .·\Iaska :Vlanne Conservation Council is that our li\ ing m.lfllll' 

resources have intrinsic value in and of themselves within the ecosystem. Among the must !l.J~unt 

problems of abuse associakJ \\ith commercial fisheries in the \lorth Pacitic is hycatch 

Jiscarding of umvantcd tish 

!·_\\?r: year morl' tlsh :trc JiscankJ dc;Jd in our fishcncs in the :'\orth PaL·itiL· than ,11._· 

landed hy l S lishcrmen Ill the '\Prth .\tlanllc. Over 740 million pounds llf dead or J, "'" :1·1 

\\ere dumped \l\er the side in J<)l)~ including Jo million pounds nf ha\ihut. 7711.111111 p<lU!l,j, • 

herring. and lh million crah: ll\L'r 370.000 sa]mt_ln \\t:rt: intt:rL·eptL·d in tht: ntlshtlfL'. t'~.:dl'L!l 

tishcrics. :\ma;_ingly. tht: Jl)l)~ !lgure \\J.s a .:'11° o incrt:asc.: from I ll9~. l ·nr~.ntunatcl:. h~.11h 

1992 and ]9t)_~ tigur~..·-..; an.: rnugh numht:rs that an: J.[mpst c!...'rtainl: unJ..:r-rcpurtL·J 

L.H:cd with Jcl'lining pdpuldti~.ms and pntl:'ntial I· nJangcri.'J Sp'-'ClL'S .\ct listm~" P1 ,,_. _., 

marin~:.? species in the Bcrin~ Sea and (iulf 11f :\IJ-d-~~1. man: pf i\Uf ]i\~..·lih~.hlds ~1nd -.;uh-.1---t ... •:~._;._· 

cultures are at risk. \\.hat Jr: '>Lilhtic-., term "hycatch" i...; \\hat suhsist~..·nc~..· u .... ~..·r.., dl'J"'ll'llll •'I: 

\\"hat federal manag~..·r .... L' ~~~I ,, rr( )hi bt tL'd spec i~..·s" arc \\ klt illhL'f . \Iaska II :-;hcrmen lll~tl-.~...· tlh.. 

lHl \\.hat "illll1i...' call the '\.:tl...,t tlt" J\llllt-: husint..·-.;..;" is \\hat cnuld hanhrurt 1llll" ~..·~'~t:-.t~tl L1l!llll1l:· 

l·nr L'\ampk. thL' r~...·d hin~ ~..:r~Ih ![-.;her~ 111 thL' lkrint-' Sea\\;!..., cmc~...·k·d 111 1 qq_f ,~ .. ~ 

s~\l'fl . .'l~ depressed sh't..·\... ..... In th:1t ..;:lllll.' ~l·:tr. th~..· rnch >tlk :1nd ;~...·lltl\\llll ..... 11k h1l!!1l!ll 11·.r·.\ 

P~JL'II-I~o: \-...-...,Ju:Jh..'-.... Dhl,Jrd-... 111 thL· i ili'LJII,l:-t-...h I :~hLTIL'' ,1( th~...· BLTlr1c.' '-.;,:.l \:l'LJlun l~:.u:,j-. .111d 

\l,hkd Dur111'-' fl/!l~. prql;m:J ),1r tlh· \l.r-...k.J fkr.trlml'rlt P!lr .... h .mJ (,.rnh: r \tJc.'Lht f>llJ.~i 

-l 
198 

Ji:-,ruptt:d critical n .. ·J king ~. ra h d•i t~l l :mJ th rc:'' a,,-J! 25lJJH JIJ i-- 111g ( rab l.:~1Ug. t <.h h: . · _- \ 

~t~ t auJ: l't" tht: l \\ O tra'' I '\h ~,. , ~..·:-. tlnl!ld thai_ thL· lost ,-a!uc in h:·c.1t d 1 ' Jsti : c.\l' \..'c .._k·J th~..· 

\ a\u(' 11 f ~he target fisher: · 

!"his unnecessary and inappr~'priatc \\~htt: anJ ,JisrcgarJ pf marin~..· litl? is a puh lic Ji "~ 2r:h .. ·l· 

!"he !;l)\\.'fll!llCilt of the l 'nitcd s·_a ll.·s. under ht)th Rcpuhlican anJ Dt:mocrati..: aJmini --tr~:titHl'; has 

pkJg~..·d itself'' ithin th~..· intt:rnat ·unal l'tllll!lllinit:• ttl the gt)al nf reducing h: cat ch · YL·t :tlth~.\ut-'h 

thL'fL' is (OllSI..:rlSUS both \\ ith in anJ tlUl.\ iJc g~l\ L' f llllll.'llh that h: Catl'h is a rn a_j(lf rruhJcm. Ji tt k ha:-; 

ht.!c..:n dunc !P rninimi;c it h.:c~Hhl.' r~ t\ pt) Ld inc~....·ntin? s and Jisinc.:nti\ L'S arc Ct) 111 piL' .\. L'\PL'Il"i\ L'. 

Jirti cult tn t..• nfnrc...: . nr Ji ...;rupt i\t..' h) the lishcri(.· ..... \\·c f\..'cognizL' !hat in th ... ·:-. ... · ti t..· ~ p f tig ht ll\j~ L' h 

<. inJ ~lth.·mpt s tn reduce _·aucr ac;. 111 \..'L h;.ml:'ms li lU:-\l h'--· used h~lt ar..: ..,impk . Ct' :-. l ,._·ft ... :cti\(.'. 

1..' :1:•-. il; Lll ft lfCCa hk . a-.; Ulltlh lrll:-.. i\ t.' i.b p\ l :'"l:'"l li"l k· in Clii"T"L' fl [ lishin g i.lpl.'l"<.l{i d lb . ilh.': llHh l l~tl .. tiJP\\ 

f\' f ind i \ idu~ d choices a11J rt..·:-. ptH·tsihilit ;. . 

llistory sho\\·s u~; that tht: t .S. !ishtng ind ustry. is highly inv...:nti\C and llL'\ibic ''hcn thcr-.· 

~ an ...:cmwmic inccntin~ or alh·anli.l):!L' td he c\plnited. Th...: \\ay to prornot~ tlw dt:...-clopmcnt ~mJ 

USL' of sdccti n: gear is simply tu gi\"L' rriorit; pf harn:·st to selecti\ L' gc;..Irs anJ prdctiu:...; I j...;h!l1b 

op~....·ralitms \\ould not h~ forccJ t'.l chang...:. hut the economic incentin: l)f priorit; han est \\ould 

kad to rapid. \oluntary chang.: 11) ~k nt:r ti shing 110\\ and into thl: future . 

This is not a new idea an.J in t'act \\as the most successful techr.iqu~ e\er used under the 

.\1agnuson Act. Priority han·est \\as the ~~..·nt~rri~cc nf the _.\nH.:ricani;.ati un of the E.F/. _.\L.t.-;Lm 

\\Jt...:rs. Lach year it \\as Je1L·rrn J \\ lllllL· h th..: _. \mL"ric;:m sL"gment o f tht..' inJu tr;. u mld 

utili1cJ thro ugh the lishing \Car. anJ that pnn i,m ,,r the Total .·\IIO\\ahle ( 'atch tT:\ ( ·l "·" 

rc:-s..:n cJ r the :\mt..'rican li -:, t..T ~; h l han ·st. !'h..: r...:mai nJe r of tht.: T.- \C ''-ilS al l\K'atcJ to Th e "thl..'r 

,;cgmcms ,,f the indu,;tn The rc riJn: \\ll h \\ lllch the li; hin g industr\ rcsrondcd and ·-' ' l'anJcJ 

ih J"..\( · rc4uircnh..'nts ~tstounJ(.·J al l <'P"'(.'I"\ ..._T:--. 

Di'>L"lh '> ltlll ufthl..' !rnp;ll"h tHl Brt .... l\JI!Lt ~ R. t.: d 1-\.tn ~ lr.th td Rtld, .tnd ~o:l 1ll~1in "i1Jk· [r.t lill . ll(lJlt't 1 

( irtl Up I ~ll\ )IJlJ-l) 

()n Ju n l..' 1-l. Jl)l)~ ti.mncr Pr•_· .... JJ ~..·n t P."I' r:!~,_' Hu .... h .... l~! J th l..' l" n ltl'J '\ ;:t it llh ·nnh:r~.-·n~,. ;,: tUI n\ ll l' l: n! ~,.·: ~: 

lkl..-h,pmt:nl 1 I ·-..:c FI>l .-\ :'-.:nJ;_I ~ i. \\ I' 1~-. ll Llll hHh:d th ~..· h lll tH\ ~ mm ltm~..·n t 

Pro lll l)\1..' th ~..· ~.k\\'lllj1 11l~o."lll .u h..l u .... ~..· ''' , ... k~..t \1.: ~~..-.u- .m J p LKl l\.1.."' th,ll lll ll rll lll.." \\,t-.(1..· ••I .... 11~-.h · · 

-..,pr.'\"11.' ..... md m in tlll l/1.."' h\ l,lll.: h 1• 1 llt lll u:-:~..·1 --r'c~..t~..· .... 11 h. pt~..· : i - l't•'::r .. un \ r1.'. 1 l l "' c~.- -, l, .i ,! 

I ~..· ( "[nltlftl .lJ nll llh!LH IIl!l ·, ['lhl \ 111!1 •I. kltLt:111 rr~..·---- ntl..'d ,,. til~.· [ lll tnl \. .ti lllth tlll 't r.t.l, l! l~ .tlj,j I i l;ith \1 

l·t .... h 'tPl" J... , -. u r.._·, 

K .. ·; IPit,tl 111 ~;!lll/ .. 11 llllh , 'I b,t,! i\., •lh•t,l ,j 1, r, •:n. •t ;..· ~-r,., 'I, lt:n~..·nt.d h -._,tk : ~'- hr,t 1), ~ ,._., 'Ill. It :,: 1 !l _ 

p~.lllut;Pn. h~.._·,tt;..h_ .111J ,qh ... ·t 1,,nn -. ,,J H .t .... ·~·. ,t, i'-tlt , , · .__,,n, ... T\Jii ll ll )~1•' :-: trtJtl l...' t•'l ti .__ ·.~ 

\ .... ,cmbh d,l\.Ulll;..'!ll \ ( 1 I'\ I· lt1 ~ 1 ; _ ltl.'lll '~I 
199 

Th~ .'\Iaska \Iarin~ ~n ation Council pn>pos~s that ~ ~mplo' this t~chniyu~ to rc'dLkc 

bycatch. \\'c pro pose ~i' ing ;..t han('st priority allo( ati(m to those tishc:rmen '.vho .: '-·c :-.~ ful!: 

minimi ~ hycatch. waste and disruption to h:1hiwt h: gi,·ing them acct:.·ss to a rcsc:n ed r()ni(lfl nf 

the total allowable catch . Rapid Hl\~rsi n to im rt\\~d lishing practices and tcdliH>i<>g 1 " il l 

result as fi shermen comc: up ,,·ith innuYati\t: so lutions tP minimitL' th ir hycatch . LffPrl :- tn rc-J ~.:~..· 

bvcatch will be institutionali 1.eJ because the best li hcrm~n in each lishcf\ "ill pLtsh t'c>r i'urtihT 

r~ductions in hycatch hccau ~ thcv knLl\\ the' can he more selccti1·c. The reductions can be 

sequential!' lo\\cred in each particular f:shery u1 cr time 

The Alaska !\·Iarine Consenation Council has proposed such a llarwst Priorit1 s"tcm 

belc>re the North l'acilic Fishery \4anagemcnt Council. The proposal is supported hy the l nalasb 

'JatiYc Fisherman Associati cln. the 'Jorth Pacilic Fisheries Association. the Alaska l:eJerati<>n ,,j' 

c;atiws. the Association ot' Village Council Presidents. the Rural Alaska Community .·\ction 

Project. the Alaska Sportli;;hing .\ssociation. the .'\Iaska House ot' R~presentatiws. and the 

Western Al aska Fisheries J)c,cJopmcnt Association. This unique coalition ot' Alaska cL>mmerual. 

sport. and subsistence ft h~rm ,: n is unparalleled for a marine conscn·ation proposal in .-\lasb . It 

also sen·es a useful guide fL>r "hat could he accomplished in other pans of the coulllfl gi h·n the 

nght leadership in lisheries management. 

Determining the anl<lUnl of T.\C those lishermen could utili ze projected througlh•ut the 

coming 1car \\Ould be a straightll>mard Council process. Reservation of the prioritY all<'catt>>n ,,f 

the TAC would reduce the Je,cJ aYailable t<Jr less selecti\e lishermen. Seasons for han est " ''uiJ 

still be set using the same current Council pn..)t.:ess. :\.s switching lO selective practic~ s c.. ontln ~..·-... 

the proportion available ll>r non clectin~ ftshermen will decrease and be eliminated. ThL' ~P.tl ,f 

reducing byeatch and economic discard \\astage can he accomplished by allowing inJi, tdu.tJ, .1 11 J 

industry make tht:se economi~..· chuices. Then: \\ill be J reaL ongoing incenti\e for indu-.: tr: 111 

ckwlop anJ use further sekcti1c practices. 

fhc..· primary objt.'rti\t.' ,)f ;.my kgislatinn aimed at reducing \\aste at sea must ~.: ...;ult 111 

minimi zing the ...:ah.:h and J is ... :;,uJ of Jh)Jl -targ\.'t and ju,·enik fish. Suhsidi 1.ing th~..· rrp ... ·..:-..-.J:L.: 

these tish into !Ish mt.:al I,Jf \'il Jl,\.'."1 not Stlh..: thL· lar g~..· r I..'Oil SCnatil\ll pn,hlcm ur rl..'llhl\ 1!1:.: ~" ..... t'~h 

fish fr0111 the' L'Ci.l ~ St~Jll JllJ JllJ.: . in !"Jet. Clilltfi h lltL' {ll kgiti111i1 ill~ din: fJ ... hing rr 1Cll <.. \.·-... I t: ." 

hycatch is r~JucL·J tn accL'pL..i bk k\·c.;J.-.... \\L' can turn tlllf full attL'Iltil'll ttl in'--rcasl·J rr,~-. l·, ... ,:; _· ·: ,! 

utiliJ.atit)ll nf L·atch 

\Jhlthcr im ptlrtanl t"a~o hlr h) h~o· \lb id~. l· d i-... tilL' mptHI IIl~o l.' t)!" r~. dlh.:i n~ h: c.n -.·h 

ll lJ l( l)Jllfl)L'TCi~J r~o cic :-- . l l.tn ... :-...t Prh )J' it ~ i:-- J i:-.tingut:-. ht.:ll fn lfll ~~~ tllhl.' f -.t gi~.· .... (i l lll l!\' 1: : 

hyc~tch. \\JSlt.' . anJ Jiscard rl\ ~,J. ntn\k·d~in ~ the.: rnk Jnd intrinsic tl · that fl t)!l l"t llllll <l · :·:,l 

ltl\\ Ya!u ... • spL'ci...:s pia: m th t.: tintL'nancc ,,f thl' '-'C lS km. lnda:. 111~111~ 'Pt.'\.'lL'" tr~..· ~. !1 ... ..... :· 

for ecunumic r~.·a:-;nJh I.'\ ~.·n tlh'llk!h tilL·: ~I!"L' .. .-ritil' il L·kmL·nt:-; in tilL' !"th'J ch~tin. B: pr, ,, 1,: 

tlsherrnL'll inccnti'c" tn 11 :-.. h Jl.'lihL'Utl.·l~ :mJ ~.·kc i\L'l: !~1r targ~.·t .., pcci~..·...., .tnd mtnim1 ;.. .. · ·.... ·, '1 

1\f nun L'i llllrllL'TUal and tli 'll r~L't m.tr n~.· li t'~. . fLinL· st Pnt ·it ~ ;..· mh r, t'":~.·...; thL· lll1J1, lrl,J11 .. ~ 

L'(\liPt! iLal \ ,tl liL' td. ~~~ lll:lfl llL' l"L' ...,Illi i".." L'...; 

i"hL' ll.lr\L' .... t l'ridrll ; r rt lr\\ 1•<11 h\.'1 \ 11" \.' thL' ,,,rt h P.tL'i liL' t "\ 1!.\Jli.."i! \\t 1Ui d \ \tlf" k \\ ii.li 

~rnup . I h~..· .h.h:tnta.:_.:'-· ,,l. thl" ,IP!"' I"ll,h.:h I'- th :!! it ,1\ tlld '- ,1 t-'~.·ar ~tl ], '" ·: ui,,n ll~ht th.1t "., ,,1 !.: 

frlllll thl· .: t'l l" L'l"\~ttiilll ~~~~11 ,1( lllintllll/lll.::.' h: ~o· ,tkh . lL htl\\l.'\~,.'r. th '-· I ~~unc!l ,llhl ',\II ' 

11npkm~. m ...; uch a l"'fl"tlrth;Jl . th l·: "t1ll rl'l<!lll till· .luth, ,rit: U!hkr cll!TL'llt l•t\\ 111 nu~ ~..· .!1:. 
200 

decision~ between gear groups bas·:d on a tishing gear" s performance with bycatch. Such authority 

should not be undermined by the current reauthori zation of the :V1agnuson Act because it may 

prove to be a valuable tool in persuading fishermen to swit<:h over to cleaner gear without the 

perceived problems of rewarding clean lish rm~n within gear groups. 

As a tinal matter. this Committee should be aware that all the discussion being fl'cuscd on 

Individual Fishing Quotas (lFQs) misses one important point. IFQs address the probkm of lket 

o\crcapitalization. but dn not solv,, the conscn·ation problems of bycatch. highgradi ng and habitat 

disruption in most tisheries. Possible b\-catch reduc ti on is governed by the economics within a 

parti<:ular lishcry. Han·cst Priori!\ docs not preven t the c,·entual implementation o f otha programs 

such as IFQs. In fact. we designed our Han·est Priority proposal to work with any management 

scheme being considered for the N<lrth Pacilic. ranging from IFQs to license limitation.ln md<:r 

for Harvest Priority to lower bycatch. huwewr. it must come lirst. The allocation of han est tu 

status quo participants inherent in IFQs would preclude the use of Harvest Priority as an incenti' c 

to reduce bycatch. IFQs could insuutionalize th~ high icYds of bycatch and discard. 

The Alaska Marine Conservation Council approaches allocation schemes from a 

conscrYation perspective. In considering IFQs. the board of directors of AMCC has articulated 

three maj or conservation concerns. First. no IFQ system in the North Pacific should be institutcJ 

until the ti h~ry has been cleaned up "ith llan·est Priority <lr some other system. Second. no llc\\ 

IFQ system should be implemented until the conservation problems now surfacing with the 

halibut!sabletish ITQ system are fully identiticd and resolved. And. third. if an IFQ system is 

eventually adopted. quota should be limited in duration and not in perpetuity. Congres.Y likn.-.·se 

shou/J 1101 consider IF(js /iu· lh~ .\'onh Pacific unlit alia lhese 1hree i.uues hat·e heen re.wlred 

AMCC supports the import:lnt language in H.R. 39 admonishing the Coun.:iis and ';\tiS 

to minimize bycatch and waste . lie"'"'"'- our 0 \\'11 experience before the 'iorth Paci tic Cound 

tc.:ach"s us that e\'c:n stronger language is required · 

I. The nt:\\ \:ational Standard 0n bycatch should n=4uire minimi zi ng b~ catch to the !lhl\:1!.!.!.\:!Q! 

extent practicable. 

2. ,\!location preferences I(H dean lishermen should he authori;cd hoth within and hct\\•:cn ~'-· " 

groups to rellect su,h authority under the t:urrent \lagnuson .-\ct. 

3. For the :\orth Pacific. such mea.>ures should he mandated by a certain date in order tu ·""'' ' 

foot dragging on the crucial issue of bycatch tSJ9) 

-t. For thc \urth P~Kitic . no prt.:krt:n~..:e st1l'uiJ he rn:J.Jc fur rcJuction l ) f pruc~·:-~sing \\ash.~, , .... , 

h: catch . 

Ill. INSTITFrF: A '\ttL TI-SI'ECIES API' 1H.HCH TO FISHEl{\' '1.-\:\ A(;E:\IE\1 \ '\1) 

I{ESEA I{CH 

\;luch of th~ att~ntion on the \1agnuson .- \ct reauthorization has r.~en I(Ku s~ d «n the· , ,,.,! 

to prevent cn-crtishing of si ngle spec ies. { 'nfortunately the implcmcntati<m of this mande~ t<· 11v. 
201 

not be effective in protecting the O\ era!! health of our marine resources unless Congress also 

requires regulators to manage ecosystems. not just single species. Noting the negative effects of 

such single species management on the complex interactions of the marine food web. the National 

Academy of Sciences has recommended that the Magnuson Act be amended to force managers to 

move toward an ecosystem approach to management 7 

This is especially true in Alaska where we arc experiencing alarming declines in regional 

populations of marine mammals and birds that depend on commercially important tish for !(JOd. 

For instance. Steller sea lions have declined 50-80% in the last 15-20 years' and are now 

classitied as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. NMFS has developed three models to 

assess the population viability of Stellar sea lions in Alaska. Under all three models. NMFS 

reports that the Alaska population of these mammals will approach extinction within the next I 1!0 

years. The report states that the next 20 years are crucial to the survival of the Alaska 

population.' 

In addition to declines in Stellar sea lions. there has been a 50% decline of the red-legged 

kittiwake population in the Pribilof Islands and the production of northern fur seal pups has 

declined 30% in the last ten years. 10 Harbor seals in the Bering Sea may be only 15% of their 

1970" s population and black-legged kittiwakes and common and thick-billed murres are also 

declining.'' In Prince William Sound and outlying areas. populations of black-legged kitti"akes. 

pigeon guillemots. marbled murrlets. and arctic terns have declined 60-80% since 19n." 

We recognize and commend the North Pacific Council and its staff for the conservation 

measures it has taken over the years. Unfortunately. however, even their own Groundfish planning 

team admits that the effect of annually harvesting large amounts of fish (targeted and untarget~d 1 

on ecosystem productivity is not understood.'~' Nor do we know the biological consequences ,,f 

fishing a group of species at or near maximum sustained yield values on community structure Jnd 

predator - prey relationships." 

Gi,en this uncertain!\ combined with the distress signals the North Pacitic is sendin~ ,,ut. 

- NAS. lmprovmg the \tanag~ment of L: S. Fishenes at 6. 28 

~ National Aladem> of Sciences. Proposal No 9~ CGER--237 Scientific and fechnical L'nderstanJ1ne! l'! rhc 

Berinll Sea Ecos\stem. Ju!~ \992 (quoting Lo\\ery. ~ ~- 1991) 

Alaska Ground fish Plann1ng r~am. \;orth Pacific h->ht:r;. Management Counc1L Stock Assessment anJ I ;,Ill"!.; 

[\ialuation Plannmg Report for the Groundfish Resourct's of the Berin!!. Sea Aleutian Islands Re!!ions as Prll!c ... :,:d 

for 1994 (Nov. 1993) at 13 4 

SAS. Berin!! St'a Ft.:os\ stems 

Alas\...a(iroundtlsh Plann1n~ Team. :'\onh Paufic hsh.:r: \lanagt'ment Council Stock .\-.-,.:ssrnelll and I,~::,·· 

haluatiun R~purt Furth~..· lcJq~ (julfut ·\l"sk<l (jnlunJfi'>h Fhh~n (!\in\ 19lJ.":l 
202 

the only responsible course of action is a conservative one. Unfortunately. the Allowable 

Biological Catch ("ABC") is set by primarily considering only the single species being tished. The 

Groundtish Planning Team for the Gulf of Alaska noted in its assessment of the 1994 pollock 

catch that the ABC was defensible looking only at pollock recruitment. However. the Planning 

T earn went on to note that a lower ~~xploitation rate would benefit both the tishery and marine 

mammals and seabirds: 

Declines in some upper trophic level predators. such as Steller sea lions. harbor seals and 

marine birds. and increases in others such as arrov.1ooth flounder and halibut. over this 

period further suggest that unexplained lar11.e scale changes are occurrinl!,. While the 

pollock fishery/sea lion relat;onship is uncertain. the team feels that limiting removals of 

pollock may be appropriate given the current low pollock stock level and continued sea 

lion population decline.'' 

The complex web of life which exists beneath the surface of the oceans remains. in large 

part. a mystery. In what way is the harvest of over a billion pounds of pollock in the Benng Sea 

afTecting marine mammals. birds and other species'' What is the impact of dragging nets across 

the sea floor'.' Are we clearcutting the habitat of many species'' 

As Alaskans whose way of life and li\elihoods depend on marine resources. a 

precautionary approach is warranted until we know the answers to these questions. We c.c,not 

afford to have any additional species become listed as threatened or endangered. Managers rnust 

begin to manage fisheries with an eye to an ecosystem's health and integrity. not just for the 

viability of single species. And we must aggressively step up our efforts at understanding the 

marine ecosystem. Focussing and funding research to accomplish this would be a solid investment 

in the future of rnany of our coastal communities. 

For these reasons. we believ'~ the Magnuson Act should be amended specitically -- anJ 

forcefully -- to develop a precautionary approach to fisheries management that considers the 

entire ecosy'stem of a region or spec ics: 

I I Amend the detlniuon of overtishing to prohihit a len~! of tishing that compromises cctd"t'''·li 

integrit: 

2) Require rebuilding plans for mertished tisherics to take intLl account interaction of merti,hcJ 

stock of tish \\ithin the marine ecosystem iS.39t. 

3) Amend the definition of optimum yield tr1 require taking into account the protection ,lj nurtne 

ecosystems (S.19) . 

.f) Require tisher1, management plans to assess the lew! of h\catch occurring in a tishcf\ .uhi t'lC 

effect of the tishcrv on stocks of fish to \\hich the plan d11es not apply but which arc as"'CI .tk,l 

with the ecosystem of the lishery (S.39). 

Alaska (jroundfish Pbnnmg: ream. Stock :\s~t:s'>ntt:nt and Fishcn E\aluatt<m Rl'plm fnr the t lf1 1llll·:! 

Resources 1)fthc (iulf ,)f Alaska a-; Protected for 199-l (~O\ 199.1) at 17 (cmphasts added) 

l) 
203 

IV. ACKNOWLEDGE THE ROLE THAT PEOPLE AND Sl;STAINABLE 

COMMUNITIES PLAY I !'I A HEAL THY MARINE ECOSYSTEM 

As an organization of people who rely on a healthy marine ecosystem for livelihood and 

way of life, AMCC believes that sustainable coastal communities play an important role in the 

maintaining the well-being of our oceans and fisheries. The people closest to the resource arc 

more likely to have a greater interest in the long-term sustainability of our resources than those 

who extract fish like a vein of gold and move onto other parts of the country or the globe for the 

next great boom Yet too often in the North Pacific. NMFS makes decisions that help industrialscale fishery corporations at the expense of local coastal residents. 

The North Pacific Fishery Management Council has started to recognize the need to 

support small-scale. year-round fisheries rather than the boom and bust cycle of industrial fishing. 

The Council has allocated a portion of the Bering Sea pollock fishery for dozens of communities 

for Community Development Quotas (CDQs). In addition. in I 994. the Council set aside two 

percent of the Pacific cod allocation in the Bering Sea for the jig fishery. a small boat fishery with 

very little bycatch. H.R. 39 takes a good first step by allowing Councils to reserve a portion of 

total allowable catch for the use of fishery dependent communities. Congress should make sure 

this language not only encompass schemes such as CDQs, but also allocations for locally-based 

fisheries accessible to entry-level and small fishermen. particularly those using gear generating 

little or no bycatch such as jigging for cod. The Magnuson Act should also be amended to require 

Councils to more often consider how a decision will effect local communities. 

I) Add a new national standard to take into account the importance of harvest of fishery resources 

to fishery dependent communities (5.39). 

2) Allow a portion of catch to be allocated for the use of fishery dependent communities incluJmg 

locally-based. entry level. small boat fisheries using inherently clean gear. 

V. MAKE FISHERIES AND MARINE HABITAT PROTECTION A PRIORITY 

Alaska's marine environment continues to suffer from irresponsible development prac!Jccs 

and both local and regional pollution. Oil and gas dewlopment alone contributes significant[\ I<• 

this problem. Habitat degradation is not limited outside the fishing industry. Closer regard ncc-J, to 

be given to fishing practices that destroy ecologically sensitive and critical marine habitats anJ 

their associated ecosystems. By disrupting sea tloor habitat. sea mounts. and coral ~ommuntttL'" 

and disturbing spawning. nursery and forage areas. we arc compounding the difficulties "t 

establishing meaningful stock rebuilding prngrams or tllf pro' iding plausible stock asscssmcnh 

The Magnuson Act provides no meaningful hasis for controlling such detrimental .md 

short-sighted practices. As the :\ational AcaJcmy of Sciences has pointed out. tishen 

management dlurts \\ill fail \\ithout hahitat protccti<lll .. \\K"C agrees \\ith the .\c·adcm' · 

recommendation t<l amend the \lagnuson .\ct to prcl\ ide :\\1FS and the regional counct[, ti1c· 

authority to protect lwhit~t nt.:ccssary to sustain tisherics n:snurec.:s :" 

10 
204 

In addition. th~ .-\Iaska Marine Consenation Council r~c omm~nds that th~ .-\ct b~ aJ"Ttended 

to : 

1) Include habitat conservation in the National Standards on which conservation and manag ment 

measures are based: 

~) Require the Councils to describe essential habitat in tish~r) management plans and mandat<: the 

consideration of dkcts on habitat and other dependent marine life in those plans. 

3) Implement a strong national habitat protection program to preserve the productive capacm ,,f 

tish habitats. Give the National Marine Fisheries Service the authority to modify. restrict or J,:nv 

development pmjects which will adversely impact important tish habitats. 

CONCLl'SION 

Good management and a bett~r understanding of the complex nature of our mar ~ 

environment will help sustain our coastal communities over time . If managed carefull y. tisheLc'' 

offers one of the b~ t hopes for sustaining both our subsistence and cash economies. \\'hi le 

conserving and protecting commercial tish populations is crucial for our economic well bein~. the 

overall health of our marine resources and habitat is equally important. For many of us its vvhv "e 

chose to live re. for others of us its a matter of cultural survival. 

For these reasons. it is important now more than ever to make conservation the number 

one priority in the Magnuson Act. 

II 
205 

HR 39 Testimony of Thomas A. Casey 

representing 

The Alaska Fisheries Conservation Group 

owners of 

Twenty Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 

Crab Fishing Vessels 

"IFQ's are the worst thing 

to ever happen 

to Alaskan fishermen." 

Chairman Don Young 

Kodiak Daily Mirror 

Kodiak, Alaska 

October 25. 1994 

February 23. 1995 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife & Oceans 

of the 

U. S. House ~esources Committee 
206 

Table of Contents 

HR 39 Technical Rec ommendations 

North Pacific Council's Advisory Panel Protest 2 

Proposed Advisory Panel Sel ection Amendment 3 

ITQ Recommendation #1: ITQ's are no panacea for 

fishing vessel sinkings 4 

Corroborating Articles 

Alaska 5 

New England 6- 7 

ITQ Recommendation #2: ITQ's cause job losse s 8 

Corroborating Article 

Kodiak Island Borough's 

Anti-ITQ Resolution 9 

ITQ Recommendation #3: ITQ's cause social conflict I 0 

Corroborating Article 

Kodiak, Alaska I I 

ITQ Recommedation #4: ITQ's cause higher 

consumer food prices I 2 

Corroborating Articles 

British Colombia I 3 

USA 14 

Worldwide I 5 

ITQ Recommendation #5: ITQ's undermine the 

"Opportunity Society" 1 6 

Corroborating Article 

Kodiak, Alaska I 7 
207 

HR 39 Technical Recommendati0ns 

1. An amepdment specifying the process for Industry Advisory 

Committee appointments would add credibility to the 

Council's decision-making. We recommend the enclosed text. 

2. Conflict of interest improvements are over-do and well 

written in the bill. We favor a public recusal process at each 

meeting such as the Alaska Board of Fisheries follows at all of 

its meetings. We recommend that the Council's adopt the exact 

Board of Fish recusal procedure. 

3. Bycatch Reduction: Section 9 Page 19 Line 18 

We recommend changing the word WITHIN to BETWEEN so that 

gear improvements and economics will become an natural 

incentive to minimize bycatch. 

In the 1950's red king crab were fished with on-bottom tangle 

nets. Bycatch survival was very low. After Alaskan Statehood 

in 1959, webbed-steel pots were determined by the State to be 

the best gear for the commercial king crab fishery because pots 

maximized bycatch-survival of females and sub-legal males. 

A Congressional policy of rewarding the "cleanest" gear type 

can be achieved soonest by making this one-word change. 

-1-
208 

Januuy 11. 1995 

Hr. R18tard !. Laub~•· :hair~an 

North Paclrlc Flohar y Hacage~ent Council 

604 west 4th Av•~ue 

Anchorage, Alaw~a 99~10 

R!1 AtVISCRY PA~BL COHPOSITIO~ 

!lear Rick: 

Yesterday Waehlngton State fixed ~ear refre3entat1vee 

and Cocncll ~e~bers ~et to d!ec~ss the ~a~eup of the 

waehlngton del@~at:oc to the Advisory Fanel. Present vert 

Bob Alverson. John Bruce, Kris Fanning, '!'horn S~!th, Arn! ~homsor. ~orris Bar~er. Dav~ Fluharty, Al Hillikar. and 

Wally r•reyra. ---

For th• ~•cond t!~e fixed Qear representatives ~xpr•••~n th~ir d•ap c oncern recardlnq the rt~oval Of two 

fixed ge•r r•pr•~•n~atlv•s from t~e par.rl, a freezrr-lonqllner ind • cnb (!<l ~:n-~n. ""r1 t."10oi ~ rl';:>!acement b:z:~o 

travl gear ropreoent•tlvos- cho w.-~hlng~ ,.,;,- ldv[gory Panel 

1!qn-1on Of e[x nOll !Me!Utl Q includea four tr~wl ')P~r 

representatlve3. Fixe~ gear roprecentativa5 om~ha~l•~~ 

the very real need of ~he diff~r .. nt coMpeting g~Ar ~roura 

!o1· Ct'preeentatlcn 011 the Wac~i~ d .. l<><;ation in 1995, 

when ~any serioa• ~lr agc~cnt 1a•uov vill b• decided . 

The Council 11embcre. l!lgr•ed t.o aek for an oxeout 1ve IV8& ion 

v! t~ul Council to oddress thi• ioauc. 

The GQI~ELI~!3 fOR COt~CIL OrERATlON5/ADHIMISTRATICN. 

at 50 erR 005.ZJ(d)( 3 ), ce~ulre thct "bal~nced 

repre~entatlcn · ehould be ~alnlalned on t~e ~.p. The 

Counci"'s :sO~P states tt.a~ "T!o" C·.noncll •1~1 attempt to 

appol~t as broad a epectrum or :nteL.,bt• A• ~os•lble, 

incluc:n~ the 'lar!ou~ ris:Jer!~s arou~d Alaslta ... emyho~ldny 

fair re;>resentat!on C>f all til>h~:l9 interests." It als:> 

specifies that the A. P. ~ne~r ber~ "§._~~t e plea~ure Q.L_ 

tb~ Counqil." (e~np~asis odded) 

Elimination or ~~~ni!lcant competing lntere~tl will 

seriously Inhibit ttw ability of the A.P. to reach uet!ul 

Ind ustry co~sensua. 

It is our sincere hope the ~ounc!l will take action nov to rectify the Imbalance o~ the Washington 1e:e~ation 

t.otheA.P. 

'L -
209 

Proposed Amendment To The 

Magnuson Fishery Conservation And 

Management Act 

Section 302(j), PROCEDURAL MATTERS (16 U.S.C. 

1853), is amended as follows: 

(1) By adding a new subsection (j) (4), "Each council 

shall appoint members of committees and advisory panels 

during an open meeting at which public testimony on the 

appointments shall be heard," and 

(2) By redesiqnatinq current subsection (j) (4) aa 

(j) (5), current •ubsection (j)(S) as (j)(6), and current 

subsection (j) (6) as (j) (7). 
210 

ITQ Recommendations 

We recommend that HR 39 discourage ITQ's 

for at least the following reasons. 

1 . ITQ's do not assure vessel safety on the high 

seas. But seamanship, continuous vessel safety 

training/drilling and extreme caution by the 

skipper and the crew can reduce the odds of 

fishing vessel accidents. 

Indicator 

A. The past Bering Sea Opilio Tanner Crab fishery (J anuary ISFebruary 17) was marked by record high ex-vessel prices, 

very cold weather and a rampaging ice-pack that constantly 

threatened to destroy gear on the best "hot spots" . 

Ironically, the same fate almost befell two different vessels, 

one that fished the treacherous open ocean and one that was 

sheltered at anchor. 

On opening-day of the very stormy and cold Opilio 

Tanner Crab season last January in the Bering Sea, the FV 

NORTHWEST MARINER, operated by an experienced and 

safety- trained skipper and crew, capsized and sank with 

all hands lost. 

On February 7th, the crabber ENTRANCE POINT, 

was sheltered in the lee of St. Paul Island in the 

Pribilofs. It was nearly lost when advancing ice trapped 

it against the shore. The USCG evacuated the crew 

because the risk of grounding became unacceptably high . 

Luckily, a nearby tug boat was able to free the crab 

vessel from the ice and tow it to harbor. 

Conclusion: ITQ's are unlikely to reduce the high 

risks of winter fishing in the Bering Sea. 

- 1-
211 
:;rsrr 2 

212 

B. Atlantic Surf-Clam Report wishes claims that market 

forces caused fishermen to take high risks to maximize 

the value of their quota-shares. 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

l..latlonal Oceanic and Atmosph~rlc Administration 

NATIQf~.C..L MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE 

Nofl~~SI R~g<Oft 

One SI~Ckbum Ori~ 

Gloucester, MA 019)() 

Surf Clam/Ocean Quahog ITQ Evaluation 

Based on Inte:rviews with Captains, O·..mers and 

By 

Kenneth L. Beal 

/.~4/ ( 7 ,J'--'t' 'V 

Interviews with NMFS Port Agents and surf clam and ocean quahog 

fishermen, skippers and vessel owners were conducted in fishing 

ports in Maryland and New Jersey on February 10-13, 1992. The 

primary points which we focused on were the acceptablilty of the 

cage tags currently in use and the perception of whether 

enforcement has changed as a result of Amendment 8 to the Surf 

Clam & Ocean Quahog Fishery Management Plan. Most of the people 

interviewed offered additional comments on other aspects of 

Amendment 8, although these comments were not solicited. For 

purposes of reporting all observations, I will first address the 

key issues, followed by general comments. 

CAGE TAGS 

Plastic tags, each with a consecutive number, are issued to the 

holder of the individual transferable quota, and may be kept aboard the vessel, at home or elsewhere in a safe place. Tag 

numbers are recorded in the vessel logbooks and· 'in the processor 

logbooks. The theft of tags is not a major concern, as the tag 

numbers would have to be re~orded in the logbooks, and the thief 

would be easily identified. However, when quotas are 

-transferred, this information is· not reported to NMFS, so NMFS 

Port Agents are not aware when boats are fishing on a purchased or leased quota. 

Tags are attached to the 32-bushel cages when the· cages are unloaded (rom the vessel. Previously, tags were attached aboard 

the vessel, and this practice was both unsafe and resulted in 

greater tag breakage. Breakage of the plastic tags is generally 

caused when two cages rub together. Since the cages are fairly. rigid steel frames with wire mesh, the tags are sheered off, 

normally breaking just behind the locking mechanism. When a cage 

without a tag arrives at the processing plant, the plant notifies 

the vessel owner and a search for the broken tag begins. · Tags are usually found in the truck, on the wharf, and elsewhere in route. _ t _ 
213 

extra quota is added to ocher operat ~g costs, and crew share is 

~duced acc rdir.~l y. The r.o~al p~actice is "for cperacors to 

a ssign a value o~ $4.00/bushel to the leased quota, anc this is 

subtracted from the dockside price of $8.00/bushel . Obviously, crew share -~S less, and one owner of several vessels estimated a 

crewman earns about· $20,000 less per year now. Some boats have cut crew si;:e from 5 to 3. r·1ost c::'€"-"S are working harder, and 

earning less . 

Under the previous 

restricted ~is~i~g 

nteir deo:and.s are based on markets, 

go fishing in bad weather, or lose the connection with that 

processor. Two vessels which sank in late 1991 (the John Marvin 

and the Valerie E) were caught in a rapidly-building storm. The crew from the Valerie E were lost, but the crew from he · were rescu ard. Many peop e mentioned as an indication of no change in the safety 

- r-
214 

2. ITQ's destroy coastal community 

jobs. 

Indicator 

A. Comparative Kodiak Halibut Fishing Strategies 

Vessels Skippers Crewmen Total Jobs 

1994 Open-Access 5 5 20 

1995 ITQ Regs 4* 

1995 Net Job Loss 

• These "crewmen" are all former skippers 

and quota share owners. 

25 

5 

( 2 0) 

Source: Proposal by several Halibut Quota Share-Holders to 

Bill Alwert 

P.O. Box 1711 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 

Phone (907) 486-5511 

B. Kodiak Island Borough ITQ Resolution 

R-
215 

KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH 

RESOLUTION NO. 94-37 

lntr04ucecl by: AaaemDiy 

Rtquelttd by: Alltmllly 

Drafted lly: Clerk a. Community 

Development Dlre<:tor 

lntr04ucecl: 1 1/03/94 

Adopted: 11 /03.'94 

A RESOLUTION URGING THE ALASKA MUNICIPAL lEAGUE 

AND ALl COMMUNITIES TO SUPPORT 

THE LAWSUIT AGAINST INDIVIDUAL FISHING QUOTAS 

WHEREAS. the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly believes that Individual Fishing 

Quotas (IFOsl will lead to corporate-ownership of the North Pacific 

fishing industry; and 

WHEREAS, this will have an adverse impact on tax bases and community structures; 

end 

WHEREAS, IFQs would result in financial loss to both the public and private sectors 

of the economy; and 

WHEREAS, the Kodiak Island Borough has contributed $30,000.00 to support the 

lawsuit against IFOs; 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND 

BOROUGH THAT the Alaska Municipal League. concerned communities, and 

individuals financially support the lawsuit against Individual Fishing Quotas. 

ADOPTED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH 

THIS THIRD OF NOVEMBER, 1994 

ATTEST: • 

C_C;,))))f< ldm:tii 

Donna F. Smith CMC, Borough Clerk 

Koeliek ls'enel Borough, Al .. ke 

KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH 

rResolution No. 94·37 

Paga 1 of 1 
216 

3. ITQ's breed social conflict and 

community dissension. 

Indicator 

Kodiak fishermen's wives fight over Halibut 

and Sablefish Quota Shares in the check-out 

line at Safeway. 

- /O-
217 

• FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 1994--KODIAK DAILY ~~~~;~L .'. . . ..::::.,.·., ~ 

. Police_received repom or~~ .- f::a • .Jif41:i>J4[li )::~. 

"'~~;r,~~·u·-~~~;lt Tony'sBar Theotlierwal~bd . · .. ,. ,, ~ · Public bl tts "·r. 

· ~Wt~ ''' ~· _; Jit>,: :,·;-

at Western Alaska Fisheries:o.o.:: ·. . . . .. . · 0 e :~:;<:· .. . ,; ~~ , :); Sheli~or Avenue. . . .. ;:~;. . • 1 • • •• • ;,!".';<;•(.·.:.::' Poltce say nothmg so far_.11)W-· ·. • .. :-·· ., :•,•'•' ')f.-..;,.; ·: 

cates the incidents were relat~i: . • • • • . . : ':': :, )~' .: ::~·; ·· •.. •. : .. · ---- :' f: ! ·? ·· ·?:" . 

A boat trailer, valued at$12,()():). . . . >)/.'! .· :·,_: 

14,000, was stolen Saturday ·out- $50 and complet~ eight ho~- side a residence on Mylark S_tret:L' community service fortl\e\.'·' : 

OwnerMort1merMooresaJdthe .- ,' .. ~:-' .•. .... theft occurred around 10 p.m. . . . John sen, Jr .. 21. ha:s. tO: pay :~ 

lice have no suspects. . :,%·~ · A woman had her finger broken S250 and s e t)lree d~y~)~ )a! .~;{z . · . . ,,fi! Thursday when another woman for refusmg a eath test...'ti·:,'i'"-'·:' .. . ".• 

w: sit~~~:~~:~ er: to~cfc\~ )11)-'~~!a~w~ LotoTith, 22. ~;;~~~~~~'(&)E dence on Kuskov. Own Policesayadrunkdriverhitthe hours of comm njty seryicejc)r•A :-. 

Ellis.told police a key was •· McDonald's. restaurant Thursday driving with . a suspe~de:L'I"¢?·;-:~:;: 

the ignition. · f..:; .· · temoon. No one was injured but voked lie . '' "'';;:~:· ~~~ f:;-. > :' 

The motorcycle, valued a1 Sl,®', · the · · was damaged. ,·~//;}; >~. , ·, is gray and has a broken rear fender Noreen Simmons, 33 •. wa5 fine4:>· ·· _ _; 

and no taillight assembly. The court sentenced Victor SlOO for possession of!jquor,_She ;.;: -t' . .:_ Ramos, 31, to one day in jail and also w:u ordered j~~pa:t~~~<i~~~ ~~~ 

Police received two reports'o( 16 hours of community service for resututlon of S 115.44 fO! ~IJIJl.l ri~:~ items taken frorn boats over the , a theft misdemeanor. trespass. . 'i '~r:.; :.if;.· '~ 

weekend. 

Mark Alwert, owner of the F/V 

Buccaneer, told police Sunday that 

firearms were stolen from the vessel, which was tied up at the AlaSka 

Fresh Seafoods dock. ~ . · :· . · 

Gary Tuck Martin. 32, has to pay 

$250 and complete 80 ur~ of 

community service for driving with 

a: suspended or revoked license. 

MariusOlsen,owneroftheFN Timothy Lee Dexter, 22, was 

Enterprise,toldpoliceSatl!rdaytfiai: ordered to pay $ISO for driving 

one survival suit and 20 video~- .. . with a suspended/revoked license. 

settes were taken from his bOa!;. which is moored in DOg Bay. J•• ··· Loyd C. Hires, 44, was ordered 

Evert Schmelzenbach, oWt!er.Q( · to pay S 1 SO for driving with a susthe Sandra Sue, reported Monday>: pended/revoked license. 

lhat items were taken from his boatF <• · · • 

Police said the series of thefts' _,::, Felipe Ramos, 22, was ordered 

from vessels occur seasonallyJ . to pay $SO for driving without a 

They remind boat ownecs to keq{ valid license. · 

their boats locked and check on· 

them frequently. Meredith D. Davis, 25, has to pay 

- If -
218 

4. ITQ's guarantee higher food 

Indicator 

prices to American consumers for 

decades to come. 

A. BC-export halibut prices under ITQ's 

B. Homer fishermen 's plan to 

"coordinate" with Canadian ITQ-fishermen 

to establish and maintain highest 

possible U.S. consumer prices for halibut 

C Honor Thy Supplier article 

- 12--
219 

NEWSNET 

VANCOUVER, BC 

B.C. Halibut Ends iJpbeat 

T he weather was rough 

for British Columbia 

longlin<r.; making 

their last halibut deliv· 

eries of the season; 

but overall, it was smooth sailing for these fishennen whose 

quota share systtm allowed 

them to pick their fishing days 

and capit.alize on market conditions. The preliminary end~fseason toLals ran to 9.897 ,{XX) 

pounds for Canada out of a 

quota of 10 milli<;n pounds 

(compared to -l-.1 .957,000 

pounds for the C.S.). Virtually 

all of Canada's fish were 

caught and sold fresh into a 

marke-t which has expanded 

from 300,())) pounds per week 

several yea13 ago to 601.0CXJ 

pounds per week this year. 

B.C.'s halibut season saw excellent prices ...,;th few fluctuations, according to Eric 

Wickham. past president or the Pacific Coast fishing Vessel Owners Guild, which represents most of the halibut 

industry in B.C. ·1 had a great 

year. I fished the fir.;t or the 

season and got just over 

C$4.00/lb. (I;.S.S2.60/Ib.l and 

I thought that would be the 

best all season. ln fact, it got 

bener and nuciUated at just 

0\·'er C$4.00/ lb. most of the 

time.· said Wickham. He 

added that he heard reports of 

some fishermen receiving over 

CS5.00/Ib. In large part. the high 

prices and lack or fluctuation 

were a result of the Depart· 

ment of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) hot lin<. said Wickham. 

'"It is a real good service which 

has stopped the gluts." This 

service provides infonnation 

to fishennen about landings 

throughout the province, 

allowing them to spread out 

deliveries and help prevent 

glutted markets that cause 

downward price noctuations. 

Wickham explained that haJ. ibut fishermen have had to Jearn how, when and where to 

18 • P~ ,._ • .MMJMY tM 

fishermen ..... t>re 

preparing for the 

U.S. shiA to incJi. 

vidual quotas. Wickham said, 

1'hey aren't. 

and it has me! 

worried." Ken 

Erikson, presi-

~~-;;::E~E~~ K: dent Coast of thFishing e Pacif. Vessel ().,.,:nas 

Guild. said. '"I 

brought it up at 

several advisory 

board mt-t·tings 

but there didn't 

seem to be 

market their fish so they get 

the best value and avoid llooding the market "It used to be it 

was 99'1\ fishing and Ill> mar- keting. Now it is 71»i preparing 

the marl<et and 30'1> fishing." he said. 

Where halibut was once caught in short derby fisheries 

and delivened at the dock to large processors. the quota 

share system has favored 

sma11er. leaner buyers who 

tend to specialize in these fisheries. In fact. said Wickham. there is one buyer who purchases aboul one-third of the weekly poundage. ·He is a guy 

with three phones attached to 

his head and some employees 

to drive trucks. and he specWiz.es in halibut for eieht months of the year. The big companies can'l match that kind of ~ration: Wtekham said. The rest 

of the quota is spread out among a number of buyers. some operatine out of single 

trucks and delivmnr to a smaD network of customers. When asked how Canadian 

- (3-

much interest in the issue.'" 

The main reason for lhis. 

Erikson believes. is that Cana- dian fishermt>n have been told 

by processor.; that it the price 

~~,"'below ~zi~· ~:n bel That price IS SU signifi· 

cantJy hight>r than price-s wt-re 

before the introduction of JQs 

in the Canadian halibut industry. ere may unpeus to examine the u~oming 

impact or fresh American halibut on the rlW'kets which B.C. 

fishermen have been supplying. A measure ol how lialr 

concern there is over the prospect or competition from 

American quota shareholders 

next season is the fact that the price of Canadian halibut quota has risen to about CSIS.OO per pound. 

Still. Erikson bel~es B.C. fishellTI<n should be examining and reacting to the upcom- ing change, preparing themselves for a price drop and marl<et iJuts. Wickham added 

that the Americans could enlt"r 

the fresh market 'Nith reduced 

impact on all concerned if they 

learn from the Canadian experience. He said Canadians 

have built up their market 

becaust> they havt:> learned 

how to smooth out the gluts. 

1'11e distributors want a co~ 

slant amount ... Jf the Arne~ 

ans lr)" dumping 3 or 4 miJ. lion pounds one week then 

none the next week, they wiU 

glut the market and drive the price down. Then we .,..;lJ have 

to live 'Nith it. But if they supply the distributors with [con· 

sistent amounts o(] fresh fish 

every week, then we couJd build the market" 

I

n the meantime. DFO continues to review the use of IQs 

in general in Canada and. as of )'t"l, have not madt' tht'm per· 

manent Given the amount of 

investment that most fisher· 

men have in their quota pur· 

chases, however, it seems 

unlikely thatiQs will be 

reversed. 

On the international front. 

the International Pacific Halibut Commission had not yet 

set 1995 quotas as this issue 

went to press. These will be 

set during meetings of the 

IPHC in Conference Center, 

downtown Vtctoria. January 

23-27. The shiA to IQs in Alaska is not expected to have.any 

im~ on these negotiations. 

Said IPHC biologist Gordon Peltonen, 1lle IPHC will continue to set the overall allocations. How the catch is divided 

up is a domestic issue.· At press time, stock assessments for next year were not yet available. ln general. how· 

cvt.•r. Peltonen SiUd, "''llw stock has experienced a rra<fual 

dov.nturn over the past few years.· He addt"d that the 

stock was not threatened and 

-we have seen th~ kinds of ~.ycies before.· 

-T.j.Doilmy 
220 

· /lc_~ f7s4e.e---MeA.~5 

::Jcv,<?Nt+e-

· Drew Scalzi of Homer, owna the 63· 

foot AMo LGnt. He Ion,1ine1 for halibut 

and blackcod, fisbea crab and tenders 

salmon in the summer. Scalzi, tOo, wu 

encouraged bySincJeton's sb'olll message 

and said of opposition fund~ng, •rbe 

money would be better spent buying lOIII· 

line IFQ than paying it to an atto • 

A1J a · he welcomes 

the opportunity to deliver fish when the , 

markef is right. 1We'lllook at the mar· 

kets, talk to the c:anneey and see what the 

best time to deliver is," be said. 

The next challenge for the fleet is to 

muimize the value of the liahery under 

the new managemenfstructure. And 

that, Scalzi eaid is in to take •a lot 

more work. • One job will be to coordinate 

deliveries in both Canada and Alaska to 

ensure that the!ull market benefits of the 

new plan can be realized b the fleet. 

Scalzi added that the fleet should take a 

conservative, lo111·term approach to eet· 

ting quotas, and "present a stronger front 

to the North Pacific Fishery Management 

Council to limit bycatcll." 

The court b tt 

- 1'/-

•' 

{i8 . 'fs7; ~ 
221 

ALL IHt tDH 

YOU CAN S[ll 

Honor thy Supplier 

I was just out of fisheries school at the L'ninrsil)' 

of Rhode Island, working wholesale seafood in the 

!\ew York metro area. Thrilled "ith it all, 1 was. 

and as I approached the grizzly old timer our on 

that dock in Connecticut, it was with a sense of power. 

1 was going to talk to him about doing business "'ith 

his dock-<~bout maybe letting him ship me some fish . 

He wouldn'ttalk to me. He looked at me. but he 

wouldn't talk to me. I felt like a ghost -like the guy in 

the movie Ghosl when he's first dead and hasn't figured 

out yet that nobody can see him or hear him. 

It took me a couple of years and a couple of knock· 

downs until I figured it out. This guy had great fishday-boat flounder and cod-<md 

it was spoken for. Sure, there 

were times when he had too 

much fish and he could have 

returns for what they've received; they communicate 

any difficulties they're h3\ing (claims, soft markets) 

instantly; and they pay their bills on time. 

Seafood supplies are tight. Don't kid yourself. And 

I'm not talking just North Atlantic cod, either. I'm talking shrimp, scallops and salmon-<he horses that pull 

the wagon. Atlantic salmon didn't go in the tank this 

fall as expected. And tiger shrimp never g,,t cheap. Sea 

scallops are priced like U/ 15 shrimp. and sure, there 

are some inexpensive Chinese scallops around, but 

how long will they last? 

Fact is, our industry is maturing; pwduction is 

smoothing out; and world demand for high-quality 

seafoods is rising rapidly. Third 

World nations are going First 

World in a hurry-<~nd they love 

seafood. Witness China's almost 

used another customer or two, 

but then what would he do 

when bad weather came along 

and he had to piece the fish 

out? No. this old-timer knew 

what he had and he didn't need 

new customers. especially the 

kind that didn't get the picture. 

Thrre'sless and 1m seafood available on overnight transformation from 

shrimp producer to shrimp consumer. 

t~e world mar~et and more and more There's less and less seafood 

a,·ailable on the world marker 

and more and more demand for 

it. This makes good suppliers 

more valuable than e\'er before. 

Those that realize it are strength· 

demand for it. This ma~esqood suppliers 

That was then and this is 

now. Everything's changed and 

nothing's changed. That dock 

more valuable than ever before. .. ening their alliances in the world 

or production and positioning 

themsel'"es for the future. Those 

that don "t will find a rough road 

in Connecticut is probably a 

marina now, but good shippers 

are sliH good shippers, and 

there are stiJI folks out there who don"t get the picture. 

There's a company in Ecuador that ships fresh 

mahi-mahi, sword, wahoo and mako that's so fresh 

you'd swear it was local. Think he needs new customers? He could sell rwice what he produces. The peo--

ple he does sell to know what they've got-gold-<~nd 

they display their loyalty every day. They gi\·e fair 

30 SEAFOOD LEADER january/February 1995 

15-

89-569 96-8 

ahead. for the days of pla)ing one roducer ainst 

another are drawing to an end Supp y is King. 

A consultant speciaii.::ing in establishing and upgrading 

seafood lines for broadline and chain distribution centers. 

Phil Walsh has been buying and selling ><a food for 20 

years. 
222 

5. ITQ's undermine the "Opportunity 

Society" of the 104th Congress. 

A. Creates Expensive Bureaucracy 

1. Blanket Onboard 

Observers 

2 . Blanket At-Sea and 

Landing Enforcement 

3. Ultra-Regulation 

( 1995 ITQ Halibut Regs) 

B. Oligopoly favors the richest 

citizens and companies. 

C. Oligopoly discourages 

innovation compared to OpenAccess history 

- (/,-
~ . 1 

f ~!~officia.~;2~~.sLwiU ~~~~!!

llinwWrikr Ac.ccnli~~C to lbe DOW Nla ~ . JFQs. His main a-,saze 

I 'lllis ,_.., balibul ...S ablefasb - - DOCify NMFS by pboee Ill -. six with a- foe-

VI - will be "")' dilfaat ...,._of io- boon before malcittc a~ Some fiSh- .,,., toin1 io be aa edu

"'- diviclaol lishia&-. '-t - dill'u· cnncn 01 the moetin& q....a.-.s ,.._. ws." he aid. "If you c:an"

I --a lialc clearu yeaaday ""'""· .Jbout bow ria;id lhe.se rules-. 10 <lo. call the local .. ,

a - of ollicials ill cMJC of tbc pn> "Some- tbiJip come ap--1" IIDd -·u come clo- an

~ ,_ - wilb lbe pabli< ill lbe audit<>- when Icon zet to the doclt."..,. Wei. you and figure it out tocet

num. · Passer said a bndinc was whenlbe fiSh ""Sornelhing·s are &<>in

N 0 • .ldf~<y Posscr. Nllioaal Marine FIS!>- ~ actually transfcfTed ftom lbe boM. iag. We -.1 your foed

eria Scmce enforcc:meot a,ent. s.ai4 lhc ftOt when the lsoa.1 tied 10 the dock. co back lO the c:ouacil an

IFQ Jlr'OIIMI was very ratrictivc. ~e k.now chinas can clwlgc. If' it ia to thinp dw ~n·t 'tW'Oi

r 

-rhcn:"siMICI\inciachcworlddYII've ~tarnaftc:Jofacoupl ofhows..oopr._ Paner said NMFS 

IOCft eo ~w ... he: \Old a &utprisin&ly km. U 11 is the neu day. we mi&fM, have Alaska "doubled from ab

small crowd of ftshennenlllcl proecsscn. to stan a new notifteolion time." be said. 40 10 deal with IFQs. Ne

,, spn~toch&Dgctbcwayyou fiSh." The fish must be dcli'WCfed to a n:p .. in Ketchikan. Pc:tcn

Most ol th< changes deal with r<quin:- tcred buyer with a nnsaction tcnn.inal. Cordovo and Seward. 

ID<nts IIICI parer "'"'k that civc 1\'MFS The t<nrunal is a c.ord machine that InnS· Lt. Bob Walson pvc 

onf.,.....on about thc fish f.rotn when: and mats tla< infomution to thc computer> in 01 the Cout Guard· s plan

when it is caup. to its lioal dcsliiiJiion. Juneau. IFQ. s nalc.. He said the

~ - jiiSl - &<lliJit tbcir fi. More Nics co vena tnnsactioas: lbc . iDCrcasc io cuu.u pau

aal ..- 1bare iafcnwioca iD lbe awl. lluya must be reJisla<d """ fale a lm6- Oights. 

1bo bolibat ._ will bepa Man:h U . iac rq>Oit within six boun. l.oDtlila,p- When the Coast Go

. Before tbc scasoa lqias lbcy will be bepa bmaoceo tbc: boun o( 6 LIIL """ 6 boarding they will be Jo

• illucd • ani. Dmeb like a aodil art1. p.m. Tben: ... ra1c:s to .,.,_ dockside check linl bul lhtD lbcy 

'JboCIId will tnclt lhe r.sbt:lma"sqgot&. sales aad shippilagoutof Alaslca. IFQ rdaled permits -ca

~aA'IW...S lhe ~will bavc : .. ,.._. ..... assipecl.lhe last o!' ICI!iD&:.i :· -we will be askilln.a

,.~f.0.0.-~tt~~7·~ .--'·, ... ·- . ~ .. -i~~7~:]:~~~f.1~ i.~~; 
224 

February 17, 1995 

The Honorable Ted Stevens 

Chairman 

Senate Oceans and Fisheries 

Subcommittee 

Rm 428, Senate Hart Bldg. 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Hono rable Frank Murkowski 

Chairman 

Senate Energy Committee 

Rm 706, Senate Hart Bldg. 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Gentlemen: 

The Honorable Don Young 

Chairman 

House Resources Committee 

1334 House Longworth Bldg. 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

These co~ents are being submitted on behalf of the Alaska 

Groundf ish Data Bank ( "AGDB") and the Aleutians East Borough 

("AEB") on S. 39 and H.R. 39, legislation to reauthorize the 

Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act through Fiscal 

Year 1999. AGDB represents the Kodiak shorebased fleet fishing 

fishing with trawl gear for groundfish, and the majority of the 

Kodiak groundfish processing companies. AEB is comprised of six 

Alaskan coastal communities located on the western region of the 

Alask a Peninsula and t h e Aleutian Islands. AEB' s residents are 

primarily of Aleut descent and are active participants in the 

inshore groundfish fisheries. The AEB fishermen harvest 

groundfish using trawl, pot, longline, and jigging gear. AGDB and 

AEB together represent the major segment of the resident Alaskan 

gr.oundfish fishermen operating in the Central and Western Gulf of 

Alaska. 

1 
225 

Our comments are being offered to assist you in the ongoing 

effort to arrive at a Magnuson Act reauthorization which best 

promotes the wise use of the Federal fisheries resources off Alaska 

but i n a manner which ensures that it is economically feasible for 

local fishermen to participate in the fisheries. w~ile strongly 

supportive of the policy goals set forth in both bills, a number of our cor.u:tents are directed at provisions of the bills which may 

adversely impact Alaskans. We believe that these provisions may be 

easily modified without doing damage to the objectives you hope to 

achieve. The comments set forth below are explanatory in nature. 

~e will submit proposed bill language as necessary. 

Additionally, both AGDB and AEB are requesting an opportunity 

to present testimony at the Senate and/or House field hearings . 

While the groups share common views on many issues, AGDB generally 

represents the mid-si z ed shorebased trawlers in the Gulf and AEB 

represents the Alaskan small boat fleet from the westward region. 

Each group brings a unique perspective to the challenges facing 

Alaskan fishermen in the Federal groundfish fisheries. We are 

requesting that the following written co~~ents be included in the 

hearing record, and that AGDB and AEB be given an a time slot to 

provide oral testimony on select topics. 

Reduction of Waste 

5. 39 and H.R. 39 both seek to promote the wise use of the 

fisheries through better utilization and a reduction in the waste 

of the fisheries resources. AGDB and AEB strongly support these 

goals. 

The two bills share common definitions of "bycatch", 

"regulatory discards", and "economic discards" . These definitions 

are vastly improved fron last year and have served to clear up 

c o nfusion within the industry on the intent of many of the 

;::rc,:csa:s. Moreover, the legislative language for the North 

?acific Fisheries Co nservation section err.phasizes that any harvest 

preference to reduce bycatch should be accomplished "within each 

gear group". We believe that this language will prevent the 

bycatch proposals from being used as the basis for an allocation 

among competing Alaskan gear groups for Pacific cod and other 

species. AGDB and AEB support these changes to the bill. 

We do, however, have strong feelings with respect to the 

methods in which the two bills seek to accomplish the policy 

objectives, as follows: 

Harvest Priority 

Both bills place too much emphasis on the use Of the "harvest 

preference" or "incentives" in reducing bycatch in the North 

Pacific fisheries. s. 39 goes so far as to mandate either a 

"harvest preference" or "incentive" regime by 1998 . Many Alaskan 

2 
226 

fisherme:1 do not support "har·;est preference" as the preferred 

fishery management tool for reducing bycatch. The various harvest 

priority proposals invite allocation tensions among Alaskan 

fishermen. Harvest priority ;;ill be difficult to structure and 

impossib:e to e~f~rce on a fai~ ar.d eq~ table basis. 

The Council should no~etheless be allo;;ed to continue to work 

;;ith the harvest priority as an option. There should be a clearcut 

distinc,ior. bet;;eer. the policy goals established by the Congress 

and the measures to be adopted by the Councils. The Councils 

should be given as much discret ion as possible to experiment with 

a variety of :r.ar.agement measures in seeking to accomplish the 

congress:onal policy goals in a highly complex fishery. Moreover, 

these pol icy goals should be established on a nationwide basis. 

The North Pacific should not be singled out as a region with higher 

s~ar.dar s than the other regions. 

. The current Senate and House bills may be modified accordingly 

to clearly identify mandatory policy objectives and discretionary 

managernent measures. AEB and AGi:lB support the proposed House 

language, with minor modifications, to Section 303(a) of the Act 

setting for the bycatch policy objectives (H.R. 39, page 19, line 

15). · We support the proposed Senate amendment to Section 303(b) of 

the MFCMA authorizing the Councils to include, as an expressly 

authorized discretionary measure, a harvest preference or other 

incentive program for fishing vessels within each gear group (S . 

39, page 34, lines 15 through 21). This language will make it 

sufficiently clear that the Councils have the authority to 

recomnend a harvest preference regime if they so des ire. Our 

proposed bill language is as follows: 

&~endment to Secti on 303(a)--

''(xx) i~clude conse~va~ion and management measures 

r.ecessary tc oini::tize, to the extent pract: .:able, the 

harvest of bycatch within each gear group." 

k~endment to Section 303(b)--

"(xx) include, consistent with the other prov1s1ons of 

this Act, conservation and management measures that 

provide a harvest preference or other incentives for 

fishing vessels within each gear group that employ 

fish i ng practices resulting in lower levels of bycatch". 

We propose, however, t!'lat you reconsider. the harvest 

preference bill language in the "North Pacific Fisheries 

Conservation" section of each bill. This language duplicates the 

authority which would be added by an amendment to Section 303(b). 

Additionally, the language seeks to set up a priority schedule for 

reducing specific types of bycatch. While we appreciate and 

support the need to reduce fish ing practices which discard fish for 
22'1 

economic reasons, establishing this priority schedule for any 

harvest preference regime will slow down the council's ongoing 

effort to reduce bycatch. 

Managing bycatch in the mixed-stock groundfish fishery is a highly complex task. "Economic discards", "regulatory discards", 

and "other bycatch" incur in most fisheries at some levels 

concurrently. Your proposal to set out a priority regime for 

"harvest preference" may in fact become the largest conceptual 

obstacle to a "harvest preference" allocation regime by adding 

another layer of complexity. 

We therefore recommend that the specific "harvest preference" 

language in the North Pacific sections of s. 39 and H.R. 39 be 

dropped from the final bill. You may wish to consider using the 

"North Pacific Fisheries Conservation" section as a tool in 

promoting the ~of North Pacific Council actions to accomplish 

congressional policy objectives. 

[Ull Retention and FUll Utilization 

Our fishermen and processors support the goal of achieving 

better utilization of the fisheries resources. We are currently 

participating at the regional fishery management council level to 

promote a utilization proposal for the Bering Sea. A rigid full 

retention requirement may, however, have unintended and potentially 

disastrous results. Examples of potential problems include: 

1. Retention of undersized fish. For many fish 

species, it will be difficult to establish 

mortality rates for discards. A rigid full 

retention requirement would invariably require 

fishermen to retain undersized fish and reduce them 

to fish meal. There .are no public policy or wise 

use reasons for requiring the retention and 

delivery of undersized fish. 

2. overburdening the fish meal plant capacity. The 

Kodiak processors are currently expend~ng millions 

of dollars in upgrading the fish meal capacity. 

This is being done to avoid potential sanctions by 

EPA, which has informed the industry that ocean 

dumping of the waste overflow during high 

production periods will not be allowed to continue 

indefinitely. If these processors are required to 

handle large amounts of arrowtooth flounder and 

undersized target species fish which are harvested 

from time-to-time, their D.!!! meal plant capacity 

may not be sufficient. 

4. Reduction in fish stock productivity. Scientists are beginning to investigate the i:-.pacts (both 

4 
228 

positive and negative) of discards. There is some 

preliminary information that fish discards are an 

important food resource for many fish populations, 

including such traditional species as crab and 

halibut. Requiring the retention of fish for the 

meal plant may reduce fish productivity in the 

long-term. 

We are not suggesting that the efforts to increase utilization 

be discontinued. This is an issue that should continue to be 

aggressively pursued by the North Pacific Council. A regulatory 

mandate with a rigid timeline may not be the best approach. AGDB 

and AEB therefore support Chairman Young's decision to leave the 

regulatory mandate out of H.R. 39. We instead suggest that a 

paragraph be added to the "Purposes and Policies" section of the 

Act reaffirming that need to move toward maximum utilization. This 

could be accompanied with explanatory report language directed at 

the councils and the Secretary of Commerce to make progress on the 

utilization issue. 

Mortality 

S. 39 would amend Section 303(a) of the Act by requiring that 

FMPs "to the extent practicable, minimize mortality caused by 

economic and regulatory discards in the fishery" (pg 33, line 12). 

We strongly support this amendment. It is important that more 

attention be placed on "discard mortality" of Prohibited Species 

and non-economic fish species. In the future, many of the more 

creative proposals for reducing bycatch and waste in the fisheries 

will focus on fishing practices which improve the survivability of 

Prohibited Species returned to the ocean. We strongly recommend 

that the House bill adopt the Senate's language on this issue. 

Total catch Measurement 

This is another area which should be addressed in the 

"Purposes and Policies" section and t:-romoted through report 

language. The North Pacific Council is currently investigating a 

total weight measurement proposal applicable to at-sea and onshore 

processors. Installation of scales may have serious safety 

problems for smaller groundfish boats. The decks are already short 

of deck space, and the loss of deck space associated with large 

scales may increase the chance of being washed overboard in rough 

,,;eather. The North Pacific Council should be afforded with 

flexibility to look at both the positive and negative attributes of 

total weight measurement without a rigid Federal mandate. We 

instead recommend that you amend Section 303 (a) of the Act to 

promote progress in the accuracy of harvest measurements, and use 

the "North Pacific" section to establish reasonable timeframes for 

action. 

5 
229 

Monitoring of Undersized Fish 

As described above, the promotion of better utilization 

through a retention mandate ~ill likely resu~t in an increase in 

the retention of undersized fish destined for the ~eal plant. The 

harvest of undersized fish is tracked through discard data by NMFS 

and the observer program. To the extent that this discard data 

disappears as a result of retention, NMFS needs to develop an 

alternative method of tracking the harvest of undersized fish. One 

such method may be to require processors (both at-sea and 

shorebased) to report the weekly tonnage of species of ~hole fish 

used for meal. This type of information would be very useful in 

determining the extent of the undersized fish harvest fer certain 

target species (i.e. pollock). 

You may wish to include bill language or explanatory report 

language to encourage improvements in the monitoring of undersized 

fish harvests. 

Retained catch Measurement for Prohibited Species Discards 

One of the strongest tools of the councils in encouraging the 

reduction of bycatch is the public identification of fishing 

vessels which have poor bycatch histories. While enforcement 

regimes such as the Vessel Incentive Program are generally 

recognized as failures when the penalties are based on bycatch 

rates, the secondary benefit of public identification of boats with 

poor fishing records has been more powerful. The North Pacific 

Council may exert tremendous pressure on these vessel operators by 

threatening more traditional management measures (i.e. smaller 

quotas; time and area restrictions; etc.) for specific fisheries 

~ith unjustifiable bycatch rates: 

A potential method of avoiding the "spotlight" is to produce 

a low bycatch rate en Proh:bited Species. These rates may 

unfort,.;r.ately be subject to :::anipulation . Prohibited Species 

bycatch rates are currently measured against the total catch of the 

vessel. A vessel may lower its bycatch rates by increasing the 

amount of fish it harvests during a trip, even though the 

additional fish are discarded and not retained. If a vessel in the 

Gulf fishing flatfish has a higher than desirable halibut bycatch 

rate, as an example, the vessel may lower the rate by catching and 

discarding pollock, a species with little halibut bycatch. This 

would increase the vessel 's total catch for the week and decrease 

the halibut bycatch rate. The pollock discards would, however, be 

counted against the quota and reduce the fish <vailable to vessels 

which are seek ing to maximize their harvest through good fishing 

behavior. 

One solution would be to develop and standardize the reporting 

of bycatch by requiring that bycatch rates be computed as a 

percentage of retained catch rather than a percent of total catch. 

6 
230 

This may also be an area where bill language or report language is 

appropriate. 

Conflict of Interest 

Both s. 39 and H.R. 39 are substantial improvements over the 

proposals for handling conflicts of interest which circulated 

earlier in the process. It is imperative to the effective working 

of the Councils that a conflicts recusal process not be used in an anticompetitive fashion to hamstring the administrative process. 

Focusing on conflicts which benefit the few to the detriment of the 

many in a specific industry group will preserve the fisherman's 

role in the Council process while curtailing abuse of the process. 

suggestions have been made that the Off ice of Inspector 

General be given the lead role in making recusal determinations. 

We strongly oppose any role for the IG. The Inspector General has 

been seeking to eliminate the Council process in its entirety. We 

are concerned that the IG would distort recusal determinations in 

an effort to undermine the current administrative structure . 

User Fees 

The user fee issue has been the subject of much controversy. 

AGDB members and AEB residents are keenly aware of the public 

policy debate over a user fee aimed at IFQ holders. It would be 

counterproductive at this point to rehash this policy issue. We 

will instead focus our comments on the structure of a user fee in 

the event the House and Senate agree to levy it against IFQ 

holders. 

The current shorebased groundf ish vessel is paying taxes 

ranging from 7 percent to 9 percent on an ex-vessel basis. Such 

taxes include raw fish assessments levied by the State of Alaska, 

the boroughs, and indivicual communities and the 2 percent Research 

Plan assessment. These taxes are substantial components of the 

fisherman's operating costs. The Senate bill is proposing an 

additional 4 percent tax on production under an IFQ program and a 1 percent tax on transfers. The IFQ production tax, if enacted, 

will make it extremely hard for Alaskan operators of small and 

medium-sized vessels to survive in an IFQ fishery. 

Most Alaskan fishermen were allocated small or modest amounts 

of halibut under the new IFQ program. For many fishermen, it is a 

very close call as to whether the harvest of their small IQ shares 

will pay for the cost of the trip and the crew. An additional 4 

percent tax levied against these small holders, combined with the 

7-9 percent already paid to the Research Plan and local 

governments, will be a strong disincentive against long-term 

participation in the fishery. The end result will be that many 

Alaskan fishermen will be forced to sell out of the IFQ Program. 

7 
231 

To the extent that user fees must be included in the bill (and 

many of our fishermen oppose these fees), the Congress should 

instead consider a smaller tax on producers and a larger tax on 

transfers. We recommend that you consider a 1 percent ex-vessel 

tax on producers and a 4 percent tax on the transfer value of the 

IFQ as an alternative to the Senate numbers. 

IFQs 

We are informed that there is substantial controversy over the 

provisions contained in S. 39 to require the Secretary to develop 

criteria for any future IFQ regime. Notwithstanding any of the 

other policy comments associated with or against the use of IFQs in 

the Federal fisheries, AGDB and AEB do feel strongly that any 

existing IFQ program be made to conform to public policy criteria 

which would be developed by the Secretary. 

It is patently unfair to impose conditions on future IFQ 

holders while exempting existing programs. Many of the public 

policy ·concerns that have been raised and are the subject of debate 

stem from the criticisms of the existing programs. Any general or 

specific criteria should apply to all IFQ programs. The North 

Pacific Council and the secretary made it clear that an IFQ 

allocation does not confer a private property right on IFQ holders. 

The current IFQ owners have been given effective notice that the 

IFQ programs may be modified or terminated if the Council and the 

Secretary determine the system is a whole or partial failure . We 

therefore strongly support the language in the Senate bill that 

requires existing IFQ programs to be made to conform any policy 

guidelines and criteria developed by the Secretary. 

Mandatory Observer Coverage 

s. 39 includes mandatory 100 percent observer coverage on all 

v essels in the North Pacific. Since the entire offshore groundfish 

fleet already carries observers, this proposal effectively is 

directed only at the small and medium-sized trawl, pot, and 

longline vessels from Alaska, Washington, and Oregon. 

AGDB and AEB remain opposed to mandatory 100 percent observer 

coverage. The North Pacific Research Plan is barely able to meet 

the observer coverage requirements designed for the existing 

program. A Federal mandate of this magnitude for the small and 

medium-sized boats will create a funding crisis within the Research 

Plan and trigger new requests to increase the Research Plan tax 

above the 2 percent ex-vessel threshold. 

This is the first year that all vessels were charged the 2 

percent Research Plan tax. There is widespread dissatisfaction 

among many of the small operators over this tax. We are not 

suggesting that the Research Plan tax be rolled back, however, the 

Congress may want to reconsider any action which would increase 

8 
232 

observer costs for the fleet as a whole until the impact of the tax 

on the commercial viability of Alaskan fishermen is fully 

understood and the industry has had a chance to adjust to it. 

Emergency Regulations 

AGDB and AEB strongly support strengtheni ng the authority of 

the Councils and the Secretary to use emergency regulations to 

provide short-te~ solutions to conservation and management 

problems. It now takes eighteen months to two years to amend 

exi sting fishery management plans. Much of the adverse impacts 

associated with these longer time lines may be minimized through 

the adoption of interim measures by emergency action. 

s. 39 contains language authorizing the establishment of 

framework guidelines within FMPs for NMFS regional directors to 

close or restrict a fishery to prevent overfishing or reduce 

bycatch (page 63, beginning line 13). The ability to respond to 

bycatch "hot spots" would be a valuable tool in bycatch management 

of complex mixed-stock groundfish fisheries. If NMFS is able to 

close fisheries through time or area measures in response to higher 

than normal bycatch rates, the fleet as a whole will be able to 

fish longer and harvest more of the quota than is currently the 

case. The emergency "hot spot" bycatch authority would serve to 

promote achievement of the optimum yield in the mixed stock 

fisheries. 

Gear Evaluation and Notification of Entry 

S. 3 9 contains a process for Council consideration of new 

f i shing gear and fish i ng technology before fishermen mak e major 

est~ents and i ntroduce them into existing, fully capitalized 

f i sheri es. We are both mel:\bers of the Marine and Fisheries 

Advisory co~~ittee. During our tenure on MAFAC, we have heard the 

discussions surroundi ng the introduction of new technology into the 

East Coast fisheries . NMFS was forced to curtail or severely limit 

many of these new gear groups, such as the drift gillnet and pairtrawl vessels, that had begun targeting billfish species. We wish 

to avoid these situations in the North Pacific, and believe that 

the time has come for prior consi deration of new technology or gear 

before introduction. 

The Senate language would provide the Councils with the 

opportunity to revi ew and act upon any new technology or gear. You 

may want to include clarifying language to allow for modifications 

of existing gear when such modifications are intended to reduce 

bycatch in the fisheries. We strongly urge that the House adopt 

the Senate bill language on this issue. 

9 
233 

overfishing and Rebuilding 

We strongly support your efforts on the Overf ishing and 

Rebuilding issues. As you know, the North Pacific has been 

operating under objective definitions of Overfishing for years, and 

has recently begun to implement a rebuilding program for various 

species of rockfish in the Gulf of Alaska. The regulatory impact 

of this system is harsh on fishermen because it closes fisheries 

down before many quotas are reached. It is nonetheless imperative 

that effective regimes to prevent overfishing and rebuild depleted 

stocks be implemented for all the Nation's fisheries. 

We consider the differences in the two bills to be minor, and 

take no position as to drafting style. 

Fishery Habitat 

AGDB and AEB strongly support the initiative of the NMFS 

Chief, Rollie Schmit ten, in seeking to highlight the need to 

increase protection of essential fishery habitat. We support Mr. 

Schmitten's initiative, as well as the language set forth inS. 39 

and H.R . 39. The differences in the two bills are relatively 

minor. 

National Data Program 

NMFS has engaged in a long-term effort to standardize the 

fishery information databases. It is our understanding that NMFS, 

in a recent meeting, has clarified its intent that the agency is 

not seeking to centralize management and administration of 

da~atases in Washing~on, D.C. NMFS is instead seeking to integrate 

curren~ data programs with the data gatheri ng and database systems 

of the states and the interstate fisherie5 commissions. 

We strongly support the agency's efforts to integrate the NMFS 

databases with those of the states and commissions. S. 39 provides 

a procedural framework for this long-term cooperative effort. We 

believe that the House Resources Committee should consider 

including the Senate language in its bill . 

The AGDB members and AEB residents and fishermen appreciate 

the opportunity to provide detailed comments to you on s. 39 and 

H.R . 39. Your efforts to promote the interests of Alaskan 

fishermen and coastal communities are, as always, greatly 

appre ci ated. We look forward to participating in the field 

10 
hearings and being constructive advocates in the legislative 

process later this year. 

Chris Blackburn 

Executive Director 

Alaska Groundfish Data Bank 

Sincerely, 

11 

~£0JJ~ Beth Stewart 

Director of Natural Resources 

Aleutians East Borough 
Honorable Don Young, Cha i rman 

House Committee on Resources 

u . s. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 

February 23, 1995 

RE: Proposed Magnuson Act Amendments 

Dear Chairman Young: 

Attached please find four letters from organizations 

representing fixed-gear groundfish and crab fishermen who 

work off Alaska. Topics include: 

Reduction of waste 

Total Catch Measurement 

Harvest Preference 

Standard of Review 

Advisory Panel Appointment Process 

We hope you will give these proposals careful review, 

and that the Committee will adopt them in the current 

Magnuson Act reauthorization process. 
Honorable Don Young, Chairman 

House Committee on Resources 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 

236 

February 15, 1995 

RE: Maqnuson Act Amendment - Reduction of Waste 

Dear Chairman Young: 

The undersigned represent fixed-gear fishermen who fish for 

groundfish and crab in the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea. We are 

writing in regard to certain of the "Contents of Fishery 

Management Plans" and "Reduction of Waste" provisions contained 

in H.R. 39. In our view they need to be modified or clarified as 

they apply to fixed-gear fisheries. 

The conservation advantages of fixed-gear fisheries are well 

known - particularly where bycatch and associated mortality are 

concerned. (Please see TRANSFERABLE QUOTAS UNDER THE MAGNUSON 

ACT, Serial No. 103-82, February 9, 1994, pp. 131-244). 

Longliners and pot fishermen are generally able to target 

effectively on desired species and to minimize the bycatch of 

nontarget species, prohibited species, or juveniles of the target 

species. They are also able to maximize survival of bycatch. 

The main cause of mortality in bycatch is "deck time" - the time 

the fish spends out of the water. Unwanted and prohibited 

species are released from longline vessels by "shaking" with the 

curve of a gaff, by cutting the gangion, or by straightening the 

hooks before the fish come aboard (please see NPLA Hook 

Straightening video). They are out of the water for only a few 

seconds, and their survival rate is good. Pot fishermen are 

likewise able to return their bycatch to the sea very quickly, 

and in very good condition. 

These practices have come to be known as conservationoriented fishing. The objective is first to avoid bycatch, and 

then to return any bycatch species to the sea in a healthy 

conditi'on to maximize survival. 

Total Catch Measurement 

The bill would require that "the amount (in numbers or 

weight and species of bycatch taken on board a fishing vessel" be 

included in data submitted to the Secretary with respect to a 

fishery (page 18, lines 18-19), and would require the North 

Pacific Fishery Management Council to recommend measures to 

"ensure total catch measurement in each fishery ... and ..• ensure 

the accurate enumeration of target species, economic discards, 

and regulatory discards" (page 31, lines 4, 6-8). If this 

language can be construed to mean that fixed-gear vessels would 

have to bring bycatch aboard and weigh it, we have a big problem. 
237 

It would be unthinkable for fixed-gear fishermen to bring bycatch 

aboard their vessels, kill it, weigh it, and throw it back dead. 

That would defeat the purpose of conservation-oriented fishing, 

and would substantially increase total bycatch mortality. 

Weighing operations are simply impossible, given the limited 

space on the vessels involved and the nature of the fishery 

(longliners catch their fish one-at-a-time). 

The obvious solution is to have the observers estimate the 

amount and species of discards - just as they now estimate 

halibut mortality, by sampling and extrapolation. The amendment 

or its legislative history should clearly make such alternatives 

available on fixed-gear vessels. Weighing of bycatch is 

impossible and nonsensical. 

Harvest Preference 

Every attempt should be made to encourage fishing techniques 

which minimize bycatch and associated mortality. The time has 

come to recognize - legislatively - that different gear types ~ 

have different bycatch and bycatch mortality characteristics. 

The Councils must be free to dictate the use of clean gear in 

particular fisheries - or we will never attain our waste 

reduction goals. On pages 19 and 31 of the bill, harvest 

priorities are authorized "within a fishing gear group" and 

"within each gear group." The quoted language should be 

stricken. 

We cannot hope to significantly reduce waste unless the 

Councils are free to prescribe the use of clean gear. 

We thank you for your attention to this matter, and hope for a favorable reponse. 

Sincerely, 

KOiL~nev~ owner&' 

~ Association ~ 

~ Association 

FiS~~ ~-,--.:J ~ r..6 

Deep Sea Fishermen's Union 

~~ Alaska L·~r~·~ crab coat on 

cc : Washington Congressional Delegation ~l~~k~ Cnnare~~lnnAl OeleaAtlon 
North 

Pacific 

Longline 

Association 

238 

Honorable Don Young, Chariman 

Committee on Resources 

January 23, 1995 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, D. C. 

RE: Magnuson Act Reauthorization - standard of Review 

Dear Chariman Young: 

The North Pacific Longline Association represents 

freezer-longliners which fish for groundfish off Alaska, 

processing and freezing their catch at sea. Several 

freezer-longliners are owned by Alaskans. 

During last year's Magnuson Act reauthorization 

activities, a very broad group of fishing industry 

participants submitted a package of proposed amendments to 

the Magnuson Act, aimed at improving the council process. 

Chief among these proposals was one which would establish a 

more searching standard of judicial and administrative 

review (please see attachment) . 

We would be greatly pleased if you and your committee 

would adopt this new standard during this year's 

reauthorization process. It will ben~f it harvesters and 

processors throughout the nation. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter. 

~~ Thorn smith 

Executive Director 

4209 21st Avenue West. Su~e 300. Seattle. Washington 98199 .,-.-, "'"''"'tO"' A.t.,n . f"'AV . ")n,t. ")0'") A.t.OA 
follows: 

239 

Proposed Amendment To The 

Magnuson Fishery Conservation And 

Management Act 

Section 303 (16 U.S . C. 1853) is amended as 

(1) By striking the word "and" at the end of 

subsection (a) (1) (B); and 

(2) By adding a new subsection (a) (1) (C), "based on a 

clear preponderance of the evidence in the record; and", and 

(3) By redesignating current subparagraph (a) (1) (C) as 

subparagraph (a) (1) (D). 

SEC. 303. CONTENTS OF FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLANS 16 USC 1853 

95-354, 99-659, 101-627 

(a) REQUIRED PROVISIONS.--Any fishery management plan 

which is prepared by any Council, or by the Secretary, with 

respect to any fishery, shall--

(1) contain the conservation and management measures, 

applicable to foreign fishing and fishing by vessels of the 

United States, which are--

(A) necessary and appropriate for the conservation 

and management of the fishery to prevent overfishing, and to 

protect, restore, and promote the long-term health and 

stability of the fishery; 

(B) described in this subsection or subsection (b), 

or both; 

(C) based on a clear preponderance of the evidence 1n 

the record; and 

1QL consistent with the national standards, the other 

provisions of this Act, regulations implementing 

recommendations by international organizations in which the 

United States participates (including but not limited to 

closed areas, quotas, and size limits), and any other 

applicable law; 
240 

Proposed Amendment to the 

Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

Purpose of the Amendment 

Section 303 of the Magnuson Act sets out certain 

requirements to which regional fishery management councils must 

adhere when developing fishery management plans. Management 

plans are the basis for fishery regulations promulgated by the 

Commerce Department. 

The proposed amendment would require that provisions of a 

fishery management plan be "based upon a clear preponderance of 

evidence in the record . " The thrust of this change is to depoliticize council actions, requiring actions to be based on 

scientific, including biological, data. The council process 

includes public hearings, support from scientific and statistical 

committees, and industry advisory panels. However, nothing in 

the Act requires counc i ls to base their actions on a 

preponderance of the evidence submitted. The purpose of this 

proposed change is to do just that. 

Need for the Amendment 

Many councils are now facing highly controversial 

conservation and allocation issues. Some of the measures being 

considered have the potential to change drastically and forever 

the way in which we manage our living marine resources. It is 

time to establish a more searching standard for analysis and 

review - every management action would benefit from this 

increased scrutiny. 

Conflict-of-interest on the councils has been at issue. At 

the time the Magnuson Act was promulgated, it was assumed that we would need the speciali zed knowledge of fishing industry 

participants in management. We can retain this aspect of our 

system, while making it difficult if not impossible to pursue a 

conflicted agenda - by requiring substantial evidence on the 

record to support council actions. 

In the original Act the councils' decisions were merely 

advisory - the Secretary of Commerce held decisionmaking power. 

The Act has since been amended to give most of the decisionmaking 

power to the councils. A more searching standard of analysis and 

review of council actions is required. 
KODIAK LONGLINE 

VESSEL OWNERS' ASSOCIATION . . .... r 

241 

326 CENTER AVENUE, P.O. BOX 13 ~ 

KODIAK, AlASKA 99615 

(907) 486-3781 FAX (907 ) 486·247( 

HALIBUT • SABLEFISH • PACIFIC COD • CRAB 

Honorable Don Young 

U.S. House of Representatives 

233 I Rayburn House 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

RE: Masnuson A<:t Amendments 

Congressman Young: 

February 17, 1995 

We would like to have you review and consider the foDowing proposed amendment to the Magnuson 

Act. 

To amend Section 302 under Procedural Matters by adding a new subsection G) (4), "Each Council 

shall appoint members of committees and advisory panels during an open meeting at which public 

testimony on the appointments shall be heard." 

We understand that this has become an issue with segments of the industry who are not currently 

being represented fairly on the Advisory Panel to the North Pacific Council from the state of 

Washington. 

By having the appointment of committees conducted in a closed process, it does not provide the 

public an opportunity to fully participate in the process. This is a problem, especially when we see 

lopsided appointments being made on an industry advisory panel. 

We believe that putting this process in a more public forum wiD help to alleviate some of the concerns 

that industry has expressed to us. 

We appreciate the coosidcration you wiD give our proposal. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you 

need infonnation or clarification. 

Director 
242 

February 13, 1995 

Mr. Rolland Schmitten 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

1335 East-West Highway 

Silver Spring, MD 

RE: Appointments to council Advisory Panels; Magnuson Act 

Dear Rollie: 

Recently John Bruce, Chairman of the Advisory Panel (AP) 

to the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, wrote to you 

declaring that in a recent closed-door executive session the 

Council had allowed Washington state members to eliminate crab 

and freezer-longliner AP representatives and to replace them 

with trawlers. There was no forewarning of this action, no 

chance for the affected industry sectors to comment. Of the 

six Washington State AP representatives, four are now 

trawlers. Washington's freezer-longliners and crab fishermen 

- whose ex-vessel product is worth more than $400,000,000 

annually - are disenfranchised. In John's words, this action 

"eliminated the credibility of the Advisoy Panel and has made 

a mockery of the requirement of fair and balanced industry 

repr.esentation." He demanded action to redress this 

injustice. 

We have reviewed the NO~~ PRIORITIES FOR REAUTHORIZATION 

of the Magnuson Act, published last Friday. We would like to 

ask you to recommend adoption of the attached amendment which 

would require that advisory panel appointments be made at open 

sessions of council meetings, with public testimony. In our 

view this process will prevent "packing" of the panels by 

particular interest groups. 

It is not clear to us that the Magnuson Act currently 

authorizes the selection of advisory panel members at closed 

meetings. Please see attached inquiry to the NOAA Office of 

General Counsel, dated January 18, 1995 (we have not had the 

favor of a reply). 
243 

We believe that adoption of our proposed amendment will 

throw light on the advisory panel selec tion process, leading 

to fair and balanced representation. We hope you agree, and 

that you will share your thoughts with us. 

Fls Vessel 

Association 

North ~~ Pacific Longl1ne 

Association 

Sincerely, 

Deep Sea F1shermen's Un1on 

Alaska 

L·r.L~~d~~ Crab Coal1t1on 

cc : Washington Congressional Delegation 

Alaska Congressional Delegation 
244 

Proposed Amendment To The 

Magnuson Fishery Conservation And 

Management Act 

Section 302(j), PROCEDURAL MATTERS (16 U.S.C . 

1853), is amended as follows: 

(1) By adding a new subsection (j) (4), "Each council 

shall appoint members of committees and advisory panels 

during an open meeting at which public testimony on the 

appointments shall be heard," and 

(2) By redesignating current subsection (j) (4) as 

(j) (5), current subsection (j) (5) as (j) (6), and current 

subsection (j) (6) as (j) (7). 
245 

January 11, 1995 

Mr. Richard B. Lauber, Chairman 

North Pacific Fishery Management Council 

604 West 4th Avenue 

Anchorage, Alaska 99510 

RE: ADVISORY PANEL COMPOSITION 

Dear Rick: 

Yesterday Washington State fixed gear representatives 

and Council members met to discuss the makeup of the 

Washington delegation to the Advisory ·Panel. Present were 

Bob Alverson, John Bruce, Kris Fanning, Thorn Smith, Arni 

Thomson, Morris Barker, Dave Fluharty, Al Millikan and 

Wally Pereyra. 

For the second time fixed gear representatives 

expressed their deep concern regarding the removal of two 

fixed gear representatives from the panel, a freezer-longliner and a crab fisherman, and their replacement by two 

trawl gear representatives. The Washington Advisory Panel 

delegation of six nov includes includes four trawl gear 

representatives. Fixed gear representatives emphasized 

the very real need of the different competing gear groups 

for representation on the Washington delegation in 1995, 

when many serious management issues will be decided. 

The Council members agreed to ask for an executive session 

of the Council to address this issue. 

The GUIDELINES FOR COUNCIL OPERATIONS/ADMINISTRATION, 

at 50 CFR 605.23(d)(3), require that "balanced 

representation" should be maintained on the A.P. The 

Council's SOPP states that "The Council will attempt to 

appoint as broad a spectrum of interests as possible, 

including the various fisheries around Alaska ... emphasizing 

fair representation of all fishing interests.• It also 

specifies that the A.P . members "serve at the pleasure of 

the Council." (emphasis added) 

Elimination of significant competing interests will 

seriously inhibit the ability of the A.P. to reach useful 

industry consensus. 

It is our sincere hope the Council will take action now to rectify the imbalance on the Washington delegation to the A.P . 

./'?Th·a?/ for your attention ~ys mattey , -../ 

~~·-----~ Arni Thomson, ACC Tho 7= , NPLA 

J-.. ..... ~14' John Bruce, DSFU 
5215 Balard Averoe N.W 

Seaftle. washinglon. 98107 

Phone: (206) 783-2922 

~ Fax: 783-5811 

~ .~~1' 

Rolly Schmitten 

246 

January 20, 1995 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries 

1335 East/West Hiway 

Silver Springs, MD 20901 

Dear Rolly: 

Recently, through oversight or perhaps design, actions were 

taken to remove some key players from the North Pacific 

Fishery Management Council's Advisory Panel . Guidelines for 

Council operations require a balanced representation from all 

of the fishing industry. This year Washington State has upset 

the balance on the AP by appointing four trawl gear 

representatives to the delegation of six from Washington 

State. This is not an issue of personalities but one of 

fairness to competing gear groups . The interest of all users 

can not be fully represented b~cause of the AP makeup of two 

AP appointments for each Council member but a better mix of 

repre!=:e-ntatives is essential. The situation we now have on 

the AP is horribly unbalanced and the credibility of the 

pr0cess is at stake. 

Many industry representatives have approached me about tl1is 

concern and have expressed dismay and outrage about "trawl 

stuffing" on the Advisory Panel. These concerns come not just 

from Washington State fishers but Alaskan Industry groups as 

well who are very concerned about the imbalance of fishing 

industry representation on this panel. 

I, along with the Industry participants, Arni Thomson, kris 

Fanning, Bob Alverson, Thorn Smith, voiced our concern to 

Waohington State Council members at the Washington State 

Distant Water committee Meeting the week prior to the Council 

gathering. Our appeal was that a correction to the removal of 

c1·au and freezer longliner representatives be made ASAP. When 

no apparent action "'as taken, we again met with Wally Pereyra, 
Rolly Sclunitten 

January 20, 1995 

Page - 2 

247 

Al Milliken, Dave Fluharty and Morris Barker at the council 

meeting in Anchorage and again aaked for aome remedy to thia 

injuatice. Here we are a week later with no eolution or public diacuasion. What has happened to the process? 

I believe the action of the Waehin~~on Council members baa 

eliminated the credibility of the Advisory Panel and has made 

a mockery of the requirement of fair and balanced induatry 

representation. Aa a member of the AP and Chairman, I deplore 

these actions and call for Council action to fix this 

injustice I 

Respectfully, 

John M. Bruce, 

Executive Director 
North 

Pacific 

Longline 

Association 

DATE: 

TO: 

FROM: 

SUBJECT: 

PAGES: 

248 

- FAX TRANSMISSION -

January 18, 1995 

NOAA GC - Maggie Hayes·, Jay Johnson cc: Lisa Lindeman 

NPLA- Thorn Smith ~~ 

Select ion of A.P. Members During Closed Council 

Meeting 

5 

You are bot h great Americans! Having said that, I 

would like to pose a question which vexes me sorely. 

During. its December meeting the NPFMC held a closed 

executive session at which it selected me~bers for the 

industry Advisor y Panel. To our great surprise, the 

freezer-longliner and crab fishermen who have sat on the 

panel for years were removed from the Washington delegation, 

and were replaced by two trawlers. We had no forewarning. 

The Washington delegation of six is now composed of four 

tralwers, a shor eside processor, and a longline crew representative. I am advised that in the past different 

gear groups were told if one of their representatives was to 

be replaced, so they could nominate replacements and 

maintain the balanced representation which is required by 

both federal regulation and the Council's SOPP (please see attachments). 

Fixed gear representatives complained loudly of their 

disenfranchisement, and asked the council to redress the 

wrong (please see attached letter of January 11) . The 

Council held another closed executive session, after which 

it announced that the composition of the A.P. would not 

change. 

My question relates to the selectin of Advisory Panel 

members during closed executive sessions. The Magnuson Act, 

at 16 USC 1852(J) (3) provides that 

(A) Each Council, scientific and statistical committee, 

and advisory panel--
249 

(i) shall close any meeting, or portion thereof, that concerns matters or information that bears on a national 

security classification; and 

(ii) may close any meeting, or portion thereof, that concerns matters or information that pertains to national 

security, employment matters, or briefings on litigation in 

which the Council is interested; and 

(B) If any meeting or portion is closed, the council 

concerned shall notify local newspapers in the major fishing 

ports within its region ••. This subparagraph does not require 

notificati on regarding any brief closure of a portion of a meeting in order to discuss employment or other internal 

administrative matters •..• 

Members of the Advisory Panel can hardly be considered 

empl'o:'_lees of the Council, any more than members of the 

Scientific and Statistical Committee, working groups or committees. The council SOPP reinforces this conclusion by 

stating that, "Members of the AP shall serve without 

compensation . .. " 

Likewise, appointment of A.P. members can hardly be 

considered a casual "internal administrative matter." 

Balanced and fair representation is a major ~ question, 

and the selection process should be subject to public 

scrutiny and comment. 

In the event, the representatives who were removed were told after the fact that poor attendance records were a prime motivation . They should have had prior notice of any 

such concern, and should have had an opportunity to present 

their side of the case. The disenfranchised fixed gear 

groups should have been told to nominate replacements. As 

it is, everything was done behind closed doors without 

warning of the possible outcome . 

I cannot say whether notice of the first closed meeting was published; certainly notice of the second was not . 

These occurrences do not appear to comply with either 

the letter or the spirit of the law. could you comment? 
. The Honorable Jim Saxton 

c!U.inl!ao 

250 

March 24, 1995 

SubrornmiJtee on fisheries; !,lii1d1ife & Oceans 

f{ouse Resource< Ci:ili;uiiitiee . 

. United States Hou<e:or.Ii.eprC..entatives 

805 O'Neil House Offi~ Builcli.ng .. 

· ... Washin!ijo~, D:C: 20515 · 

·Dear- Cl)airman Saxton: 

' . . On ~ehalf of Tana~ix Corp(,ratioil rwx~) I wOUJ~ like . te> c'>ff"f these 

. comments on H,R: J9,.the "fishery Conseivation.and Management Ain<iiidzri~ts Ac:t of·J995,' .· 

l!Jld request that th\s}et\er be ineltided in the Committee'• nearing reconl pii this legislation. 

. .· •1"DX is th\' Alaska Native village corporationfor .SL Pa~l. : Aia9b., i>~O:of the . . 

fribilof Islands, The Pribilofs are located -iri ikB"-ing Sea, approXimaiely 250 miles· frcnri 

mai11land Alaska and 2SO miles. from· Dutch Harbor in. the AleutilllJS. St Paul ha.S a permanent 

·wpulaiion of approximately 800, nearly all of whom .are Alaska Natives and TDX.shareholders 

. . IDX g.;,erally sUpports the pr~visions KR:,_J9 ~ irs provisionS would.bring 

Uilportant improverii<11is to ·tlte managemeni of fishery r6®r.tc:S in Alas4. · Tile wastefu.l 

.. byciucb practices of the indus~ry_ need . to be curbed and !he role )ana· a,uth()r,ities of ihe . 

•· :;;.~::.:.<:ci::J~;;;~~;:;~:JLe:.~u;ea: weiielicite iu( ~9 ~-n~ ln~snil '· 

At th.e saD1e time .there are other issues of particular concern t~ the Pribilof: 

Islands which should .also be addressed. The Bering Sea is unique in tbeworld i11 the breadth 

and size of its flsheiy :resouipos 'Likewise, the Pribilof Islands and their Alaska Native residents 

·are unique in both 'their tust<n>y' and position within tl!e world's great.est"flsbm.: ' The'·sad and 

.. painful histo~ of the Pribilovians has been bighlighied before ForCiblY brougltno the Islands · 

.. · ·.·• as•slaves io harvest' f:ur seals •:iur people exisiea in a cultural and ecoiu)O)kV..tuuni unique """" ..• 

. inA1a$J<p,. • Little changed ~iih tb~ United Stat~' purthase of Alaska as iheir I hies: contiiuied ~~ .. · . 

. revolve around a conimerdal sW harvest over which th¢y had no cOntrol or direct economic 

slak~. Through~ut this time, ali the way through the 1970s, w~ were practicaily and legally 
251 

restrained from taking advantage of the unmatched resources of the Bering Sea which surround 

us. Year in and year out, they watched as others from afar came in and reaped the wealth of this 

natural bounty. 

Gradual progress was made towards the political and economic liberation of the 

Islands, especially through the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Even so it was not until 

the early 1980s that the Federal government finally recognized its responsibility to the 

Pribilovians and the need to give them the means of managing their own lives. With the Fur 

Seal Act Amendments of 1983; Pub. L; No. 98-129, the Congress sought to make the Pribilofs 

active participants in the Bering Sea fishing industry. 

The FSAA cteated a special Pribilof Islands Trust to manage the transition of the 

Islands away from a Federally managed installation and, • ... to promote the development of a 

stable, self-sufficient, enduring and diversifted economy not dependent on sealing. • 16 

U.S.C. e 1166(a)(l). The Trust was 10 provide the funds necessary for the Islanders to survive 

as commercial sealing operations were gradually closed out and while the State of Alaska 

constructed the boat harbors on both Islands that would enable the islands to participate in the 

fishery service/suppon industry. The legislative history of the FSAA is explicitly clear that 

Congress expected and intended the new stable and self-sufficient economy to . be based 

primarily on a Pribilof ftshing indUStry and fiShing fleet service facilities.' The FSAA also 

provided for the completion of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) among the U.S. 

Secretary of Commerce, the State of Alaska and the Pribilovians. 

The MOU was to set forth the respective responsibilities of the Federal 

Government, the Trust and the State during the transition from Federal management and the 

creation of a private enterprise economy. The MOU was completed on February 10, 1984, and 

in its most pertinent pan states: 

MOUatd7. 

All governmental entities signatory to this MOU 

acknowledge the difficulties inherent in creating a viable, 

long-term private enterprise ctOOOmY in an environment which has 

existed heretofore as a governmental enclave. All government 

agencies should take soecial note of this fact jn considering 

programs of assistance to the Islancla l!!d sive special recognition 

to the many lCI!!hmate. ·- infrastructure social 

envjrompmtal and economic needs of the people of the Islands. 

Sce&fZIC'lllly, Houaellcpon No. 98-113, -.(Ma. lstS... 7 (19&3); S. Rep. No. 98-212, 91ltb 

Cone., 1st Sea. I (1983) ('The primly OQOIIOUI.ic aamty wbic:h is aalidpated is llillillt:-"1 See also House 

Hcarinp on H. R. 2840 bcf<>Rthc Sllba>IIIIDitlco 011 FUIIcricslllll WIIdlifc Collsavatlon IIIII 1hc Envin>nmen~ 

H011SC Coaunlttcc on~ Marine IIIII Fisbcries. 9Sdl Coag., lSI Sess. 261 (1983); and 129 Cong. Roc. H 7-(9/261113) (Sia!eman of Rep. Breaux: "(Tile Trust], . .. 'IWOUI4 "-"P'.....,. the islands' eoonomy during the 

development or halibut, ldng mb and pooDdfisb Wlaaics IIIII ocba' industries."). 
252 

Further on, the panies made the following binding commitment: "The signatories 

agree to take all actions that may be necessary and appropriate for carrying out the purposes of 

the (FSAA). MOUat d 10. The Secretary of Commerce, acting through the .National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration was the Federal signatory to the MOU. In this .;,..y the 

transfonnation of the Pribilofs from Federal "Company towns" whose residents possessed little 

or no control over their economic well-being into independent, economically self-sufficient 

communities was begun. 

This re-<:reation of the Pribilofs was a difficult process and was not without its 

problems and unforeseen complications. Through it, the people of the Pribilofs and the 

communities have made great ~:t rides . Even now·it is still far from complete and we still wrestle 

with many of the same problems, including high unemployment and development needs that far 

outweigh our financial resourC4:s. 

Beginning in !989 with the North Pacific Fishery Management Council's 

("NPFMC') consideration of irtShore/offshore and IFQ proposals, it was obvious to us that more 

was going to be necessary to secure the objectives of the FSAA and fulfill the obligations under 

the MOU. The Pribilofs were faeed with the very real prospect of being effectively barred from 

participating in the fishery thereby nullifying all of the time and money invested in creating the 

infrastruCIUre for doing so. 

In 1992, NOAA created the Community Development Quota ("CDQ') program 

The CDQ program was proplSed so ·that the Bering's fishery resources would provide the 

financial means for Western Alasl..-a's small coastal and island communities to improve the 

economic lifestyle of the residt"'IS through participation in the flllheries. At the same time they 

would encourage the establishment of onshore facilities thai would benefit the overall Alaskan 

economy. Although we had serious reservations about the ability of the CDQ program to meet 

our very subst3ntial economic and development needs in the Pribilofs and to otherwise fulfill the 

legal obligations and responsibilities of the Federal and State governments under the FSAA and 

the MOU, we were willing 10 give the CDQ program a chance and worlc with it. 

There is no question that the CDQ program has been very beneficial to the coastal 

communities of Western Alaska. It has brought a much needed infusion of capital into many of 

ihcse communtiie$. It has also br6iight a measure ·c;rcoope<ation and mutual assistance between 

the communities and the comnten:ial fishing interests which benefits both groups. But. that is 

not to say .that the program :is not without its problems and flaws. The program and its 

administration are marked by an inflexibility and subjectivity which reduce iiS effectiveness and 

faimo::ss. Moreover, the business arnngements which the program has given rise to do not 

nece!lsarily contribute to tbe long-term onshore development. in Alaska the program aims to 

foster. Nevertheless, we believe the positive impacts in those other communities outweigh the 

problems and so we strongly support continuation of CDQs. While there is need for 

improvement. we recognize the value of the CDQ program to the other communities and we 

urge the Congress to include such anthorities in S. 39 or any other Magnuson Act reauthorization 

measure. 
253 

Unfortunately, however, the CDQ program has not adequately met the needs of 

the Pribilof communities. The Pribilofs, which have by far the greatest development needs and 

potential, are currently allocated less than 1% of the Bering Sea's total allowable catch of 

groundfiSh. This level falls well shon of what is necessary for the Islands to become tnJJy 

self-sufficient. What's more, the CDQ program and its regulatory restrictions on-the recipient 

organizations does little that meaningfully benefits the communities. Having a processor locate 

on the Island does little to meet the real needs of the Islanders. Moreover, the lack of 

meaningful resource control dilutes the ability of the Pribilovians to direct· and control their own 

destiny and leaves the promises of the FSAA unfulfilled. -

The simple fact remains that it is not possible for the unique development needs 

and economic rights of the Pribilofs to be addressed througli • Stale-run program which is and 

must be deSigned to deal with the more generic issues facing the coastal communities in Western 

Alaska. Nor is it fair to force the Pribilofs to give up their legal and economic rights simply to 

malce it more convenient to serve the needs of other communities. 

There is a legal and moral obligation owed to the Pribilofs which can only be 

properly satisfied through a special allocation of Bering Sea I'C!Ources. Only in this way can we -

be assured of the means of permanently establishing the congressionally-mandated 

fiSheries-based economy. Such an allocation would finally give the Pribilovians the means and 

ability to control our own economic destines. It would be more thaD just a property right, it 

would be a source of independence and self~ciency that would put us on a level playing field 

with the giant corporate processing interests that have moved into our communities. It would 

enable us to-complete the harbor and dock improvements which are stiU needed and it would 

provide capital for the establishment of a real local participation Pribilof fishing industry. 

An allocation could and should also serve as a source of funding of the much needed 

Bering Sea Scientific Research Center which is authori~ but not funded, ·under the -Marine 

Mammal Protection Act. No one better appreci• the need for a greater understanding of the 

Bering Sea and all of its resources, including birds, marioe ·mammals and fisheries. We have 

used CDQ funds and our partially-owned vessel to support the development of acientiftc 

information and data about Pribilof walcn for the National Science Foundation studies. A 

. reseaidi center fOc':Used in the 'B'ering Sea is imperative if Vie are going to be' ilm' to manage and 

protect those resources wisely. However, in these times of budgetary difficulties, it is not elear 

if and when Federal dollars will be available. But a small portion of a Pribilof allocation could 

be targeted to provide the funding, at no m:urring cost to the government. 

It is our position thai tbe authority to make such an allocation already lies with 

the NPFMC. Under the Magnuson M:t the Council is authorized to allocate resources and take 

other appropriate management and conservation measures. Moreover, the Magnuson Act 

requires the Council to develop its fiShery management plan ("FMP") consistent with applicable 

law, of whiCh the FSAA cle;uly is part. This is borne out by the fact that certain of the eristing 

National Standards for the FMP are the same as the justification behind the FSAA: achieve 

optimum yield, promote effieiency and minimize costs. 

89-569 96-9 
254 

Nevenheless, we believe that the authority to respond to the needs of the Pribilofs 

and other communities, thr•>ugh both a program like CDQs and other measures, should be 

expressly recognized in the Magnuson Act, which is why we strongly support the inclusion in 

H.R. 39 of authority to make special allocations for fishery dependent oommunities. Certainly 

no place in Alaska better m•lets the definition of "fishery dependent community" than St Paul 

and St. George Islands. However, the needs of the Pribilof oommunities were overlooked in the 

larger inshore/offshore debate, and buried in the soope of the State-administered CDQ program. 

Our needs are specific and unique and difficult to address in such generic programs, For that 

reason, we ask that the Comnittee amend the existing language of H_R_ 39 to include a provision 

to amend the Magnuson Act to include a specific reference to the FSAA as a required 

consideration for the NPFMC in the development of its FMP. Through such amendments the 

unique needs and rights of the Pribilofs can finally be addressed. At the same time the very real 

development assistance need>: of other communities can oontinue to be served, as well. 

The people of the Pribilofs have a history that is uniquely their own. Over the 

last 12 years mucb has been done to bring us to a point of a real and meaninj!ful independence 

and self-sufficiency. However, much remain< to be done and the fishery remains the key. 

Rc:rognizing and securing ·~ur special place within the Bering Sea is the only way the 

oommitment that was made by the Federal Government and the State can be kept. 

We thank app1·eciate the opportunity to present these comments and look forward 

to •NOrldng with you in the dc:velopment of this important legislation. 

cc: The Honorable Don Young, Chairman 

House Resources Conunittee 

Sincerely, 

Ron P. Philemonoff, Chairman and CEO 

Tanadgusix Corporation 
255 

Testimony of 

Walter M. Gordon, JR. 

President 

Mid-Atlantic Foods, Inc. 

Before the 

Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans Subcommittee 

of House Resources Committee 

U.S. House of Representatives 

February 23, 1995 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

My name is Wally Gordon, and I would like to begin with a brief introduction of myself and 

my company. I began my career in the grocery products industry in 1966. For fourteen years, 

I held various positions in sales and marketing with both regional and national food companies. 

In 1980, I became involved in the clam business as the Director of Marketing for American 

Original Corporation in Seaford, Delaware. Currently, I am the President and majority 

stockholder of Mid-Atlantic Foods, Inc., located in Pocomoke City, Maryland, and Gordon's 

Seafood , Inc., located in New Bedford, Massachusetts. 

Mid-Atlantic Foods was formed in 1982 to process canned clams, clam juice, chowders, and 

various seafood products for the retail and foodservice markets. I believe that we are currently 

the second largest supplier of canned clam products to the food service industry. Gordon's 

Seafood was formed in 1993 and is a clam shucking operation which processes both fresh and 

frozen products. Combined, these operations employ approximately 150 people. 
256 

I am active in a number of trade organizations. At present, I serve as the Chairman of the 

National Fisheries Institute's Clam Committee, as well as a member of its 13oard of Directors. 

I am also an appointed memb·~r of the Surf Clam and Ocean Quahog Indu~try Advisory 

Committee to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. Addition~lly, I am the immediate 

past president of the Mid-Atlantic Food Processors Association. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify on the revision of fisheries programs under the Magnuson 

Act, particularly Individual Tramferable (Fishing) Quotas (ITQs) and their effects on the Atlantic 

surf cla,n and ocean quahog fisheries. Although no provisions for ITQs are currently in H.R. 

39, in the following testimony I will describe how JTQs are affecting my company as well as 

the entire industry, and make recommendations which should be considered before the 

implementation of ITQs in other fisheries. I will also state my views about the possibility of 

user fees a.nd overfishing definitions. 

First, the method of initial quota allocation is of great interest to all industry members. If quota 

is distributed without fee to the recipient, the allocation process may create instant we.alth and 

huge advantages to some, while creating serious financial obstacles for others. In our industry 

under Amendment 8 to the fishery management plan (FMP), for instance, vessel owners received 

all of the initial quota based primarily on historical catch. Most processors, such as myself, 

owned no vessels and therefore received no quota. 

However, a few processors owned vessels and thereby received quota. Thus, following the 

introduction of the ITQ program, most independent processors were immediately put at an 
257 

economic disadvantage to these vertically-integrated processors. In the long run, this ITQ 

program will probably shrink the industry into a few vertically-integrated corporations 

controlling every aspect of the industry from harvesting through marketing. 

Under any ITQ program, in order to allow traditional fishing families and independent fishermen 

and processors the opportunity to become more efficient, ITQs must be structured differently. 

First, quota shares must be bankable -- it must have stability, transferability, a viable 

marketplace and a tangible value. Otherwise, efficient vessel owners and processors who cannot 

afford to purchase additional quota and are un~ble to borrow against the value of quota, may be 

forced out of the industry. This is a loss to all of society. 

Likewise, ownership limits of ITQs should be imposed, as well as reasonable constraints to 

prevent price manipulation and the creation of artificial shortages. Currently, people can use 

quota as a speculative financial vehicle. Furthermore, foreign nationals/corporations may control 

the quota rights to ITQ-regulated resources. 

Finally, the scientific basis of the FMP must be very sound. For example, in the surf clam and 

ocean quahog fishery, a distinct possibility exists that the scientific community has 

underestimated the size of the resource for the past thirty years. If so, industry members who 

invested in quota and based their decisions on the previous estimates of the resource, may now 

incur the financial ramifications of errors in science. 

In reference to user fees, I submit that the ITQ program, as implemented under Amendment 8 
258 

to the FMP, has already created a user fee system. Unfortunately, the fee is being paid by the 

American consumer. This user fee on surf clams greatly exceeds the costs of harvesting the 

clams. In any competitive marketplace such as our industry, additional taxes on inputs will be 

passed on to the consumer. 

Finally, pertaining to the propoSI!d overfishing definitions defined in the Act, I submit that the 

science is insufficient to create such a definition for the surf clam and ocean quahog fisheries. 

Currently, scientists are uncertain about what constitutes 'significant' recruit ment within the 

fishery. Until this is resolved, any estimations of proper sustainable yield are speculative . I 

also add that industry members have offered to assist the scientific community in resolving this 

problem through the establishment of a long-term, industry-involved resource survey program. 

In conclusion, I suggest the following recommendations for any ITQ program : 

I. Any plan must be bankabk. To be bankable, financing must be available through normal 

commercial sources. ITQs: 

a. Must be a "property right " not subject to revoca tion . 

b. Must not be threatened by confiscation, otherwise quota is 'unbankable' . 

c. Must not be subj(!j:t to micro-management in an effort to right every grievance. 

d. Must have a me thod to readily transfer ownership and thereby, establish 

reasonable value. 

2. Ownership by any one entity must be limited . 

3. Ownership must be limited to entities who own or operate vessels, thereby keeping 
259 

speculators out of the resource. 

4. The value of the ITQs must be in "the right to fish, free of unnecessary restrictions", 

rather than in speculative ownership. 

5. The plan must prevent the ability of an ITQ holder to withhold product from the market 

to manipulate the price. 

6. The plan must have a method to initially distribute allocation on a fair and equitable 

basis. Inflation of catch, or a history of cheating, etc. should not enhance an owner's initial!TQ 

receipts, as it did under Amendment 8. 

7. There should be an initial cost to ITQ owners, or a way to prevent a windfall to the 

recipients and an untenable burden to non-recipients. 

8. Any future ITQ plan must be suited to the particular fishery which it will manage. 

9. The science must be very solid, and stock size estimates must be as accurate as possible 

given the available information. If the precision of these estimates is not within 20%, lTQ 

introduction should be delayed until more reliable estimates are available. 

On behalf of Mid-Atlantic Foods and Gordon's Seafood and all of its !50 employees, I thank 

you for this opportunity to address this subcommittee on these vital fishery management issues. 
260 

• North Pacific Fishing, Inc. 

rtehennen'a 

PI nat 

FobNI.l}' 22, 199S 

The Honorable Don Youua 

4039 21111 A ..... W. ll201 • Seettle, WA 98199 

TEL: (208) 283-1137 • ·FAX: (208) 281-8681 

Chairmm, Natuml Relourcee Committee 

U.S. HoUle ofbpr-tativea 

WuJUoaton, DC 

Fax: (202) 333-1340 

RE: Mqnu10n Act Reauthorization 

Deu- Conareuman Youna: 

Paac 1 of4 

Lut J1111e mombora of the W uhinaton State filhinJ induatry nwt with our COOil"ealional 

delep1tion to di~a~u an induatry COIIMIIIUI propor.al for l!llelldina the Mqnu10n Fiahery 

Conservation and Manaaement Act. Our propoAI, dated May :Jt, 1994, repreaenu a great deal 

of work on our part and I believe is a cle&r statement of the view a that we all can aupport. 

The Wublntton State induatry propoul wu developed to enture fair treatment in tbe 

manaaement or U.S. fbbery resoarea: 

Our operations are conducted in the 3·200 mile &clulivc Economic Zone oft' the cout of Alub. 

The participation of a variety of ge&r and procesllina types from several atatea make the fishery 

management prcx:eu an often contentious politieal proem. By irnplemcnlins the propoaed 

changes to the Act, Conareu can ensure that all participanta will be treated fiirly and that the 

existing lltatutory National Standarda wiD be liven the ncceaaary weialrt to Cllll1tC that they are 

observed. 

The Wa•bintton State ll'iahln& Induttry'a unanimoua propoaal does not inc:lude aupport for 

IPQ/lTQ1: 

AI yc.u are also no doubt aware, 1ome memben of the Waabinaton State induatry are seeking 

your aupport Cor amendmcnu beyond the 11:0pe of our WWiimoua qrecmcnt. They arc c1aimina 

unanimous industry consensus in favor of &iVCIWay Individual Filbina Quota (lFQ/ITQ). These 

programs do not have unanimoua auppon and indeed are viewed akeptically by a Iarac number of 

Washington and Alukan fishermen. I urae your caution in viewing these propoAia. Arnonaat the 

nonunanimous proposals are plans to allow the Sccrctary of Commerce to order the rejional 

councils to 1ubmit IFQ plans or to allow tho Secretary to write and implement such plans without 

council authority. The absence of l!!ch rm;ommendatjQN O"om the Washjnaton State jndu~t~y 

proposal demonstrate• the laclc: of a clear con•l!!• on thia jawe within WyhjpstQA S11te. 
261 

North Pacific Fishing, Inc., 02122/95, pase 2 

These aroups claim broad-bucd lllppon for their plan to solve our induatry'a problems. In 

malcina thit usertion they ianorc the f'act that they havo been unable to achieve coiiSCIIIUI on the 

blueprint Cor IFQa even amongst thcmselvea. Further, at tho JIDIW}' 1994 North Pacific Fiabery 

Manasement Council meetins, the Council and its Advisory Panel, composed or indultry and 

public representatives, votod to table the JFQ plan in flwor or dcvclopina a licente limitation plan 

and enhancina the current traditional reauJations to reduce bycstch and wuto in the filheries. 

These votes underscore our assertion that there is no indultry consenllll Sllppoftina lFQs. 

IFQs would cause a dnmatlc lnereue In the alze and coat of federal f11heriea manaaement: 

An JFQ proaram would areatly increase the bureaucracy and expense needed to manaae our 

filheries. The current reportina tyttem already requirea many houra a day D-om our veuel 

operatora and office sta1F. The added burden or roaulation and reportins already beins looked 

into by the National Marine Fisheriea Service (NMFS) lltlft'would be 1tagering. At a minimum 

NMFS eatimates that each vessel would need to purchue a $75,000 scale tyttem to weijh each 

fish harvetted. Tho scale industry hu ttated on the public record that scales meetina NMFS 

requirements do not even exist and will talce yean to develop. This is not a recipe Cor reducina 

sovemment bureaucracy. It is a recipe for enhanced aovcmment roauJation and wute. Mr. 

Steven Pennoyer, the director oCthe Alnka JUsion oCNMFS, has said that an JFQ proaram will 

not be simple and will entail at leut a 10,0000/o increase in the number of individual fisheriea his 

staff must manaae. 

IFQ proarams will cause severe economie hardship for many mldtlzed and small 

independent fllhlna operaton: 

Prior to takina any action I strongly suggest that you review the tettimony presented to the North 

Pacific Council (NPFMC) by the public. Not only will you find the voicea or the larae lobbyina 

orsaniutions that support the jive& way of the public resource, you will also find the testimony of 

private citizens who traveled to the Council to voice their opposition to an JFQ plan. One youna 

man testified that he wu a third·seneration filhennan and that he and his brothers had been 

completely disenfranchised from the halibut filhery due to not havina followed the complicated 

political machinationt which lead to the sablefishlhalibut JFQ plan. (NPFMC, January 1994.) The 

sabletillhlhabbut plan wu approved by Conunerce Secretary Brown llllidst an intense Wuhinaton 

DC lobbyina eft'on, not because of arusroottsupport. 

IFQs would create a fisheries management ll)'ltem that only very wealthy inveatora could aft'ord to 

enter. Last year a much less restrictive limited-entry permit 11yttem was recently put in place by 

the Pacific Fishery Management Council that regulates the low-value whiting fishery oft' the couts 

ofWashinjton, Oreaon, and California. Within one week after we received the permit for one of 

our small 10 !-foot catcher-only trewl venels, we received an offer or S 114,000 for the permit. 

The value ora similar permit in the Canadian Pacific cout fisheries one and one-hall years after 

the implementation or their limited-entry prosram was $700,000. IC a limited-entry permit tyttem 

places this eijllificant a burden on the filhing fleet, it does not take an economist to lhow that the 

economic value of an lFQ, which not only pnts limited accets but a tpeciflc lhare or the total 

annual harvest, it vastly sreater than limited-entry penniU. IC a license limitation proaram is 

adopted, Consron or NMFS should contider the option oChavina licenses revert to the federal 

government when the licensee ceues their involvement in the fishery. 
262 

North Pacific Filhina, Inc:., 02!.!2/95, page 3 

The great financial value of an IFQ lhue combined with the aecurity granted by ~~ proaram. 

would attract investors not normally interested in ownin& and opentina fiahina v-11. This 

program would demoy the omall and medium-sized fishermen and with them deatroy the ability of 

our filllina B.eet to respond to economic and ecoloJical changeo. None of ua in the industry today 

is smart enough to know what type ofveasels and equipment we wiU need to meet the 

conaer,ation requirements of tho future. By aivina away a raource under an IFQ plan 

euphemistically called a "marlctt-bued :solution." Congreoa would be deatroyin& the dynamism of 

our fleet. It might also be givina our fisberiet to the foreip bankJ that have underwritten many of 

the overextended factOry veuela. Indeed, in the cue of the Mid-Atlmtic Couneil'a IFQ plan, the 

majority of the IFQa are in the haDda of major corporllions and foreian bankJ. The chairman of 

the National Marine Filheriea Service (NMPS) Surf Clam/Quahog Review Committtt 

summarized thia concern in his final memorandum outlinin& the committee' a findinia: 

"(T]hen II unanimity In their real rean or a JDonopoliltie control or the 

ftlhery ia the nlatively a ear future-" (Confidential memorandum from Ed 

MacLeod, NMFS, to Richard Roc and John Rittaen. paae 1, Februa.ry 25, 1992) 

A better method of managina the economics of the fithory iJ allowifta the current truly marlc:ctorientt=d ayatem to continue: th.e survival of the molt efficient fishermen. The failure of investors 

who neither understand fishina nor are cepable of safely manaaiftla Beet without the government 

auar&nteeina their fin&ncialsocurity ia capitaliam workins normaUy. It iJ the sovcmmcnt's place 

to usure sound ecological mllliJement of the fiahery, not to chilli• the rules to choo1e the 

winners. 

Giving away or .aellina the public reaource is not the answer to our 1011111ement problema; it is the 

answer for the economic problems and arced of a group of individual• and companies who made 

bad buaineos decisions and who are not intereotecl in the lona-torm viability of our newly 

Americanizod fisheries. Even :so, IFQa will not put more IIIII into the ocean; they will only create 

an uset that can be put on a balance aheet. It hal been augelted by the American Factory 

Trawlers Aaaociation that IFQa are the answer to the unfair Mqnu:son-Ac:t·mandated Alukan 

majority on the council. If the State ofWalllinaton wishet to solve the problem of an Alaskan 

dominated North P.atlc Filheriea Manqemcnt Council, it willaupport a Mapuaon Act 

arnonclment to eliminate that majority by uaipina l of the aeats that are currently filled with 

nominees of the GQvemor of Aluka to the Statea ofOreaon and Washinaton. 

IFQa wlll not lacratc the aefcty or fllbla& operatlona: 

Safe fishina il attained by veaMI operaton who make their veasel and crew top priority and not by 

operaton who malc:c aearnanship decisions bued on economics and filheriea manaaement. While 

many IFQ proponents claim that safety will be increued, put experience and common acnae do 

not bear thiJ out. In the NMF S review of the AllaDtic Surf dam and ocean quahoa ITQ prollfllll, 

NMF S officials found that vetllla who leued quota were IIIII out in bad wutbcr to maintain a 

tteady production at proceaaina pl.anta; the reoult wu a decreue in aafety u captaint had leaa 

control over their~. (Surf Clam/Ocean Ouahoa Eya!yatioo Quod og JaterviiWI with 

CwW 0wnm and Crews ICenneth Beal, NMFS, (1 99l) paae 4 (mcorporated in Mac1Aod 

1992).) 
263 

Nonh Paeif!e Fishina, lne., 02/22/!iS, PliO 4 

In many easea filhina aeuom are detennined by fiabcriea bioloJY, when the fish arc in the but 

condition for market and schooled toJether 10 that opentioDI will be declive. A quota l)'ttem 

will not ehanic the bioloJY or miJI'Ition pattemJ off!Jh. If'bowever, the quota proJrlllliUCCceds 

in sivina veiiCI• more flexibility in cbooaina when io fiah, the incentive for prevenlive 

maintenance could actually deereue ., ve111ell no Jonaer are required by economic. to be 

maintained in top condition. Thia retuma me to my oriJinlll point, proper life operation~ are 

primarily dependent on veuel ownm and operatora, not fishery ~~~~~~~&emcnt plant. 

Return to the broad bued lnduatry propoul for reformiDI the Mapuaoo act proceu 

rather than attempt to live the reaource away u private property: 

The Maanuson Act currently encouraaes maximum yield from the resource by providina publicaccets fisheries for whieh fees are not eharied and exclUJive rii)IU to fish are not aranted. I urae 

you not to destroy the unique eharaeter of our fisheries by malcina them accesaible only to very 

wealthy inveatort. FoUowina the Commerce Secretary'• 1992 Inahore/Oftihore deeiaion the price 

of poUoclc paid to shoreaide delivery veaseiJ dropped due to the ~ that a II1W1 aroup of 

proeetserl were the only C\Utomera in the world who eould buy that fish by US law. lFQa, 

Proeetser Quotas, and 111c:1ions will only caeerbate theae probleiDI for the flshermm I do not 

advocate ConareN writina the llt&tut quo into law; I am merely uraina you not to mandate the 

drastic and crippJina eh&nJe from the 1tatus quo to solve the economic problems of a few 

bulinuamen and foreign blllks who made bad businus decisions. 

Sincerely, 

~ct-G~ 

Rudy A. Pcteraen 

CEO 
264 

Michael Markels, Jr., Ph.D. 

6850 Versar center 

Springfield, Virginia 22151 

(703) 750-3000 

February 22, 1995 

The Honorable Donald Young, Chairman 

Committee on Resources 

House of Representatives 

United States Capitol 

washing·ton, DC 20515 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

Subject: Proposed amendment to thj~ 

Magnuson Fishery Conservation 

and Management Act 

The ocean within the 200 mile limit is owned by the u.s. Government, which has not granted private property rights to 

either its citizens or to the individual Fisheries councils. 

Therefore, the ocean remains a "commons". There is presently no mechanism to reward actions which increase the productivity of 

the ocean through investment. The Councils can only increase 

landings fron their current level by restricting the catch to 

eliminate over utilization of the resource. 

Recent experiment.s have shown that the addition of 

fertilizing elements, specifically, iron, have increased the 

growth of algae in th€ tropical Pacific Ocean near the Galapc>gas 

Islands by a factor of four. Much greater increases, up to a factor of 30, could b€: realized by the use of engineered designs 

based on fertilizing e:lements that occur naturally in ocean upwellings. Calculations indicate such an approach could increase 

the fish production of the Gulf Stream along the Atlantic coast 

up to a s much as 50 million tons a year from an investment of 

approximately $100 million a year. 

The required invE!stment can be provided directly by the u.s. Government w:1ich woulcl contract through the Department of 

Commerce to have ferti lizers added to costal waters to increase 

biomass and therefore ,. fish production. The individual Fisheries 

councils would contimw to regulate the catch in the ir 

jurisdiction in order to match landings with the production of 

fish. This approach ';uffers from the separation of the 

productivity enhancement operation from the fisherman. It also 

ignores the fact that different approaches to increase 

produci:i vi ty may be r•~quired to maximize the return in the 

jurisdictions of individual Fisheries Councils. A better 

approa<:h gives the au<::horization to each Fisheries Council to 

levy a landing fee of up to 4% of the first sale value of the 

catch f rom their juri:;diction. This levy would be at the 

discretion of each fisheries council. The levy would be used to 

fund pr ograms to increase ocean productivity. councils with 

adjacent ocean boundaries will probably find it advantageous to cooper:~te in their productivity enhancement programs. The 
265 

Page 2 

Councils would contract with private industry to provide the 

technology, fertilizers and application with costs and incentives 

paid for by the levy on the landings. Both the priva~e 

contractor and the councils would have an incentive to work 

towards obtaining the maximum sustainable landings of fish which, 

with fertilization would be many times the present sustainable 

catch. 

Therefore, I recommend that the Magnuson Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act be amended to authorize a levy of 

up to 4% of the first sale value of u.s. commercial landings of 

fish and shellfish at the discretion of the individual Fisheries 

Councils for the purpose of enhancing the basic productivity of 

the ocean in their jurisdiction. This would ensure that the 

Councils can act to increase the basic productivity of the ocean through the impetus of new technology and private property 

rights. Based on $4.1 billion in first sale value of current 

u.s. fish landings, this levy could generate as much as $164 

million annually, if used by all regional Fisheries Councils. 

The increase in fish production from ocean farming and 

fertilization could increase this production by an order of 

magnitude or more. The increase in the levy to the Councils 

would be passed on to the providers of the technology, including 

the fertilizer and its application to the ocean. 

Almost all of our country was once owned by the government. 

We have long understood that private ownership increased 

productivity where investment is required. We need to do the same to increase the productivity of our coastal oceans. 

Michael Markels, Jr., Ph.D. 
266 

Statement of Robert Alverson 

Manager, Fishing Vessel Owners' Association 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

House Committee on Resources 

February 23, 1995 

Mr. Chairman: 

I appreciate the opportunity to provide a statement to the Subcommittee on the 

subject ofr•eauthorization of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act. I 

am manage:r of the Fishing Vessc!l Owners' Association, which is a trade association 

representing owners of80 hook-and-line fishing vessels. FVOA is based in Seattle. Our 

vessels operate from California to Alaska. I recently completed two terms of service as a 

Member of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. 

The current reauthorization process for the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act provides the Congress the opportunity to ensure that our system of 

federal fish•=ris management serves fundamental conservation goals and improves the 

safety of our fisheries. With that in mind, I am attaching to my prepared statement a 

number of proposed amendments which would accomplish those purposes. For the 

record, I would like to note that these proposals were developed in consultation with 

another trade association based in Seattle, the Alaska Crab Coalition. l urge the 

Subcommittee to give the proposed amendments sympathetic consideration. 

I would also ask the Subcommittee to consider the usefulness of individual fishing 

quotas as a device for achieving conservation and management goals that are beyond the 
267 

2 

effective reach of traditional regulatory measures. I am not proposing that the Act be 

amended to mandate the establishment of IFQs, because I do not regard IFQs (or ITQs--

individual transferable quotas) to be a universal panacea. There may be many cases in 

which other management measures are more appropriate, or where IFQs cannot be 

rationally applied. However, because IFQs can be very helpful in addressing the pr?blems 

of various fisheries, the amendments which I am proposing strengthen the existing 

legislative foundation for that sort of management scheme. 

As the term suggests, IFQs provide specific quotas of fish to particular individuals. 

At the outset, quotas are based on historical participation in the fisheries and the prevailing 

condition of the resources. IFQs can be transferred, subject to conditions and restrictions 

calculated to achieve various management goals. Within broad parameters, IFQ holders 

may harvest their quotas when the weather is safe and the markets are good. The holders 

of IFQs thus enjoy fishing privileges that are aimed at effectively conserving the stocks, 

promoting safety of life and property at sea, and maximizing the value of the product. If a 

problem arises in the system, the responsible fishery management council and the 

Commerce Department may adopt changes--or abandon IFQs altogether. Since IFQs do 

not convey property rights that are subject to the due process protections of the United 

States Constitution, there is no right of compensation to holders, in the event that the 

system is changed or revoked. The public remains in full and effective control of the 

resource. I add that, with proper management, the harvest of renewable fisheries 

resources provides economic benefits to productive members of our society, while 

depriving the public of nothing. This, of course, distinguishes fisheries from nonrenewable resources, such as oil and gas, and hard rock min~rals. 

I have put a great deal of effort into the establishment of an IFQ system for the 

halibut and sablefish fisheries in federal waters off the coast of Alaska. I supported that 
268 

system, because those fisheries simply could not be sustained with the continued use of 

traditional time and area closures and trip limits. There were too many vessels applying 

too much effort to the harvest of very limited resources. In fact, over the years, the fleet 

grew from hundreds to thousands of vessels, and the halibut season was reduced to a few 

days of hysterical fishing per year. The sablefish fishery also suffered from increasing 

pressure, and was destined to become as dangerous and wasteful as the halibut fishery. In 

both the halibut and sablefish fisheries, people lost their lives and their vessels, product 

quality declined, prices fell from episodic gluts in the market, and much of the catch was 

wasted by hasty and otherwise bad handling practices. 

For me, the loss of life in these fisheries was the major consideration in my move 

toward a system of IFQs. I saw no alternative method of addressing compressed seasons 

and overcrowded fishing grounds, in which the fishermen's fatigue and nature's violence 

took an ever-increasing toll of human lives. From that standpoint, the prevailing 

managemomt system could not be maintained, because its human cost was simply 

intolerable. 

From the perspective of conservation, as well, the traditional management tools 

could not produce a sustainable fishery. With thousands of vessels operating in relatively 

small areas on discrete fish populations, time and area closures could not be tightly enough 

configured to avoid excessive harvests and massive waste. Shorter openings led fishermen 

to increase their gear and fish 'round the clock. Unlimited entry resulted in such great 

numbers of vessels that fisheries would spill over onto less productive grounds, where 

bycatch impacts were greatly aggravated. Trip limits led to "high-grading", that is, to the 

discard oflarge quantities of fish, in order to ensure that only the most valuable were 

retained. The sudden flood of product at the end of each opening led to oversupply and to 

depressed market prices. By way of example in relation to the last point, the prices for 
269 

U.S. halibut have typically been $1.50 lower per pound than for Canadian halibut that are 

harvested under an IFQ system. I will not go into detail concerning the additional benefits 

of the IFQ system, but I will call your attention to Congressional correspondence which 

called on the Secretary of Commerce to approve the new program. That correspondence 

is also attached to my prepared statement. 

In closing, I would like to make it clear that I am not here as a missionary for IFQs 

in all fisheries. It will be up to responsible officials and fishermen to decide how the 

various fisheries should be managed. However, after years of experience in fisheries 

management and based upon close analysis, I have every reason to believe IFQs will 

ensure that the halibut and sablefish fisheries--and perhaps others--will be sustainable for 

the indefinite future. 
270 

3901 Leary Way (Bldg.) N.W., Sui1e #6 • Seattle, WA 98107 • (206) 547-7560 • FAX (206) 547-0130 

Mr. Chairman: 

Statement of Mr. Arni Thomson 

Executive Director 

Alaska Crab Coalition 

Before the 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

Committee on Resources 

U.S. House or Representatives 

February 23, 1995 

I would like to express the appreciation of the Alaska Crab Coalition ("ACC") for 

the opportunity to provide a statement on reauthorization of the Magnuson Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act. The ACC, which was formed in 1986, now 

represents the owners of 60 •:rab harvesting vessels that operate in the federal waters of 

the Bering Sea/ Aleutian Islands off the coast of Alaska. The ACC also represents I 0 fish 

processing companies and 50 other associate companies that provide services to the fleet. 

Ours is a major industry. The first wholesale value of the crab harvest off Alaska was 

$650 million in each of the years, 1992, 1993, and 1994, and our fleet employed over 

3000 people. 

It is fair to say that the ACC. since its inception, has been in the forefront of 

industry efforts to achieve improved management of the fisheries in the Bering 
271 

2 

Sea/Aleutian Islands. Our goal has been straightforward: sustainable fisheries. In the 

pursuit of this objective, t~ ACC has sought increased safety of fishing operations, 

enhanced conservation of fisheries resources, and credible scientific research. 

The ACC has promoted scientifically based, responsible regulatory administration 

of the fisheries, and where the existing legal framework has proved demonstrably 

inadequate, we have sought remedial legislation. We have not lightly advocated 

government intervention. Our objective has been to achieve essential improvements to 

safety and conservation, with the minimum necessary regulatory burden and cost to the 

taxpayer. 

The ACC supported the enactment of the 1990 amendments to the Act, including 

particularly the North Pacific Fisheries Research Plan, which led to improvements in our 

system of fisheries management. However, as reflected by our recommendation for 

further amendments, the ACC and many other industry groups believe that the> nation 

remains some distance from achieving the goal of ensuring that our valuable fishery 

resources are exploited in a responsible manner. 

I am proud of the record of achievement of the ACC. The Magnuson Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act reflects important conservation-related amendments 

for which our organization led the way among responsible industry groups. Legislation 

introduced in the last Congress contained both safety and conservation proposals that 

were originally conceived by our organization. 

In the 104th Congress, the ACC will continue to promote safety and conservation. 

However, we assure you that we will not support misguided proposals, such a,s those 
272 

launched in the last Congn,ss, that would entail new layers of bureaucracy or undue 

regulatory burdens. A copy of our proposed amendments is attached to this statement. 

They enjoy the support of other organizations, including the Fishing Vessel Owners 

Association and Deep Sea Fishermen's Union. We are also preparing amendments that 

would provide an improved statutory foundation for individual transferable quotas 

("ITQs") for crab in the Bering Sea 

An explanation of our specific proposals is in order. The ACC p;oposes 

amendment of the Act to include a National Standard requiring that fisheries management 

measures promote safety of life at sea. This is a vitally needed provision. Fishing is, in 

many contexts, a dangerous occupation. Lives are lost in the federally managed 

"Olympic" style fisheries each year. Sadly, some of our management measures actually 

contribute to the dangers encountered by our fishermen. In 1994, 18 people perished in 

fisheries off the coast of Alaska. In 1995, to this date, 8 have lost their lives and 3 vessels 

have been lost in the 3 7 -day opilio crab fishing season, alone. Severe injuries have 

remained an everyday occure-nce. 

In the sablefish and halibut fisheries off the coast of Alaska, lives have been lost 

each year in a mad scramble by thousands of vessels to harvest the available resource In a 

matter of hours or a few days. The "fishing derbies" have required that, for fishermen to 

earn their livelihoods, they would have to do so without regard to severe weather and seastate conditions. The new system of individual fishing quotas ("IFQs") for these fisheries 

is expected to alleviate what has been a truly tragic situation. 

Unfortunately, humane systems of management are politically difficult to devise, as 

they involve some element cf allocation of finite, and sometimes declining, resources. In 

the public debates and policy deliberations, safety issues tend to be lost, as the focus all-
273 

too-often falls on purely economic considerations. The Act must be amended to ensure 

that the priorities of our fisheries management system accord with the fundamental values 

of our society. 

The enactment of our safety amendment would not mandate any particular system 

of fisheries management, such as ITQs. We recognize that some fisheries may not be 

suited to such a system. Accordingly, amendment would ensure that safety would be 

properly taken into account, without prejudice to the basic system of management that 

would apply in any particular fishety. 

Our proposed amendments to the National Standards would also give needed 

focus to issues of waste in the fisheries which result from excessive bycatch of non-target 

species and discards of target species. The Members of the ACC are acutely conscious of 

the economic losses that have long been associated with the excessive levels of bycatch in 

certain fisheries of the Bering Sea. We are aware, as well, of the economic waste that has 

resulted from the massive discards of target species in those and other fisheries. Although 

we are compelled to accept the fact that there are forces at work in the marine ecosystem 

that are beyond the reach of human intervention, there is much that can and should be 

done to ensure that fishing gear and practices are employed in responsible ways, so that 

waste is minimized. The provisions of H.R. 39 relating to bycatch and discard waste 

reflect a recognition of need for remedial legislative action. However, the ACC believes 

that a strengthening of the National Standards, which are the touchstones of the Act, is 

needed to ensure a real commitment on the part of fisheries managers to address the 

problem of waste. 
274 

5 

Some in the trawl industry make much of the assertion that all fishing groups, no 

matter what gear they emplc·y, inflict bycatch mortality. What those people do not care to 

point out is the fact that the impacts vary greatly among the gear types. Trawlers, by the 

nature of their non-selectiv<: gear, inflict mortality, not only on their own target species, 

but also on the target species of most other gear groups. Thus, trawlers impose direct 

costs on other sectors of th e industry by reducing the immediate and future harvests of 

the other gear groups. 

It is true that fixed gear fishermen, employing pots or longlines, also have bycatch 

impacts. For example, the bycatch of crab pot gear, principally juveniles and females of 

the target species, represent foregone future harvests for fishermen utilizing that gear. 

Consequently, fixed gear fishermen have a vested interest in minimizing bycatch mortality 

through gear design and fish handling techniques, as well as through strict quotas and time 

and area closures. Fixed gear bycatch does not impose direct costs on the trawlers' target 

species. 

Notably, in the crab and cod pot fisheries, the Alaska Department of Fjsh and 

Game and the National Marine Fisheries Service. based on aurhoritative studies, estimate 

the mortality of crab discards at only 8-10%. In addition, the National Marine Fisheiies 

Service estimates the mortality rate of halibut in the Bering Sea pot fisheries for cod at less 

than I%. As a result, the pot fishery for cod is exempted from halibut bycatch caps. By 

contrast, the estimated momlity rates for J,aJibut in the trawl fisheries, again according to 

the National Marine Fisheries Service, range from 66to 74%. 

We in the crab industry have taken the initiative to propose crab fishing gear 

design requirements that greatly increase selectivity and minimize "ghostfishing•. We have 

made gear modifications to provide for large mesh inserts that allow the escape of 
275 

6 

undersized crab from the pots. We have added halibut excluder panels. We have built in 

biogradable cotton thread panels to minimize ghostfishing. In addition, when confronted 

with data suggesting declines in crab stocks, the ACC has been in the forefront of efforts 

to secure the needed time and area closures, reduced quotas, and other conservation 

measures. Unfortunately, fisheries managers have not always responded to our concerns, 

and as history shows, the resources have suffered under archaic management policies and 

practices. 

I would like to highlight the fact that our proposed amendments would specifically 

require protection of vulnerable spawning and nursery areas. This responds to the effect 

of bottom trawling on the benthic environment, which is believed to be quite significant. 

Crab in the first instar stage of development find refuge from predators by crawling into 

the subsurface layer of the seabed. Therefore, bottom trawling in crab nursery areas may 

well have a very detrimental effect on crab survival rates. The damage is a matter of 

particular concern, where the large nets and heayy doors and chains of industrial factory 

trawlers are used. 

It is easy to understand why habitat studies are especially important. The NOAA 

Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program ("OCSEAP") has yielded 

useful data on the sensitivity of crab nursery areas. OCSEAP considers the North 

Aleutian shelf to be the primary habitat for king crab and is concerned about bottom 

trawling impacts. The Chairman of the North Pacific Fishery Management Coun~il, in a 

letter to former President Bush concerning Lease Sale 92, acknowledged that the habitat 

in that area is critical to crab, and to halibut, as well. Alaska Governor Tony Knowles has 

pointed to the need for protection of ocean bottom crab and coral habitats off the shores 

of his State. On the far side of the Bering Sea, Russia has protected its crab habitat from 
276 

bottom trawling and has been rewarded with rich crab harvests. In fact, many U.S. vessels 

have moved to Russian water" to take advantage of the abundant crab resources there. 

The ACC proposed amendments also focus on the problem of excessive fishing 

capacity in relation to the available resources. It is an unfortunate fact that rapid 

overcapitalization of major fhheries in the Bering Sea, as well as elsewhere in our federal 

Exdusive Economic Zone, has given rise to severe pressures on fisheries managers to 

permit exploitation that cannot be reconciled with basic conservation principles. Some 

statistics should be consider.,d. Since January 1, 1990, the Bering Sea crab fleet has 

grown from 162 to 255 vessds, an increase of 57%. Concomitantly, fishing days on the 

crab grounds have declined during that period from 234 to 72 annually, a decrease of 

320%. This compression of fishing seasons has had dramatic, adverse effects. 

While this intolerable situation has been developing, the National Marine Fisheries 

Setvice and the Regional Fishery Management Councils have felt compelled to dedicate 

their meager fiscal and administrative resources principally to the development of systems 

for the allocation of limit.,d, and all-too-often declining, fisheries resources among 

competing sectors of our industry. Our proposed amendment on excessive fishing 

capacity would compel\ fishe1ies managers to face up to the overcapitalization issue. It is 

true that ITQs would ~! a very effective means of reducing and avoiding 

overcapitalization, by encouraging the consolidation of fishing opportunities and a 

consequent reduction of fishing capacity. However, other methods than ITQs may be 

employed, such as government-run or subsidized vessel "buy-back" programs, if the public 

funding can be found to support them. I should observe that, in light of government 

budgetary constraints, there is a very strong case for giving industry the regulatory tools 

to finance its own "buy-out" scheme through the issuance of ITQs and the consolidation 

of individual quotas. A pa~er delivered at a University of Washington conference, June 
2:/7 

8 

14-16, 1994, Michael Sissenwine, Senior Scientist, National Marine Fisheries Service, 

detailed the harsh realities of excessive fishing capacity. In that paper, it was noted that 

the NOAA and National Marine Fisheries Service Strategic Plans both advocate 

"conversion of fisheries management from open access to cootrolled access, especially 

individual harvest rights, such as lTQs". 

The Subcommittee should find it interesting that, in the international context, when 

our federal fisheries managers have been freed of the intense pressures of certain.sectors 

of our fishing industry, conservation properly has been the center of attention. At the 

United Nations Conference on Environment and Development ("UNCED") in Rio, the 

United States Government played a highly constructive, leadership role in the articulation 

of conservation guidelines, principles, and commitments under the new rubric of 

'sustainable use" . At a 1992 conference in Cancun, Mexico, the U.S. contributed 

importantly to the development of international standards of "responsible fishing" . A 

paper prepared by The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization ("FAO") for 

the 1992 Cancun conference stated, 'The excessive level of fishing effort now existing in 

the world should be the primary concern in terms of sustainability of the fisheries 

resources." 

I would like to flag some of the key points that emerged from the Rio and Cancun 

conferences. UNCED proclaimed that, "States commit themselves to the conservation 

and sustainable use of living marine resources under national jurisdiction". The 

Conference recognized ' mounting problems' in the world's fisheries, including 

"overcapitalization and excessive fleet sizes .. insufficiently selective gear. [and] unreliable 

data bases" . 
278 

9 

UNCED declared tnat, "[I]t is necessary to .. promote the development and use of 

selective fishing gear and practices that minimize waste of catch of target species and 

minimize by-catch ofnon-t.uget species ... [and] preserve rare or fragile ecosystems as well 

as habitats and other ecologically sensitive areas .... " UNCED further declared that nations 

should " .. . [t]ake measures ·:o increase the availability of marine living resources as human 

food by reducing wastage, post-harvest losses and discards, and improving techniques of 

processing, distribution and transportation ... [ and] [ d]evelop and promote the use of 

environmentally sound teclmology under criteria compatible with the sustainable use of 

marine living resources, including assessment of environmental impact of major new 

fishery practices .... " In designating protected areas, "priority should be accorded, as 

appropriate" to specific kinds of areas, including "spawning and nursery areas". 

The 1992 Cancun conference declared that "States should promote the 

development and use of selective fishing gear and practices that minimize waste of catch 

of target species and minimize by-catch of non-target species." The conference further 

declared, "States, in the design and subsequent introduction of new fishing gear and 

practices, should take into account qualified assessments of impacts on the sustainability 

of fisheries, giving due consideration to the specific characteristics and biodiversity of 

different fishing areas." "States should promote and enhance collection of data necessary 

fiJr the conservation and su!>tainable utilization of fisheries resources." "States should take 

necessary measures to proto:ct coastal wetlands and other areas of critical fisheries habitat 

fi·om all kinds of degradati•>n." And, "States should take steps to improve management 

systems as part of the practice of responsible fishing." 

The Cancun confecence proclaimed that nations 'recognize the principle of 

sustainable utilization of marine living resources as the basis for sound fisheries 

management policies. In this regard, they consider as one of the most important 
279 

10 

objectives the application of policies and measures which result in a level of fishing effort 

commensurate with the sustainable utilization of fisheries resources, taking into account 

the specific characteristics of particular fisheries.' 

The July 29, 1993 Communique of the Inter-American Conference on Responsible 

Fishing, Mexico City, stated that the planned International Code of Cond~ct for 

Responsible Fishing should provide for sustainable utilization of resources. Improved gear 

selectivity was a key focus of the Communique. In a December 1994 communication to 

members of the FAO, the Director-General circulated a highly elaborated, draft 

International Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. The proposed Code of Conduct 

embodies the principles and rules set forth at Rio and Cancun. Sustainable utilization is 

the touchstone. Reduction and avoidance of excess fishing capacity and improved 

selectivity of fishing gear and practices are heavily emphasized. 

The ACC believes that the Congress and our fisheries managers should provide 

for legislative and regulatory implementation of the key elements of the international 

consensus reflected in the Rio and Cancun declarations, the Mexico City cornrn\lnique, 

and the emerging Code of Conduct. It is true that general provisions of the Magnuson 

Act relating to conservation reasonably may be interpreted to be consistent with the new 

international guidelines, principles, and commitments. From that standpoint, an 

elaboration in the Magnuson Act of the central points accepted by the international 

community would not represent a departure from the basic framework of the prevailing 

domestic management system. However. experience has shown that the Magnuson Act 

could usefully be strengthened to provide our fisheries managers with greater leverage--

and a more clearly defined responsibility-to achieve conservation objectives in the public 

interest. 
280 

11 

Certain industry groups in the United States will not welcome the express inclusion 

in the Act of provisions n:flecting the international consensus that was achieved under 

U.S. leadership. The ACC would like the subommittee to recall that some industry groups 

were strongly opposed to the North Pacific Fisheries Research Plan enacted in the 1990 

amendments, a plan that i; now almost universally recognized as indispensable to the 

achievement of basic const:·rvation and management objectives in the multi-billion dollar 

fisheries of the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska. It is a credit to the Congress that such 

opposition did not prevent the enactment of a highly worthy program. 

Fees are currently being addressed by some public interest organizations and 

industry groups solely in the context of limited entry. However, it must be pointed out 

that any fish taken from the Exclusive Economic Zone by any fishermen represents a 

private gain for which a rea:;onable fee might well be charged. It must also be recognized 

that, in a fishery successfully managed for sustainable utilization, the public loses nothing 

when a private company or individual gains_ Fisheries resources are renewable, and fees 

should reflect that nothing is being taken from the public that cannot soon be restored. 

We can accept a slightly higher fee for ITQs, insofar as it is demonstrated that there is a 

higher administrative cost to the government for such programs. However, it should be 

understood, at the same time, that ITQs should lead to improved resource conditions, 

which in tum, will lead to greater economic benefits for the nation. In addtion. it must be 

understood that ITQs convey only privileges that can be revoked by the gov~rnment 

without compensation to hc·lders. ITQs do not create property rights that are protected 

by the US. Constitution. Fees should reflect the fact that ITQs simply provide for the 

orderly utilization, not the permanent alienation, of public resources. For these and other 

reasons, including those related to improved safety and conservation, fees should not be 

imposed at levels that will dt:ter the adoption of ITQ programs. 
281 

12 

The ACC proposes that Congress place limits on allocations to "fishery dependent 

communities" In the A1askan context, so~called "community development quotas" can 

serve legitimate social and economic purposes. However, in the absence of explicit 

limitations, abuses can prove to be very costly to those who are not the recipients of the 

special allocations of federal fishery resources. We must remember that our fisheries are, 

for the most part, seriously overcapitalized. To provide special quotas to one group, it is 

necessary to reduce the harvests or the harvest capacity of others. There must be a 

balance between providing for development of truly disadvantaged local communities and 

allowing the economic survival of the historical participants in the fisheries. It is 

interesting that the earlier-referenced FAO paper prepared for the 1992 Cancun 

Conference stated, "Further development of the fisheries sector cannot be achieved 

without an overall reduction of the [global] fleet size to a level where fishing effort, at the 

most, matches the maximum sustainable yield of the resources being exploited or, better, 

to an even lower level to ensure long-term profitability and sustainability of fisheries." 

This statement may be aptly applied to the case of the fisheries off the coast of Alaska. 

I have described specific amendments proposed by the ACC to address the related, 

fundamental issues of safety, conservation, and overcapitalization. I have noted that the 

amendments would not mandate the establishment of ITQs, but that ITQs would be one 

means by which to achieve the results intended by the amendments, and such a system 

would provide additional, significant benefits. 

The ACC vessel owners rttommend that any amendments to the Act on 

individual transferable quotas ("ITQs") not create barriers or disincentives 

to their establishment in appropriate circumstan<es. The ACC vessel owners 

support the establishment of ITQs in the Bering Sea crab fisheries, for the 

following reasons: 

hnproved safety. Fishermen will be in the position to slow down the 

pace of their fishing aciivities. They will be able to fish when the 
282 

13 

weather conditions do not present unacceptable hazards. In the case 

of crab fishing, the load of pots on vessels will be reduced, because 

individual quotas will end the competitive race in short seasons to 

place and haul as much gear as possible. This will both improve vessel 

stability and reduce the hazards to gear handlers, benefits which 

would not be gained in a mere license limitation system. 

Improved resource conservation. With a slower pace of fishing, 

selectivity in targeting resources and sorting catches will be vastly 

improved. Discards, and the mortality of discards, will be reduced. 

Individual quotas will provide an incentive to fishermen to engage in 

practices that enhance stock rebuilding. Higher TACs will directly 

translate to higher catches for each fisherman who holds a percentage 

share of the available harvest. In a slower fishery, fewer pots will be 

lost, and ghostfishing will, therefore, be minimized. 

Improved individual accountability. With individual quotas, 

fishermen will fed and will be more accountable for their conduct. 

Responsible f15hing will be the rule, not the exception, as each quota 

holder will have a tangible share of the resource. Where self-interest 

does not produce responsible behavior, observer coverage, which will 

be required for all vessels, will prevent high-grading and other 

irresponsible practices, and will guarantee effective enforcement in the 

public interest. ITQs would be privileges (not property rights), which 

could be modified or revoked without compensation to the holders by 

the government. 

Improved economic efficiency. Transferable ITQs, as marketable 

commodities, will provide a market-based industry buy-out program 

for overcapitalized fisheries, with no expenditures of public funds for 

the purchase of excess harvesting capacity. By leading to a reduction 

of neet size through consolidation of quotas, the vessels remaining in 

the fisheries will achieve improved operating efficiency. Vesseb (and 

processing facilities) will be idle for shorter periods of the year, and 

their productive capacity will be put to fuller use. With ITQs, there 

will be no incentive to make increasing investments in marginal 

improvements, with progressively diminished returns, simply to 

remain competitive in ever more compressed seasons, as occun in the 

open acuss and license limitation systems. Mere license limitations 

halt the increase of capacity, but do not reduce it, nor do they address 

the law of diminishing returns on marginal improvements to fishing 

vessels and gear. For processors, as well as fishermen, longer seasons 

will provide steadier employment and consequent benefits to local 

communities. 
283 

14 

Increased value of the tax base and new S6urce of fees. With an 

economically more sound fishery, profitability will improve and·, thus, 

the income tax base will increase. Increased harvests resulting from 

improved resource conditions will provide higher revenues from 

landing taxes. Fees on ITQs will provide revenues to the government 

from the private utilization of the resource. Fees should be set at 

levels that are reasonable in relation to the economics of the fisheries. 

Pending legislative proposals indicate that open access and license 

limitation fisheries will provide few, if any, fees for utilization or 

public resources. 

Reduced gear connie!. With less gear deployed at any given time on 

the grounds, connie! with other gear types will be reduced. 

Improved product quality. A slower paced fishery will allow the more 

careful handling of the catch to preserve quality, thus improving 

competitiveness against high quality imported fishery products, and 

increasing acceptance in quality-conscious export markets. Moreover, 

deliveries to shore will not be compressed into short seasons, thus 

allowing better handling by processon. In addition, processon.will 

have more time to perfonn value-added secondary processing. To the 

benefit of the consumer, increased quantities of high-quality products 

in a more competitive marketplace will lead to moderation of 

premium pricing. 

Improved markets. Fishermen and processon will be able to 

coordinate the harvest and delivery of product to respond to market 

demand. 

In closing, I would like to tie a few points together. In the North Pacific region, 

the State of Alaska already charges very substantial fees and taxes on vessels that operete 

not only in State, but also, in federal waters. In addition, the fleets from outside Alaska 

pay a high price for benefits to the State from dedicated groundfish quotas for local 

communities. Clearly, these special quotas reduce the available resources for those who 

have historically operated in the fisheries, and who must attempt to survive in an 'already 

heavily overcapitalized economic environment. 
284 

15 

In short, there are bmits to what the established fleets can sustain. New fees 

imposed on individual fishermen, and quotas established for local communities cannot be 

considered in isolation from one another, nor in isolation from other fees, taxes, and costs 

borne by our fishermen. In ~tddition, it may well be that the elimination of excess capacity 

in the existing fleet will be indispensible to the further development of coastal comrlUnitybased fisheries operations Otherwise, neither the historical participants nor the new 

entrants can hope to benefit, and they will all be likely to suffer. 

The ACC recognizes that it will not be an easy task for this Committee, the 

Congress, and the Administration to build upon the conservation-related provisions of the 

1990 amendments and to bring the Act into conformity with the newly emerged concept 

of "responsible fishing" and new international standards of fisheries conservation and 

management. Nor will it b<: a simple matter to amend the Act to ensure that fisheries 

management measures contlibute to safety and do not threaten it. Limited entry and 

community development issues will be very thorny. Nevertheless, the ACC believes that 

our government will rise to the challenge, as in 1990, and that our nation will be.able to 

look forward to the sustainable--and safe--use of a national treasure, abundant fisheries 

resources 
285 

Proposed Amendments to the Magnuson Fishery Conservation 

and Management Act 

1. Amend the National Standards 

1.1 Amend 16 USC sec. 1851 (a)(t) as follows: 

"Conservation of fishery resources shall be the principal objective of fishery management 

plans and any regulation promulgated to implement any such plans. Conservation and 

management measures shall protect vulnerable spawning and nursery areas prevent 

overfishing. and minimize waste. including bycatch mortality of non-target species and 

discard mortality of target species. while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum 

yield from each fishery for the United States fishing industry." 

1.2Amend 16USCsec. 1851 (a)(5)asfollows: 

"Conservation and management measures shall, where practicable, promote efficiency in 

the utilization of fishery resources, including the avoidance or reduction of excessive 

fishing capacity and unnecessarily wasteful fishing gear and fishing practices; except that 

no such measure shall have ecrmomic allocatkn as its sole purpose." 

1.4Amend 16USCsec. 1851 (a)asfollc .... 

"(8) Conservation and management measures shall promote the safety of life at sea." 

2. Amend Findings 

Amend 16 USC sec. 1801 (a) as follows: 

"(9) Agenda 21 of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development 

provides conservation guidelines, principles, and commitments that should be respected in 

the management of the Nation's fishery resources. In particular. "sustainable use" should 

be regarded as the touchstone of the Nation's program of fishery conservation and 

management." 

"(I 0) The elaboration by the Cancun Conference on Responsible Fishing of important 

guidelines, principles and commitments reflected in Agenda 21 represents an important 

international achievement that should contribute to the Nation's program of fishery 

conservation and management. 

Note: These proposed amendments were prepared by the Alaska Crab Coalition 

and endorsed by the Fishing Vessel Owners Association and Deep Sea Fishermen's 

Union. 

89-569 96-10 
Febmary 28, 1995 

Honorable Jim Saxton, 

Otairman 

The Hoose Subcommittee on Fisheries. 

Wildlife and Oceans 

Washington. D.C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Chainnan: 

286 

It has come to our attention that. at the hearing before your subcommittc:e on February 

23rd, Mr. 'fom Casey presented a proposed amendment to the Magnuson Act concerning 

the appoinlments process for Council committees and advisory panels. We wish you til 

be aware of the fact we are the auth11rs of that proposal and we did n11t authorize Mr. 

Casey til present il We add that he did DOt present fully and fairty the l'ali.onale 

supporting the proposal. 

It is ~ill-too-obvious that Mr. (:asey presenll:d our proposal simply in an effort to advance 

his pCJlitical agenda by associating himself with a well<OOS.idered position j11intly 

developed by ~:rediblc organizations in the f!Shini industty. We have informed Mr. 

Casey ll)at we resent and protest his UDSeemly exploitetion of our organizalions. We 

have demanded that be desi.~t fr11m attemptin' to ass<K:late himself or Iris organization 

with Qur organizations and proposals. · 

Jolm M. Bruoe. Executive Director 

Deep Sea Fishermen's Union of the Pacific 

Anti 

~L~ Thomson, Executlve Director 

Alaska Crab Coalition 

cc: Members. Subcommitu:e on Fisheries, Wildlife and Clcean& 

Congressional Delegations of Alaslca. Oregoo and Wasllington 
287 

. PAGE 

Wednesday 

:86 

--

February 22, 1995 

Seattle Posl-lntelligencer 

It wasn't just 

the sea that 

killed them 

Themayday call eame on VHF. the radio of last resOrt Perhap:s a 

rogue ~ave broko out Lbe wheel~ 

hou!e wlndcrws. ~eNwm•ntud 

rio lime to liTfl hls Wlmc: or the nara4 ot hit crab boal 

Just the c-oordi- nates: a 1pot in the Beri.q. Sea north 

or liM> Pribilor !a- lands. 

Bruce 

Ramsay 

On Jan. 16, &he Northern MarlDer rolled over. AJJ six men aboard w~ 

killed. It was a d:ay for cautious sou Is t.o be 

in port. Wind5 tullcd up to 60 knoLS. But 200 boats braved the storm because it was th~ tint day of opilio crab sea,son. which lam only a month • 

.. Nobody'1 aoing to 5lt in the harbor wlu!!h. you oaly have a moath. .. sa.ya lOiS Yilnni11J, president ofth~ Alaska Crab Coalition and owner of the erab ~ab Gaprice, Ven;~li and l:ntnnc:e l?~inl. "In lhe first two weeks, tbree ~b were Jwt. ·That't more than 1 ~rtent or th~ neat." ~.._ Tomninc ulil:d t.o have anotherboal 

I~ Nettie K. But on Sepl 13, 111113, tile N)ttic H aent out a mayd•y just oublde False Pass In the AJeuUans. 

54iys the Coaat Guard's summary re-

})9rl: '"VesHJ missing, presumed sunk 

without trl(e: five persona on. bo~ 

DlJssln&." 

... :The: Jist or coast Guard reporu Is lOaded wtth such phra.~ .. VIctim dlfld afl.cr 10 minutes in W#ter .. . Enttre erew mlnlua; round sli~k and life raft .. . Fatal InJury from hoad ~inc erullh.cl by trawl door .. . Killed in flre on board vessel ... Lei tangled. In ancbor Une, pulled over- board . Crushed between ~rab pot lallnt'ht:r and rttl " 

:-:RSHJNC IS A killihg busiii~ Eighteen crewmea died ofT AJOQk:l in 

1~. 13 in 1994 and &e)'en a:o far thi! ye•r. According to a study !iJone by ltlehard Kennedy of the U.S. Public 

J!Calth Se"ice, the 1991-92 f:.t.alit;y rate in the Al:iilih fishing industry .was 2QO per 100.000 people, making it "(one than loatns (185). The hiBhest fatality rates were In halibut {305 per 100,0001 and orob (480~ Crab O.h!n~ in .f\lalb:, the report un. is "probablY tl(e riskiest industJy in the eountJ7." ~ : .. Bruce was ruUy a.ware of the 

rl*, .. t~:r.t ChrisUne Forde of her 

bUband, losl oa the NOrthern Mari- n:tr. "He thou&bt lbout it constantly. 'f.h•n bt loll Doe. 30, lie woke up both oui- d.auehtCT3 to bUI tbera Pd IQ 

ciQclbye. He loklllle It wu pal1icuiarJthard to- I~•Ye this .tlme. BKause ol 

the wu the rilk "'''- and even tbe fll1ng baek and forth. (It) make• you 

tltink more about life and its impor-

~~"or".!~d :.":/~! :.~::.·~:~ 

~~d~~~~s;;;~r~.:=:~d b~ ~ tOok saff!l.)t seriou:sly. He could don a •utvivel suit in lea than a mlnute. He tOok courses in Ore al &ea. He was a. tljined mtdlc. 

~:aUT ntr. RISK remain~d ·oDC 

ttililg Ut<~.t•_, -.ery attractive In fishing iA 

~~~~T:i~~~~!:l:~to~~v:~~ 

'2~~b::~:;l;;."fn':~:":::da oved simny day with a 1hiny bo.-t a..nd. a 

tanl<ful of fioh. " 

:. ·Yet. she U)'$, '11e cleacbnl his 

teeth • lot at nilhl"' 

Jo.s::~ :~ !r tl:w~::~:~~! she. 

!1,1l.em - the race for nsh.. · ~~:one w;.y to redure th~:se riaks is to guarantee: each boat a certain quota or f~Sb, whether they catch il today, 

tc)morrow or next. Tuuday. :; :Toda:r's 6Yt~m b a ne~t quota.. 

~placi"'' It with with iDdtriddal fiabhtc quotH, or IP'QI, would rediJ~ the pressure. 11ritisb CoJumbi• 'llf'ent wan 

JFQ a)'ltem an haJib\tt ft"Yeral ~rs 

:!~~of_blh:~ne:n~ffic:ials list safety ~ Tlw United Stata is toUowin& C\lit in halibut tmd black eOd. 1'he 1894 hili but season, tl•e lai1t w:ader a fleet 

qu<:~ta. waa two 24-hour. periods. One or them wu stormy, ~nd tive boal3 sank. One man died. Many were hurt. typtcally by puttinc; a hook through a ~ltd. 

~:THis Yblt. the halibut 1e~oo opens March 15 and wUJ stay open into 

~~b:~fis:::~ :r,f~ :t1~~: by ::;~;~ nJ~t.n~e;:~. ~~ :~~~:n ~aH:·s, the boat owner will have time 

ta lind somebody h~ knows rather than '0:00P the nrst one ofT the dock. 

~ lt wil1 ~the s.me old rul~ ln tho ofb:_er fishcria. 'lbe· kiJtt crab $e.a.son ...,..., only 11 days last Year, and i~ -. : UD.likeJy to be much Jonecr thils year: · 

,.:~;'R.Ightnow, you ao out," 1ays Ke~iti . n.&~deat.ad. who owned the Northern- ·-

Mat!Der. "You go with fi~e or fix C\0'5 :r ~~ ~~:~.they qol~ ihoy sot 

~:'With an 1JI'Q sysleln, he sayt, 

ef<!none will be ohle 14 slow down. ~:IFQs bave broad Jupport in the 

dill> •J¥1 «rnundn•h n ... ~ but ba ... ~ dela,yed beeauoe or rivwlrle• over ~-Initial deakJut or t.barn. Should . JQb.lttme flshennea cet more lhares ~ newcotnen! ADd liboWd protes· '~ll' ,et a -..re. too! 

,.~~t~~=~ ~'~.r:l~:~~~~~~· sUpported JfQs. &o doee his widow. 

~stJne. 

-Bruce Aameey ~ a P·l bustn9ss ~ teporter and cofunnist. His column ! ~s Wednesday. 

** TOTAL PAG E. 0 06 ~* 
288 

STATEMENT OF TROUT UNLIMITED ON REAUTHORIZATION OF THE 

MAGNUSON FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT 

Thank you for this opportunity to submit written testimony regarding 

reauthorization of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson Act). Trout Unlimited (TU) is the nation's leading salmon and 

trout conservation group, with over 75,000 conservation-minded anglers in 

our 450 chapters nationwide. 

The fisheries regulated under the Magnuson Act are of great concern to 

our members. The magnificent anadromous fish of Alaska, New England 

and the Pacific Northwest -- Atlantic and Pacific salmon, steelhead, and sea .. 

run trout -- provide recreation, but more than that, they are a resource into 

which TU members have invested countless hours of volunteer labor. Everv 

year, TU's members in the salmon-producing staks, backed by their fellow ' 

conservationists nationwide, contribute innumerable days of hands-on work 

restoring spawning !•!reams, working side-by-side with landowners to protect 

fragile habitat, and educating future generations about the value of an 

irreplaceable resource. 

A very specia:. part of our national heritage is being lost as salmon 

stocks continue to dt!cline. Last year, populations had declined so far that 

salmon fisheries had to be shut down entirely for much of the Pacific 

Northwest. Four Pacific salmon stocks are federally listed as endangered. 

Other runs of both Pacific and Atlantic salmon may soon be listed as well. 

That salmon stocks have collapsed on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts is 

nothing short of a tragedy to the over 10 million Americans who fish for 

trout and salmon. Our fisheries management system has broken down, and 

Congress should take advantage of this opportunity to repair it. 

H.R. 39 would make much-needed improvements in the Magnuson 

Act. However, there are several places where the bill should be strengthened 

to solidify the move towards sustainable fisheries. TU's greatest concerns for 

salmon fisheries lie in three major areas: preventing overfishing and 

rebuilding overfished stocks, conserving important fisheries habitats, and 

reducing by catch. 

Overfishing 

No lasting so:lution to the crisis confronting Atlantic and Pacific 

salmon is possible without sensible harvest management. On both coasts, 
289 

there are many cooperative efforts underway to conserve those salmon stocks 

that remain relatively healthy and to recover those that have been damaged. 

These efforts will go for naught if there are not reasonable measures in place 

to ensure that harvest does not exceed sustainable levels. 

H.R. 39 takes several important steps in addressing overfishing: adding 

a definition of overfishing and requiring specific definitions in all fishery 

management plans; requiring rebuilding programs for fisheries that are 

overfished; and requiring the Secretary of Commerce to take action if a 

Council fails to address overfishing within one year. These provisions would 

benefit from greater specificity in regard to time frames (1) for rebuilding 

programs, and (2) for Secretarial action when a Council fails to address 

overfishing. 

H.R. 39 would also be improved by adding proactive measures 

designed to identify fisheries that are approaching an overfished condition, 

and requiring a Council (or the Secretary, if the Council fails to act) to develop 

plan amendments to prevent overfishing in those fisheries. TU believes it is 

far preferable -- and less painful for all involved -- to avoid overfishing in the 

first place than to rebuild a fishery after it has been overfished. 

While H.R. 39 addresses several critical issues on overfishing, it fails to 

get at the central problem: the definition of optimum yield. So long as 

economic and social factors can be used to justify catch levels greater than 

maximum sustainable yield, Councils will face great pressure from anglers to 

set optimum yield at levels above what the fishery can sustain. The 

definition of optimum yield should be amended to place a cap at maximum 

sustainable yield. 

Habitat conservation 

Nothing is more critical to rebuilding salmon stocks on both coasts 

than conservation of fisheries habitat. Without action to address habitat 

concerns, all the fishery management efforts we can muster will be too little 

to recover Atlantic and Pacific salmon. The Magnuson Act offers an 

important opportunity to encourage habitat conservation before fisheries 

reach a crisis state. It would focus habitat efforts on maintaining healthy 

stocks, providing a proactive avenue for anglers to pursue habitat 

conservation -- before the Endangered Species Act takes over and 

compromise become more difficult and problems more intractable. If anglers 

are given a voice on habitat conservation under the Magnuson Act, we may 

be able to develop solutions and avoid conflicts like those that have 

developed on the Columbia River and other areas of the Northwest. 

Habitat conservation is an issue that unites conservationists, 

recreational anglers, and fishing communities. Building on that common 

2 
290 

ground, a collection of fisheries professionals, recreational anglers, 

commercial fishing representatives, and conservationists has worked to 

develop a legislative proposal that would improve fish habitat conservation. 

TU strongly supports this proposal, which would build on the habitat 

provisions of H.R. 39 by: 

• Defining "essential fish habitat" in a manner similar to, but slightly 

narrower than, H.R. 39. 

• Utilize the expertise and resources of the National Marine Fisheries 

Service to assist th~ Councils by providing recommendations for the 

identification and conservation of fish habitat in specific fishery 

management plan:;. 

• Maintain a strong role for Councils by requiring in each fishery 

management plan the identification of: (1) essential fish habitat, and (2) 

appropriate action~; to conserve that habitat. Those Councils with greater 

interest and resour ces invested in habitat could take a very active role, 

other Councils could rely on the NMFS recommendations. 

" Create an effective process for interagency consultation on federal actions 

that effect designated fish habitat. 

This proposal would provide anglers with a much-needed voice on habitat 

issues. Commercial and recreational anglers are the people who suffer when 

federal activities harm important fish habitats; TU believes it is only 

reasonable that they (through NMFS) should have a sea t at the table when 

those activities are considered. A copy of the proposal has been included with 

this statement. 

Bycatch reduction 

TU is very concerned over the impacts of the incidental catch of 

salmon (and forage species for salmon) in other fisheries. We were 

encouraged by the strong provisions in H.R. 39 directed at byca tch concerns. 

Specifically, TU was pleased to see a definition included for bycatch (as well as 

for economic and regulatory discards), a national standard for bycatch 

minimization, and the requirement for bycatch minimization measures i.n 

fishe ry management plans. While we are generally pleased with the 

direction H.R. 39 sets with regard to bycatch reduction, TU believes some 

changes and clarifications would strengthen the bill. First, rather than calling 

for a reduction in mortality, H.R. 39 should focus on reducing the catch of 

economic and regula tory discards. Because mortality estimates are far from 

precise, including a mortality standard will serve as an open invitation for 

lawsuits. Secondly, the definitions of bycatch and regulatory discards should 

be clarified to exclude recreational catch and release fishing. Recreational 

3 
291 

anglers who, as a matter of conscience, return their catch to the water should 

not be discouraged in their conservation efforts. Definitions should be crafted 

carefully to avoid any unintended effects on this widely-supported practice. 

Any bycatch reduction efforts must be built on sound scientific 

information. Unfortunately, we know far too little about the amount and 

impacts of bycatch in many parts of the country, including salmon bycatch in 

the Pacific Northwest. Improving the information on which management 

efforts can be built will require better observer coverage, which in turn 

depends upon funding. TU believes councils should be authorized to collect 

reasonable fees from participants in a fishery to fund appropriate observer 

programs. just as recreational anglers pay their way in recreational fishery 

management (through license fees and excise taxes under the Sport Fish 

Restoration Program), we believe it is reasonable that commercial anglers 

should contribute financially to the management of fishery resources. At a 

minimum, the authority to collect fees for an observer program should be 

extended to include the Pacific Council as well as the North Pacific CounciL 

This would be a vital step in empowering the Councils to manage fisheries 

more effectively. 

Trout Unlimited appreciates this opportunity to comment. We look 

forward to working with the members of this Subcommittee to develop a 

Magnuson Act reauthorization that will help secure a future for salmon 

fisheries on both coasts. 

4 
292 

SEC. 102. FINDINGS, PURPOSE AND POLICY 

Section 2 (16 U.S.C 1801) is amended--

by adding at the end of subsection (a) the following: 

(9) One of the grea test long-term threats to the conservation of 

commercial and recreational fisheries is the continuing loss of marine, 

estuarine and riverine habitats on a national level. Habitat conservation 

must receive increased attention in the management of fishery resources of 

the United States. 

SEC. 103. DEFINITIONS 

Section 3 (16 U.S.C. 1802) is amended --

by inserting after paragraph (5) the following: 

(6) The term "essential fish habitat" means any waters necessary to fish 

for spawning, breeding or growth to maturity. 

SEC. 111. FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLANS. 

Section 303(a) (16 U.S.C. 1853 (a)) is amended--

by inse1ting in paragraph (2) after "location" the following: 

"its essential fish habitat," 

by striking paragraph (7) and inserting the following: 

(7) include a description of the significant threats to the conservation of 

the essential fish habitat of the fishery, and the actions which should be 

considered to encourage the conservation and enhancement of such habitat. 

SEC. 304. ACTION BY THE SECRETARY. 

Section 304 (16 U.S. C. 1854) is amended--

by adding at the end the following: 

(h) Habitat Conservation. 

(1) The Secretary shall, within one year of the date of enactment of this 

Act, establish guido?lines to assist the Councils in the identification of 

essential fish habit.~ts in fishery management plans (including the 

significant threats to such habitats, and the actions which should be 
293 

considered to ensure the conservation and enhancement of such 

habitats) and set forth a schedule for the amendment of fishery 

management plans to include the identification of essential fish 

habitats. 

(2) The Secretary shall provide each council with recommendations 

and information regarding each fishery under its jurisdiction to assist it 

in the identification of essential fish habitat, the significant threats to 

such habitat, and the actions that should be considered to ensure the 

conservation and enhancement of such habitat. 

(3) The Secretary shall review other programs administered by the 

Department, and shall utiUze such programs in furtherance of the 

conservation and enhancement of essential fish habitat identified 

under this Act. The Secretary shall assist federal agencies in carrying 

out their duties under this subsection. 

(4) Each federal agency shall first consult with the Secretary with respect 

to any prospective action authorized, funded or carried out by such 

agency that may adversely affect any essential fish habitat identified 

under this Act. 

(5) If the Secretary finds that an action authorized, funded or carried 

out by a federal agency would adversely affect essential fish habitat 

identified under this Act, the Secretary shall recommend to such 

agency measures that can be taken by such agency to conserve such 

habitat. 

(6) If, after consultation with the Secretary, an agency does not adopt a 

recommendation of the Secretary under paragraph (5), prior to 

undertaking the action it shall make a finding (together with a written 

statement of the basis for such finding) that adoption of such 

recommendation is inconsistent with other applicable law and that the 

action of the agency is consistent with the conservation of such habitat. 
294 

Unalaska Native Fishennan Association 

P.O. Box 591, Unalaska, Alaska 99685 Phone: (907) 581-3474 CFISHJ Fax: (907) 581-3644 

February 23, 1995 

U. S House of Representatives 

Committee on Resources 

RE Testimony on the Reauthorization of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act 

The Unalaska Native Fisherman Association is an organization of commercial fishermen. 

subsistence fishermen and sea mammal users living in Unalaska. in the Aleutian Islands 

Approximately one half of our membership is Native American, predominantly Aleut 

Needless to say, we are very concerned about the future of the fisheries in our area. Our 

community, like others in the Aleutian Islands has a history of dependance on the sea that 

stretches back for over 7,000 years. Wasteful industrial fishing practices and a rush to claim 

ownership of the marine resources by large corporate interests threaten to bring this tradition tc 

an end. That would be devastating to the communities and culture of our area., and we look ro 

you folks to ensure that it doesn't happen 

To that end, we believe that wherever possible in H-39 language should be included dictating that 

economic concerns take a back sear to conservation. The best way this could be done is by redefining optimum yield in the most conservative terms possible. 

We also believe very strongly in the idea of providing incentives to fishermen who operate in a 

clean and selective manner. Mechanisms such as the Harvest Priority concept should be provided 

to work within gear types or - when necessary- allocation decisions should be made between gear 

types Out here we've noticed a reluctance on the pan of the National Marine Fisheries Service 

bureaucracy to deal with such concepts This intransigence must be overcome with a clear 

message form Congress We in the Aleutians aren't afraid to deal with the idea of allocation. If 

people can't clean up their act within gear types, then we should stmply require the use of more 

selective practices 

In line with this, we are firmly opposed to the issuance of exclusive fishing rights (such as ITQ's) 

to folks who have built their track records on a decade of filthy fishing It is infuriating to us that 

both our marine resources and the coastal communities that depend on them should suffer for 

mistakes made in board rooms thousands of miles away It would be a travesty for our nation at 

this point to give away our common resource so that some corporate interests can bail themselves 
295 

out of their self-induced problems of over -capitalization_ Like one fellow said "1'\ obody forced 

those hogs up to the trough." 

We are somewhat reassured by provisions in the Senate Bill 39 establishing the parameters of any 

eventual limitation of access, with specific provisions for entry-level and small-boat fishermen In 

most of the current access - limiting proposals. industry (with a big "I") has been allowed to select 

the slice of history that would determine eligibility for future participation in the fisheries. This 

slice was- of course - a time often-cent codfish and massive industrial trawling 7,000 year> of 

local participation would therefore be ignored in order to satisfY immediate corporate concerns_ 

This is an affront to the residents of coastal Alaska Many of the elders from our towns 

remember jigging cod from dories to deliver to one of the 171ocal :;alteries in the Aleutians _ All 

this was long before Taiyo Fisheries, Tyson Seafoods, or a trawl of any flavor had ever been seen 

on the Bering Sea. 

To that end, we believe this bill should prohibit the imposition of any form of access limitation 

until--

--The fisheries are cleaned up. thereby rewarding only the responsible stewards of 

the public resource. 

--Strictures are provided similar to those in Senate Bill 39 provicling for entry level 

local fishermen - With a particular eye towards promoting cleaner gear types such 

as jigging or pot fishing. 

The Unalaska Native Fisherman Association is heartened by the House Bill's recognition of the 

role that coastal communities should hold in the formulation of fisheries policy. We feel that the 

definition of a "fishery dependent comrnuniry" in terms of social as well as economic needs 

precludes limiting application of the concept solely towards addressing CDQ or on-shore 

processor concerns. A fishery-dependent community is just that - a community. 

With that in mind, we favor the addition to H-39 of a national standard similar to that proposed tn 

SB-39 regarding fishery-dependent communities. We would also prefer to see very specific 

language guaranteeing a portion of the total allowable catch for such communities to be used for 

entry-level and small-boat fisheries employing clean gear types. 

We of the Unalaska Native fisherman Association appreciate this opportunity to bend your ears, 

and we ask you to remember that long after the corporate giants of whatever stripe have moved 

elsewhere, our folks will still be here li,ing by the shore -- hopefully still feeding our families !Tom 

the sea. 

Sincerely, 

Bob Storrs 

Vice-President 
296 

To: The Members of the Resources Committee 

From : Capt. R. Barry Fisher, President, Yankee Fisheries 

Gerald B. Leape, Legislative Director, Greenpeace 

Cristina Mormorunni, Ocean Ecology Campaigner, Greenpeace 

Re: Reauthorization of the MFCMA 

Date: February 23, 1995 

To follow is a position statement written jointly by Greenpeace 

and Capt. ~. Barry Fisher, President of Yankee Fisheries. This 

document should serve to underscore areas of mutual concern with 

regard to the reauthorization of the Magnuson Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act. This statement by no means fully defines either party's position on fisheries reform. The 

objectives lai d out below are simply illustrative of a common 

recognition of the problems plaguing existing systems of 

fisheries management and are indicative of shared commitment to 

work to resolve said problems. Both parties feel that these 

issues must be addressed if the goal of sustainable systems of 

fisheries management is to be realized. 

COMMON OBJECTI VES FOR THE REAUTHORIZATION OF THE MAGNUSON FISHERY 

CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT. 

BY CATCH 

* Immediate efforts must be made to dramatically and steadily 

reduce bycatc h levels in all marine fisherie s . 

* A multi-faceted strategy must be utilized in order to carry out necessary reductions in bycatch levels. Funds shall be 

specificallJ ear-marked within the NMFS budget to carry out these 

objectives. This strategy should one, call upon NMFS to build a 

framework for data collection and analysis -- a centralized data 

base which would identify fisheries with bycatch problems. •rhis new information should be quickly assessed, analyzed, and used to 

improve not only the knowledge of fisheries but also increase awareness of which fisheries have contributed most significantly 

to the bycatc h problem. Two, for fisheries where the bycatch 

rate is known, fishery management councils must set acceptable 

bycatch levels and an i ndividual vessel accountability program 

established; vessels that exceed the established rate shall be 

penalized through fishing time restrictions. Three, a harvest 

preference strategy must be employed whereby cleaner fishermen 

are rewarded through preference in allocation decisions. 

1436 U Street NW • Wash1ngton, DC 20009 • Tel (202) 462-11 77 • Fax (202) 462-4507 • Tlx 89-2359 

Argentina • Australia • Austria • Belgium • Braz~ • Canada • Chile • Czech Republic • Denmark • Finland • France • Germany • Greece • Guatemala • Ireland • naly 

Japan • Luxembourg • Mexrn •T;-.e Ne!herlands • New Zeaiand • Norway • Russ~a • Spatn • Sweden • S'Nitzer1and • Tunisia • Ukta1ne • Umted Kingdom • USA 

Printed on Chklrine-!ree. Rocyded Paper usmg Non-heavy Metal-based Soy Inks 
297 

* NMFS should continue to use observers to collect fisheries data 

rather than placing observers in enforcement roles. Furthermore, 

observer data should be utilized to determine whethe r or not a 

fishermen is fishing cleanly and warrants harvest preference in 

alloca tion decisions. Said determination should be based on 

strict criteria developed by regional fishery management 

Councils. 

* Regional councils shall specify allowable gears for each 

fishery under their jurisdiction and include testing mechanisms, 

based on strict ecologically sound criteria, for any new gears 

that want to enter into a fishery. 

* New gears and methods that reduce bycatch and h a bitat 

degradation should be developed through an enhanced, better 

funded, federal research program done in complete cooperation, 

from the start, with fishermen in the fishery targeted. Rather 

than channeling these monies through the National Marine 

Fisheries Service Federal funds should be allocated to and 

directed through multiple agenci e s such as state Fis h and Game 

Departments, Sea Grant, as well as regional agenc i e s such as the 

Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. 

USER FEES 

* User fees under the Magnuson Act should be collected in an 

equitable fashion everyone paying their fair share. These funds 

should be earmarked specifically for carrying out the costs of 

fisheries management. 

* User fees should n o t be administe red by the Federa l Government. 

They should be collected , if authorized, by the region and put 

back into the region in the form of paying the costs of: 

observers collecting data, the resources needed for analysis of 

these data, and fisheries research required in orde r to carry out 

the effective management of marine fisheries. 

STOCK ASSESSMENTS 

* Effectively managing fis h populations whose status is not known 

is an impossibility. The ne ed to rapidly assess these fisheries 

population levels i s an urge nt one . Congress must d i rect the 

NMFS to assess the s tatus of fis h populations, both commercial 

and noncommercial, and deve lop a strict timetable for doing so. 

* Stock assessments must evaluate the status of fish populations 

within the context of the broader ecological health of the marine 

ecosystem and its component parts. Knowledge of ecosystem 

functioning must drive the development of new fishery management 

systems. 

* Greater use should be made of f ishermen in fishing boats to 

collect data on status of stocks. 
298 

* Consider the idea of allowing fishermen who meet certain 

criteria, i.e. are to maintain low levels of bycatch, to 

participate in the collection of data, keep any fish or a percentage of the fish that they catch as a direct result of this 

effort, not counting it against their quota. 

HABITAT PROTECTION 

* Councils must declare what essential fish habitat is for 

fisheries under their jurisdiction and NMFS should be given 

Veto authority over federal projects that might impact 

essential fish habitat. 

COUNCILS 

* Council members should be subject to the same federal 

financial conflict of interest laws that apply to all other 

full or part time federal employees. 

* The voice of non-industry, i.e knowledgeable consumers, 

academicians, Native Americans and conservationists, on regional 

fishery management Councils must be strengthened. 

* Where not currently being done, fishery management councils 

should be required to direct the NMFS to define overfishing for 

fisheries under their jurisdiction and to develop plans to 

rebuild fish stocks if depleted. 

FUNDING 

• Presently, effective fisheries management is hindered by a general lack of funding. Increased monies must be allocated to 

the councils and the NMFS in order to address the research, 

monitoring, management, and enforcement needs associated with 

sustainable fisheries management. 
299 

STATEMENT OF GREENPEACE 

AT THE HEARING ON H.R. 39, 

A BILL TO REAUTHORIZE 

THE MAGNUSON FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1976 

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS 

OF THE RESOURCES COMMITTEE 

OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 23, 1995 

1436 U Street, NW • Washington, DC 20009 • Tel (202) 462-11 n • Fax (202) 462-4507 • Tlx 89-2359 

Argentina • Australia • Austria • Belgium • Brazil• Canada • Chile • Czech Republic • Denmark • Finland • France • Germany • Greece • Guatemala •Ireland • Italy 

Japan • Luxerrtx>urg • Mexico •The Nether1ands • New Zealand • Norway • Russia • SpaHl • Sweden • Switzerland • Tunisia • Ukraine • United Kilgdom • USA 

Pmted on Chlorine·free, Recycled Paper usfig NoM-.eavy Metal-based Soy Inks 
300 

on behalf of the 1.5 million supporters of Greenpeace in the 

United States, I want to thank you for the opportunity to submit 

our views on the reauthorization of the Magnuson Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (Magnuson Act) . We are 

pleased to see that the Magnuson Act reauthorization is a top 

priority for this committee and urge you not only to continue on 

your expedited schedule but to make the necessary changes to 

ensure that further overfishing is prevented, overfished fish 

stocks are rebuilt, bycatch is reduced and privatization through 

individual transferable quotas (ITQs) is not authorized. 

Greenpeace has worked with members of this subcommittee for 

many years in the battle to ban large-scale high seas driftnets 

that were being used by fishing fleets from Japan, Taiwan, south 

Korea, France and Italy. It was the continual passage of 

progressively restrictive legislation, by the former Merchant 

Marine and Fisheries Committee, that put the United States in a 

position of leadership in the fight to ban this indiscriminate 

gear. The commitment of this body toward ending the use of this 

devastating gear successfully culminated in the passage of the 

United Nations resolution calling for the current moratorium on 

their use on the high seas. 

We are happy to report that two years after the moratorium 

was put in place, the North Pacific seems to be free of 

the large-scale driftnet fleet that once numbered more than 550 

boats and used 20,000 kilometers of fishing net every day. The 

news from the Mediterranean is not quite as good. 

The 600 boats using large scale high seas driftnets from 

Italy continued to fish in 1993-1994. Dismissing the law passed 

by this body, the Administration refused to certify Italy as a 

driftnetting country even though the government sanctioned this 

continued fishing. In the late fall, there was a glimmer of hope 

as the Italian government, responding to pressure from other 

European governments, began a program to buy back these driftnet 

boats. We are hopeful that this program can serve to rid the 

high seas of the last significant driftnet fleet. 

GREENPEACE'S FISHERIES CAMPAIGN 

By 1966, it became clear, that as an organization, Greenpeace 

needed to become involved in fisheries management on a broader 

scale. We recognized, at that time, the tremendous potential to 

work with sectors of the industry that shared our common goal of 

having fish around for future generations. We believed that 

continued overfishing (the catching of more fish than can 

naturally be replaced) and increasing bycatch levels (the 

catch of non target species) were two of the biggest obstacles to 

sustainable fisheries management. Therefore prevention of 

overfishing, the rebuilding of overfished fish stocks and the 

reduction of bycatch became our top priorities. 
301 

To achieve those goals, the organization began working to reform 

the New Zealand fisheries policy, the Common Fisheries Policy in 

the European Community and the Magnuson Act during its 

reauthorization of 1989-1990. 

Additionally, we undertook work at the United Nations, ICCAT 

and the IATTC to address fisheries in international fora as well. 

Currently, we are working within the framework of the United 

Nations Conference on Highly Migratory Species and Straddling 

Stocks. 

In 1992, after unsuccessfully attempting to amend the Magnuson 

Act in 1990, Greenpeace helped form the Marine Fish 

Conservation Network. This unprecedented network of 80 

environmental and commercial, recreational and sport fishing 

groups united around a common agenda for changing U.S. fisheries 

management. 

In 1994, the Network drafted a comprehensive package of 

amendments that were embodied in H.R. 4404 introduced by 

Congressman Wayne Gilchrest. This package, which included 

amendments on overfishing, bycatch, habitat protection, council 

reform, protection of large pelagics and enhancement of 

enforcement and monitoring, was cosponsored by 90 members of the 

House (45 Republicans and 45 Democrats). We encourage the 

committee to take a close look at these amendments, and urge 

you to incorporate these changes into the final committee bill. 

For Greenpeace, our priorities remain preventing overfishing, 

rebuilding depleted fish populations and reducing bycatch. We 

also urge the committee to hold the line against authorizing ITQ 

schemes. 

THE NEED FOR A CONSERVATION-ORIENTED ACT 

Since the passage of the Magnuson Act in 1976, U.S. fisheries 

have experienced a major transformation. Nineteen years ago, the 

fisheries along U.S. shores were being exploited primarily by 

foreign fleets. Today, the "Americanization" of U.S. fisheries -

a primary objective of the Magnuson Act - has been achieved. 

However, the success of Americanization and the development c .f '·' 

the U.S . commercial fleet has brought new challenges. Instead 

of competing with foreign fishing fleets plying off the coasts, 

U.S. fishermen are now competing with each other. The familiar 

cry of overfishing and concerns about excess capacity and 

destructive and wasteful fishing, are now being said by U.S. 

fishermen about u.s. fishermen . 

As the Magnuson Act allowed for the rapid economic development of 

the U.S . fishing industry, conservation issues were put to the 

wayside . The result is clear. The problems facing our national 

marine fisheries are more severe today than during the tumultuous 
302 

years prior to the Magnuson Act, and the status of fisheries in 

this country has worsened. In 1972, it was determined that 39 

stocks were over-utilized. Today, the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) believes that 64 of 153, or roughly 43%, of the 

known managed fish stocks are over-utilized. An additional 25% 

of the known stocks are considered to be fully-utilized. 

Now that most major fish stocks in the United States are either 

fully or over- exploited, policies that once promoted the growth 

of the U.S. fishing industry must be replaced by policies to 

contain the capacity of modern fishing technology and conserve 

fishery resources. Consideration must be given to the effects of 

fishery removals on the future viability of the fisheries and of 

the marine ecosystem as a whole . 

As we have recently witnessed in New England, there are both 

strong economic as well as environmental arguments for taking 

this approach . If not apparent before, New England has 

demonstrated that the health a nd survival of the fishing industry 

and fishing communities depends on the long-term sustainability 

of fish stocks. 

RESOLVING THE BYCATCH PROBLEM 

Bycatch is the general term us ed to describe the catch of 

unwanted fish and other marine species taken during fishing 

operations. Typically bycatc h is discarded overboard dead or 

dying. Due largely to unselective fishing practices, vast 

quantities of fish are caught and wasted each year. The reason 

fish are wasted is because they are the wrong sex, the wrong 

size, or the wrong species for the target fishery. The level of 

bycatch is different from fishery to fishery, from gear type to 

gear type and even from vessel to vessel. In most fisheries, 

bycatch is unwanted and d i scarded due to regulation or because of 

low economic value. It is important to understand, however, that 

one vessel ' s bycatch may be another vessel's target catch. 

Many of our nation's fisheries are allowed to continue 

irrespective of the wasteful manner in which they are prosecuted. 

For example, in 1993, in the groundfish fisheries of the North 

Pacific, over 740 million pounds of fish were discarded. 

Approximately 76% of this figure was contributed by the factory 

trawler sector alone. In our v iew, bycatch may be one of the 

single greatest threats to the long-term viability of our fish 

populations. Yet, the Magnuson Act is silent on bycatch. 

Therefore, we urge Congress to amend the law not only to include 

a new national standard to reduce bycatch in all fisheries, but 

to tighten requirements under the fishery management plans to 

ensure that bycatch reduction programs are established, and the 

goal of reducing bycatch is a c hieved. 
303 

To this end, conservation and management measures in fishery 

management plans should focus on preventing bycatch. 

Furthermore, programs to address bycatch should work towards 

reducing all bycatch, not just the bycatch of regulated and 

commercially-valuable fish. currently, in both bills before 

Congress in 1995, H.R. 39 and s. 39, only species which are 

managed under a fishery management plan would be fully addressed 

by measures to reduce bycatch. Under this scenario, numerous 

species which are caught as bycatch and are not subject to 

fishery management plans would not be afforded adequate 

conservation and management under the Act. There is little or no 

data presently of the impact that this type of bycatch would have 

on these stocks or the ecosystem of which they are a part. 

In addition, Greenpeace does not believe that programs to utilize 

bycatch are solutions to the problem. Known collectively as full 

utilization, such programs will not reduce bycatch, but instead 

sidestep the issue, by promoting the creation of and markets for 

low-value products such as fish meal. 

Greater consideration should be given to programs which seek to 

avoid the catch of unwanted fish in the first place. Efforts 

must be made in the area of gear selectivity in order to improve 

the types of fishing gear used as well as fishing methods. We 

support the development of a harvest priority system which would 

provide incentives to promote clean fishing. As an example, 

fishermen agree collectively on a bycatch rate. Those who fish 

cleanly would be rewarded with an extra fishing season, or 

perhaps an extra allotment of fish. Those fishermen who did not 

fish cleanly would be penalized by not receiving this additional 

opportunity to fish. The intended goal is .to provide a system 

whereby fishermen design a better way to fish, improving the 

selectivity of gear to catch the target species and avoid the 

non-target species. 

THE NEED TO PREVENT OVERFISHING 

One of the primary goals of the Magnuson Act, as originally 

authorized, was to halt the overfishing of U.S. fish stocks. As 

noted above, the law, to date, has largely failed in this regard. 

In fact, as written, the law does not prevent overfishing. 

A critical problem affecting conservation of fish resources is 

that fish stocks are currently managed to provide 'optimum 

yield'. Optimum yield is defined with an emphasis on economic 

benefits to the nation which often results in catch levels being 

set higher than maximum sustainable yield (MSY) . Due to the 

uncertainty of fisheries science, the level of overfishing for 

many fish stocks is also not known. Therefore, we believe that 

the definition of optimum yield should be changed to allow for a 

greater conservation buffer in the face of uncertainty. 
304 

Moreover, the concept of MSY assumes that each fish stock behaves 

independent of other f:lsh stocks and other species in the marine 

ecosyste~m. Recently, Bcientists have begun to focus on the 

importance of better understanding marine ecosystem dynamics in 

order to more effectively conserve fish stocks. Toward this 

goal, Greenpeace believes that efforts should be made to move 

away from single-species fisheries management and instead focus 

on a more holistic ecoBystem approach. 

Finally,. the yield of a fishery must be defined in terms of longterm sustainability. Since marine ecosystems are dynamic and 

fish populations are subject to natural fluctuations, in thE! face 

of scientific uncertainty, fisheries management must err on the 

side of conservation when determining levels of fishery removals. 

Greenpeace supports language in the Magnuson Act which would 

define optimum yield as follows: 

ThE! term optimum, with respect to yield from a fishery, 

means the amount of fish--

A) which would provide the greatest overall benefit to the 

Nation, with particular reference to food production and 

recreational opportuni1:ies, and taking into account the 

protection of marine ecosyBtems; 

B) which is prescribed as such on the basis of the 

sustaimtble yield from such a fishery, as lowered by any relevant 

economic, social or ecological factor; 

C) provides for re~building of depleted and overfished 

fishery resources to a level consistent with providing 

sustainable yield. 

LIMITING ACCESS IN OUR NATIONAL FISHERIES 

The majority of fisher:ces managed in federal waters are conducted 

under what is termed "open access" systems. Under open access, 

any vessel may participate in any fishery as long as the vessel 

has a valid fishing permit. In concept, open access was 

completely compatible >lith the desire to Americanize U.S. 

fisheries and develop a globally-competitive fishing fleet. 

However, as there is no limit to the number of participants in a 

fishery, open access has resulted in overcapitalized fisheries 

and competition between vessels, racing to catch as much fish as 

possible. This system has also exacerbated overfishing and 

increasE!d bycatch and Haste. 

Presently, the debate on open versus limited access is focussed 

on a hi9hly controvers:"al management scheme known as individual 

transferable quotas (ITQS). Under an ITQ system, each vessel 

owner would be permanently granted a percentage share of the 
305 

fishery's overall annual quota. Quota shares would be based on 

the vessel's catch history for a given time period, and once 

allocated, could be bought, sold or otherwise traded. The only 

way for new participants to enter would be through the purchase 

or rental of existing quota shares. 

In order to understand the current pressure that is being exerted 

to legislate ITQs during this current Magnuson Act 

reauthorization, it is important to understand the history that 

brought us to this point. 

In the mid-1980s, a joint industry-government task force was 

convened to develop a plan for the future of groundfish in the 

North Pacific. Their report, issued in 1988, recommended among 

other things that entry in the fishery be limited. However, with 

numerous new vessels under construction, the North Pacific 

council was unwilling to recommend cut-off dates for entry, and 

no sector or individual was willing to limit its own 

participation. 

As a result, between 1986-1992, the number of 200-400 foot 

factory trawlers increased from 12 to over 60. Many of these 

vessels came on-line after the report was issued. These boats 

were built on the basis of a ten month fishing season, but in 

1995 will fish barely two months. This part of the fishing 

industry, the main proponents of ITQs, is failing financially. 

Therefore, having failed to convince the North Pacific council to 

bail them through an ITQ program for North Pacific groundfish, 

the factory trawlers have set their sights on Congress. 

While Greenpeace recognizes that there may be a need to limit 

access in certain fisheries in order to improve conservation and 

management, it must be also be accompanied by a reduction in 

fishing effort. While ITQs may reduce overcapitalization, they 

do nothing to reduce fishing effort. Whether its the enforcement 

nightmare facing the North Pacific Halibut-Sablefish ITQ program 

or the depletion of the New Zealand Orange Roughy stock which has 

become depleted since the fishery went ITQ in 1983, it is clear 

that ITQ programs carry with them heavy ecological, social and 

economic costs. The problems existing in these ITQ programs prove 

that: 

ITQs will not achieve conservation of fish stockci, or 

maintain the role of the small-scale fishermen and the coastal 

communities dependent on them. 

ITQs will not address the environmental impacts of wasteful 

fishing practices, specifically the problems of bycatch and 

discards. To the contrary, ITQs will reward those who fished 

least conservatively with the largest quota share. The fact that 

ITQs will provide a greater incentive to discard fish which are 

not the right size, sex or quality desirable for maximum 

profitability, will further exacerbate this problem. 
306 

ITQs will concentrate fishery resources into the hands of 

large corporations which can afford to buy up quota shares. This 

process will force individual fishermen out of business, and 

threaten community-linked fishing operations. 

ITQs will, in most cases, be granted only to vessel owners, 

not captains or crew members. 

Estimated costs of monitoring and enforcing an ITQ program are two to three times greater than costs under present fishery 

management systems. With the longer fishing seasons, the 

opportunities for high grading and poaching will increase further 

exacerbating the problems of overfishing . 

Finally, ITQs will fundamentally change the nature of fishery resources. ITQs will take what is presently a resource belonging 

to all U.S. citizens and transform it into private property that 

belongs to only a few select individuals or corporations. Once 

the Nation's fisheries are privatized, fishing will no longer be a privilege--the fish will become private property and fishing a property right. 

In order to improve marine resource management in the United 

States, numerous changes must be made in the status quo. 

Economic efficiency can no longer be the impetus for improving 

the status of fisheries . 

CONCLUSION 

In 1975, when the u.s. fishing industry came to Congress asking 

for an end to overfishing by foreign industrial fishing fleets 

off the coasts of New England, congress rose to the challenge 

with the passage of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act of 1976 which did, among other things, end FOREIGN 

overfishing. In 1995, with the closure of Georges Bank in New 

England , the Red King Crab Fishery in Alaska and declining 

catches around our coasts, u.s. fisheries are once again in a state of crisis. If the u.s. fishing industry is to survivE!, 

congress must enact the comprehensive reforms that will change 

the Magnuson Act from :its current role of development of US 

fisheries to one of long-term sustainability. 
307 

AMERICA\ EJ\CTOHY 

TRA\vLER 

_____ ASSOCIATION * ____ _ 

The Honorable Don Young 

Chairman 

House Committee on Resources 

February 28, 1995 

1324 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, DC 2051581 

Dear Mr. Chairman : 

The American Factory Trawler Association (AFTA) submits the 

following comments on H.R. 39 , the Fishery Conservation and 

Management Amendments of 1995. We appreciate the Committee's 

consideration of our views, and we look forward to working with 

the Committee as it crafts a Magnuson Act reauthorization bill 

for consideration by the Hous e. 

Bycatch and Discards in U.S. Fisheries 

H. R. 39 contains a number of important provisions relating 

to the reduction in waste in U.S. fisheries, with particular 

emphasis on the North Pacific fisheries. Perhaps the centerpiece 

of the bil l's provisions is the d efinition of the term "bycatch ." 

As defined, "bycatch" means fish that is discarded, either 

because regulations d i ctate that fisherme n discard the catch or 

for economic reasons. AFTA strongly supports this approach. The 

"bycatch" definition recognizes that some fisheries, such as 

Alaska pollock, are single species fisheri es; incidental harvest 

of non - target species is minima l. Other fisheries are mixed 

species fisheri e s. Th e defin ition of ''by c atch'' in H.R . 39 

recognizes that there is nothing inhe rently wrong with harvesting 

several species as long as utilizacion of boch target and non -

target species occurs . 

AFTA also supports requiring fishery management plans to 

include measures that provide for a full accounting of bycatch by 

all vessels as well as measures to minimize mortality of species 

discarded for regulatory or economic reasons. 

However, AFTA has some concerns over provisions of the bill 

relating specifically to the North Pacific fisheries. I ndeed, 

the North Pacific fisheries are generally healthy, populations of 

many groundfish species are at a historically high level. It is 

odd given the overall state of U.S. fisheries that Congress would 

choose to micro -manage the healthy fisheries, part icul arly since 

.!C39 2 : ~: .A.vcnue V.Je-,1 • Sv.•c -!OC • S.:·ottic Wm~.ng on 9A : ~N 

Tci~Dhvn(' 206 285 '>13'1 • f (1 • '106 735 'HI1 ; 
Rep. Don Young 

February 28 , 1995 

Page 2 

308 

the No rth Pacific Council has been aggressively analyzing 

management measures designed to reduce waste. 

For e xample, H.R. 39 directs the North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council to impose by Jul y 1, 1 996 spec ific manage me nt 

mea sures purported to reduce waste in the fishe ries. The 

legislation emphasizes "harvest preference" as one such measure. 

The Counci l i s already analyz i ng this management option. Many 

industry participants believe "harvest preference" is unworkable, 

and that the regulatory analysis will bear out that view (See 

attached letter dated June 3 , 19 94 . ). "Ha rvest prefe rence" cou ld 

adversely impa ct national benefits derived from U.S. fishe ries. 

For example, fa vorabl e allocations would be granted to fishermen 

with l ow discard rates, but who freeze whole fish for processi ng 

abroad. U.S . fishing ·::>perations that add value (for example, 

produci~g f illets for national restaurant chains), but have 

higher discard rates, ·,.,ould be penalized under harvest 

preference. Many in Congress are criticizing federal agencies 

for promulgating rules that intrude unduly o n the marketplace and 

that are impractical a~d burdensome. Advocating "harvest 

preference" regulati ons runs count er to Congress' prevailing view 

pertaining to f ederal rul es . 

Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs) 

H.R . 39 is silent on the issue of individual transferable 

quo tas (ITQs). While an ITQ syst em may not be the appropriate 

management mea s ure for every fishery, ITQs are a legitimate 

management tool, and Congress need s to address the i ssue. ..Z\t a 

minimum , H.R. 39 should include certain national policy 

guidelines for counc ils and the National Marine Fisheri es Service 

(NMFS) t:o use when dev•elop i ng or admin iste ring ITQ programs. 

Spec i fica l l y, Congress should c larify that a quo ta share 

i ssued to a person under an ITQ program is not a property right. 

Under an ITQ plan, an individual is provided the privilege of 

harvesting a percentage of the annual allowable catch. Also, the 

Magnuson Act should be amended to make c l ear that no "taking" 

claims arise under the Fifth Amendment in the event t hat the 

Secretary revokes for cause a person ' s quota share. Final l y, the 

Magnuson Act should be amended to allow the Se cret ary to impose a 

use r fee on quota share holde rs. Suc h user fees should be capped 

at a level necessary to fund the admin istrative, enforcement and 

data col l ec ti on costs resu lting from the imposition of an ITQ 
Rep. Don Young 

February 28, 1995 

Page 3 

309 

management system. User fees should be expressed as a percentage 

of the exvessel (unprocessed) value of fish harvested pursuant to 

the ITQ program. 

These national guidelines promote the public interest as 

regional councils continue to examine ITQ solutions for fishery 

management problems. With regard to the North Pacific, national 

guidelines should facilitate development of an ITQ program for 

groundfish. Fishing industry participants, academics and others 

agree that an ITQ system for North Pacific groundfish is the best 

management option for reducing bycatch and overcapitalization and 

addressing a dozen other identified problems in the fishery. 

Indeed, the North Pacific Council's own analysis supports that 

view. The most effective step that Congress can take to reduce 

waste in the fisheries and to return economic and social 

stability to the fishing industry is to encourage the Council to 

adopt an ITQ program within two years for North Pacific 

groundfish. 

Fishery Dependent Community 

H.R. 39 creates a new term, fishery dependent community, 

within the Act, and authorizes regional councils to provide 

preferential fishery allocations to any entity that qualifies 

under this provision. If the intent of this proposed change in 

the law is to authorize the existing Community Development Quota 

(CDQ) program, then that intent should be clearly and plainly 

stated. 

The term "fishery dependent community" is too broad a term, 

creates ambiguity, and introduces a concept much different than 

the CDQ concept. H.R. 39 provides for favorable treatment for 

communities that can demonstrate fishery dependence to a regional 

council. This change in the law will encourage fishermen 

residing in fishery dependent communities to petition a council 

for preferential access to fishery resources at the expense of 

fishermen who reside in economically diverse areas. Nothing in 

the existing national standards of the Magnuson Act encourages 

government involvement in determining winners and losers in the 

marketplace. That approach should not be altered now. 

Even if Congress determined that allocations to fishermen 

should be based upon the community in which they reside, H.R. 39 

does not ensure that the "social engineering" in which councils 

will then engage will result in sound public policy. Northwest 

fishermen, who pioneered the Bering Sea groundfish fishery, may 
~p. ~nY=~ 

February 28, 1995 

Page 4 

310 

reside in communities more dependent on the timber industry or 

aircraft manufacturing than on the fishing industry. It would be 

unfair to promote fishery allocation measures that deprive 

fishermen of their livelihood because they reside in economically 

diverse communities even though those communities may be 

economically distressed. 

The concept of priority allocation among communitles based on 

their dependency on fishery resources flies in the face of the 

Magnuson Act's dictate that the nations fishery r~sources should 

be managed for the benefit of the nation as a who~e. 

In sum, if Congress determines that there is a need to 

authorize and, perhaps, set parameters for the CDQ program, then 

the provision should be limited to that specific program. If the 

intent is to go beyond the CDQ program then AFTA strongly opposes 

this provision. 

Regional Fishery Management Council System 

Members cf the fishing industry and the environmental 

community, academics and federal officials are taking a fresh 

look at the regional fishery management council system. This 

review is prompted by overfishing of many U.S. fish stocks and a 

proliferation of controversial allocation measures. To many, 

credibility problems affecting the regional counclls stems from 

council members establishing harvest levels for flsheries in 

which they participate and prompting allocation measures from 

which they, their constituents, and other members of their sector 

benefit, at the expense of their competitors. 

H.R. 39 is a step in the right direction to addressing the 

concerns outlined above. The bill specifies a process by which 

agenda items can be added for council consideration, it requires 

councils to keep detailed minutes of their meetings, and it 

provides an opportunity for council members to seek roll call 

votes on any matter before the council. AFTA supports these 

proposed measures, but these are modest measures that will do 

little to relieve anxiety among those seeking council reform. 

The bill also considers the issue of conflicts of interest 

among fishery management council members. The councils remain 

unique entities--federal regulatory bodies comprised of private 

citizens, often with a financial interest in the fisheries that 

they manage, who are exempt from conflict of interest statutes 

that apply to virtually all other federal employees. H.R. 39 

attempts to adjust the delicate balance of ensuring continued 
Rep . Don Young 

Fe brua ry 28 , 1 995 

Page 5 

311 

involvement o f resource users i n the r egulator y process and 

restoring c redibi lity t o t he council process . Un fortunat ely , t he 

c on fl ict o f interest provision advanc ed in H.R. 3 9 fa lls short of 

improving the Act ' s i nadequa te e thical standards. We re commend, 

as a solution to t h is very rea l pro b lem , that Congress make the 

Cou nci l s sub ject to the same rules, regulati o ns and guide lines 

that apply to other federal a dvisory bodi es . 

Emergency Rulemaking Authority 

AFTA re c ognizes t he impor tanc e of pro viding counc ils and t he 

Sec re ta ry with the a utho ri t y to impos e emergency rules to protec t 

fishery r e sources . Un fo rt una te ly , o ver time, economic and soci al 

j ustifications have been i nc reasi ngly ci ted as the basis for 

tak ing • e mergency " action. I n other wor ds, allocative objectives 

have become as common as conserva tion o b jectives in the 

promu l gation o f e me rgency r ul es. 

Since eme rgency ru les shortc ircuit the administrat i ve 

process by limiting the amoun t of analysis requ ired and by 

shor tening and some times even eliminating prior pu blic comment, 

it is inappropriate to e xt e nd the lif e o f suc h ru les t hat are 

a dopt ed pu re l y for e conomic o r othe r all oc ati ve r easons . Congre ss 

should there f ore limit any e xtension o f emergency rule d uration 

to those rul es wh ich t r uly stem from a resource or other 

biologica l o r ecological emergency. 

AFTA's proposed change is consist en t wi t h ong oing 

Congressional efforts to provide for accountabi l it y in t he 

fe de ral rul emaki ng process. 

Than k you, for conside ring AFTA's views . We l ook f o rward to 

wo rking wit h y ou as the House Committee on Resources c onsiders 

this impo rt an t piece o f leg i slation. 

~__j')L. Jo~~~h~ Executive Dire

~ ctor 
312 

==-=- ·es~ ~=:.c:-:..::/ i.s ~c: a. :na.=:(.:::-C=-:7-:.!: a.~..!..CC~=.:.:::::. s·..rs ~eT& . :-::~re a..=~ 

::c ==-<;=.::s c.: e.:c·:2..:.:.s:.::c. c= s:.:n.:.:a...= ;nec;:a.::.:..siU t=.a.:: a.!:C'NS ::.s:-.; ::.q r:..·;-b.::.s 

c.:: f~c"N t:: .:.:.:.-:ti~ w:.~ ::;:.e ~q!:es~-v""E..:~e~ use f== t2:em. r=.e c::mrncn 

~~~~~~~~::!~5:;~; t!~=~~qf~!~~~ =~:~~~~=~~:~!~::~~;~~~~~:~~ ~:~ s~::-~~;q~es a.::C.. ::.ec==-:.c:.:~ i..::::.cva~:.cr:s t::: reC:·...:ce .:vca.cc:::. a.r;.ci. C.:..sca=C. l:ec~me i===as:..~:= =eca~se t~ey c~~=~ ~c ;=ccess flst c~c slcw~y . 

:'~e ~.a. .:- ·es:: ::-.:::=:.t:·" ;= :~csa._ _ cs.lls f::J: m:!!'..i:e-=s cf e:::.e .:..::.cus~~ tc 

~~~~c~f~~~=::_,_;=-~;ce ~~~~!~:: f~~i~~~~~~~~l ~m~~~;:~~ ff~::fe ~~~; than 

~ ve:.l Ce!:.:..:::i W'b...ic~ allcca~icc games- a=e :9la.yeC. :::acb. prc;:osal will. 

c:.ve :cu.=_lt-=.=. assumc~icl:.s abcut =vc.:.tc!::./ Cisca=:i i=. te~. of qear l.!sea., 

~=::_cess=-..::g mcC.e , pr;C.uc~: fc:.-:il, Cef=-=-.i:ic.c cf 1'byc.=..tc:=.", C.efi;:..ic:icn of 

a t.:.=;et. fiste::--.f, cu:C. C.1!:i.n.:..tion ci "utili.zation n • C'o.£onm:.ately, t.he 

~ce=ly;~q qcal of ~c~~t=r-cie=~ vec p=opcsals w~ll be mere to gain_a 

C:J~et:itive aC.vantace t1!.a.!l to make real i.!:l..rca.Cs i~to bvcatch and C..isca~~ =aC~c~~cn. Ev~ m!Ce~ tbe best cf ci=cumstar-ces,·the ~e~ands on 
"' 

r:~ :~ g ~ n. i!; 

roanpat·h Ill If I'· If () I·•· t-'· 0 ID 

o :1 a n •u ~ 'OID!Tif ll 0 0 If Ill 1D 

o o m a 'I m I'· a "' - " "' .....,.d to :1 (D p th 00 ('1' 

m n · CD o (I 'u r.r , .... D o ,r 0 n fl,,.! Ill t•· ~ j ... ,~ Ul ro ~ 

•-· .; no n 10 f). Ill (j) , •• ,, Ill 

m rt 0 0 I"· (II If 0 () :J {D .. l' h 

:1 nm 0 (T () 111 t: su IP lJ' n lt. (D 

ll co 0 0 .:: 

IT 10 ~l :1 :j tu t~~ o en t t ·~ no o 1» o· n o ~ t-4 

PJ 0 p tft Sll 

0 f .... (A ·~ lt o rt m ·~ "l llliJlO Ill 0' Ill Ill 

'< PI 0 r. 0. '0 Ol"'t''PnU)(D 

PI 0 1-'- lfl li rrOSUOCD(I 

no. Dllllo rr l"h ln n :J b.,... n 

~ 0· ~ G- rr~~ p. ~ Ill PI PI Ill 

r.~·~ rr rr 0 

~ fT ~ rr •··· 1-' • If IU Ill rr ,... .. p- N rr•oom .. 1-f '1 0 rTili-'· IUO.Ill I"· (II 0 11 11 on rtnn fl p- JU t~- ,_, _ ..... lD rt () , ...... '1 

~ ...... rti ~ .. Cll 

t-'o a , .... ~ 

~.wg~wo 

I-'· Ill ..... n. rr ~ o 11 ll p- rr p IQP,(O 

lll!:frrO ~ a a , 

r: :J }~ ~: r.: :;. ~ n rJ li :3 n Ill () ln n ll) 

1·

1 • I» f I fU 0 :-t (I n 

a I··'" ~· '" , .. n· II If IQ (f 0 lj 0 'II I•· tl (l. o;, .;: s: f1 lfiiOIU• O(llrt 

o •n , . ., '" •n r. n th 111 n ro I ·• n a t•-o t-iJun. o II rJ t •· (l) :.r It t-• 

''' w 'h n r: ''' tJ''cJ t •· (/) () In f1) 1-• t I 

n ... ~ B .. r~ "l l9 ID 

:~ f!. , ... ~ n. f~- fD ~- " n o n n.•o o ., 1• ( '· If f'· lf 0Cl rr11' n. JU U 0 0 Ill n : )' (I'"() 0 ()I·· CD H1 I'· ILl 0\ t( C I £·1 IU 

II 1 ~ (I IU r~. ~ ~! 

nf:l fJnqrD "'"' If 0 fD 0 IU In tl# tJ' In 

(I) ~- r, rr n· n ~ t ;· fl 

( ID 0 : J' () : J' fU t() to 

~~ 11 .f] ro f!_ ~: ~ , ... :1. IP ~l r; ~~· g lh Ill ~. g 

g, n :.:· g· tn ~~ r:- ~ ~: n. tA ln I·'· ~~~ (tl (I •..:.: 

~r o ,~. q •·· 9 ti .·~ I ·· · en ~t :·s •.., h ' o J1S • tn .... fl" '< lj 0 

It p () ~ ~ IP 10 ~ G· IJl 'll IY (). rr 0 r·h ID Ill 

CJl ~~ r: rr g. ~; n n· 1 I 

l 'h fU X· : J' JU () 0 JU 1--lj ID r• ,·J l'h If <: I•· , ... f... 1 S 1-• I·' · I'· Cb 1__. N ,,., u n. ·~ t11 o •1 r:: ~~ n fU tJ' r1 o 

:J n .. ~ f!_ r.: ~ ~ ~ .~ 

~~ g ( g ~ p. g ~~ :.;· l

"l ' • Iii 11 1--" iU (t • · li IP fl, l...o 

(J :p· 1·-1 j). ~ ,_/ ri ;· H) U1 -t::: 1-• I·•· fu itl 

~· 11· 1 •- • r :..i n rr 

u ;J· fJ :.·: I·•· !-;· g. };' 

ID·-<u 11 If g g t~ . ~ ~ I•· Ill !3 ID 0 (), 0 11 111m•o r. I lJl I ,__. 

f), 

a::: 1'· '0 n l'l n.rj t'J't1 n Htn o •

co,., 11 :•· o co t1 ·~ m cP t.r n 1'- l

'S •-.! 0 {I) n I h f), 0 II) fJ fD If I h C

IU 1·11 I'· CD ill (! IP I'· n t•·t·h::t ts 11 n 1-•a:: sun n q I It 0 rt I ' · (ll CD n I I I •· ,-: U 0 

I) OJ "' !D P · j•lll' ·~ rt ,,. I"· 0 I i 0 • tl' fl II l 'h 1-- • :I' II) (

:J P :f\ r ;· hl. ~! ~~ .. n rt o (I

•rl l' ~•n '1 ro /"a •··o• <: n lb 1r .. , til J : 1 n · n• o I h n I ' · ~ fl CP (I f), IP () : I' I 1 I'J li 1\1 l/1 0 ll' ill I'll I '111 11, ID tl (

() j. [() ff II.:J 11 l •· jll {11 a ~ '" t:: _l-• li fJ, a on •··•n , 

0 0 fl, P': 'i 11

• ln I •· I I If ::.1 I •- l

nq r: Ju I' · O :1 .. rn ru cr 

~{ n :1: ~ ~! 'g. :1. c: r: 11 Hi~~ ~~~:n :I' ID fU n tt I •· fP IU :1 I •- 0 

:~~CD n · ~ In· .. --: n~.H n· ' ..! :': M r

tn • " n. ~ I'' u' n ell 1 •- n w iJ' I •· 0 f\1 ''J ·1 j')' p· ! •· fl) Ul () I •- ;J 

:1 V!- fl-';;i : t n. ~ f~ . o rt t1 g ..

•..., n o ro I'D ~ <; •n f\J • 11

r;:tr;· :t~ ~~ r; ~ ~~ ;t ~ C

f\J I ' rr i1 If 0 • '1 11 0 I •· •·l !

('I ·~ n ·...: ,... .. ")4 ·" .r; :t ~~- hf'0 

~ r: .f1.~ · I h rr .~ ·g : .~ :;· ,.1 n

r: t~: ~ fa1 i~-f~ h!'!t :

11 •'(1 Ul fi1 (I

f), ~~ n I 'U) 111 ' ·1•· 11 ().., l' 

P• n ,,, n ~ o ~ ro , .

t.l ' f), ::1 :l· <( 1-'I'· IU 'r1 ~ In ti

P• n.o n 0 ~'tJ l 'f 0 n rt n

' : ·•- 11 (fl I)' • ..:; I I 1 • IJ) I.. 

IU L (0 rl ID r. IU r. () P• 0 '" 

t)_•n ell r-; I h n. L~· rs: :1 I·• M :!.'11 

(f) {\1 II,Jl, l · 1 (1) IT n () I 

Clt f), I h J'll fl) f1 0 n f\t (J t1 f 

fl Jl, ill I i f(;l I·•· II, :I' •·i .... 11 • (l

1 •- n o. n 1- • JU :r cu n 1,. l

on tt.. ,_.,1 ctl•· : ,- • ..._: 11

1•1 I•· I•· a:: Ul l.l1 00 1•- C

.~ g ~ n ~ g· '1 1-'· ~~ lll 'f~~~~ p · pt 1-

1 

f.1 Ul () r~ In r· IP r• 

II I-•• ,! •tt rl II .J (U f) J r

t')' p· l ' h r; f~ . f~ ' :-;· g r! n. g t•· 

--~ f\• u 1•- I •· rt •u n 0 Iii rr 

I,. ' .. 1 11 ~~ M. /Ill ffi 'H b~- n. u-1~ 1 •· 01 ,.. . 11 n 11 co rn n n '< ~J ~; ~! ~ r: · HI n ~~- rr 10 fJ ~ 

(J} o :~ ~ ~~ . g, ~ f!· rr :1 ° :1 nJUI'· I- nn.o h 4 1

l>·•u a rr Ill t~ 

~ fU t~·•< ~ ~ 10 no 11 UJ!l tu I I • 
314 

.=o.:.::.= =--~ :-::-::s c::: c:::=.e:: :nea.s-=es) t:.:.ac sc2.-r': c=.e ::=.ce --- t=.e :::~s::: 

::===.:.-=::::: a..=.:: c._..:..s ..., c::-::.=== aC."'rc.::.c~s :..::. byc2.::=.::. c..=.C C...:.sc::::i ::=!it:c:-=i::=. t:: 

~---- .:.:: ~ ~:.:..s:::..=..:.. a.=.::i ec::r:.cm:..-=a.:..2.y e£::..:..c.:.e.::.:: m~e=-

3 
315 

Statement of Assen Nicolov 

President & Chairman 

Oceantrawl Inc. 

Seattle, WA 

Submitted to House of Representatives Committee on Resources 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

Regarding H.R. 39 

Reauthorization of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

February 23, 1995 

Oceanuawllnc. • 1200 Market Place Tower· 2025 First Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98121 ·U.S.A. 

Telephone: (206) 448-9200 • Telex: Domestic & lncemational-62956529 • Fax: (206) 448-5057 

(Rcgi5tered to transacr husinc~~ in the Stare ofWa~ hingr.m ;~~ Oce~n trawl Man;lgemf1'nr, Inc. ) 
316 

Mr. Chairman: 

My name is Assen Nicoi:>v and I am President and Chairman of Oceantrawl Inc., one ot 

the largest 1eafood harvesting, processing and marketing companies in the United States. I 

appreciate the opportunity to present the views of Oceamrawl on H.R. 39, a bill to amend the 

Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1995. Oceantrawl is committed to 

protecting and conserving the fi~'hery resources on which we depend. Since we began operations 

in 1986, we have launched three state-of-the-art factory trawlers: the Northern Eagle, Norther!} 

Hawk, and Northern Jaeger. Our vessels operate primarily in the waters off Alaska, Washington. 

Oregon and California. We routinely call on the Port of Dutch Harbor and. as an Alaskun 

company, our vessels employ a significant number of Alaskan residents. We have offices in 

Seattle, Dillingham, DUich Harbor and Russia. As a result of our substantial investment in these 

fisheries, H.R. 39 is extremely important to us, and we are pleased to be ab le to inform the 

Subcommittee of our views in order to make sure that you fully understand how changes in the 

law will affect us and our fishing operations. 

At the outset. it should be noted that groundfish stocks in the North Pacific arc healthy 

with harvest levels near all-time highs. Our resources have been conservatively managed with 

rigorously enforced quotas set on an annual basis for each species. Vessels fishing in the North 

Pacific Ocean carry the highest leve l of observer coverage of any fishery in the country. and we 

have the best data collection system in the world. In summary, the North Pacific Fisheries 

Management Council has done an excellent job managing the fish stocks under its jurisdiction. 

However, in the North Pacific, it is the fishing industry itself that is in danger of extinction. 

Fishing fleets are grossly over capitalized, and seasons that once lasted year-round are now 

measured in terms of months and weeks. The annual "race for fish" that we are forced to conduct 

in our pollock, flatfish and other fisheries are wasteful and inefficient, and many times puts the 

lives and safety of the men and women who conduct the fishery at risk. 

In these very difficult fir,ancial times. Mr. Chairman, we ask only for stabil ity and a 

reasonable expectation of certahty from the U.S. Government regarding its regulatory actions in 

conserving and managing these resources. Companies are going bankrupt at an unprecedented 

rate in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. We believe that this is the legacy of the "open access" 

managemen t system unde r which most of the North Pacific fisheries operate .. 

Our company has been in the forefront of efforts to promote an In dividua l Transfe rable 

Quota (D'Q) system for the ground fish fishery of the North Pacific. In our view. initial allocation 

of quotas under such a program should he based on current harvesting/processi ng levels (status 

quo). Our industry has suffered too many arbitrary changes reshuffling fishery quotas based on 

political rather than economical justifications. We need stability now more than ever. We need 

to preserve the status quo in allocations, while eliminating the "race for fish." Once again, we 

full y promote the n·Q system. t•ut we have to make certain that this program is not used by 

certain groups to acquire additional fishery allocations based simply on the ir political 

-I-
317 

connections. Otherwise, we are better off without an ITQ program. The ITQ system we envision 

would have the following elements: 

Each vessel would receive an ITQ (stated in terms of a percentage of the annual 

quota for each target and by-catch species) based on its current 

harvesting/processing level, thus, preserving the status quo. 

All ITQ vessels would carry one or more observers to monitor catch. 

All catch of target and by-catch species would count against the vessel's ITQ. 

A vessel would hav~ to terminate fishing or else buy or lease additional ITQ's 

once its initial allocation of any target or by-catch species is exhausted. 

All ITQ holders would pay an annual user fee that would cover the cost of 

administering and enforcing the program. 

The above-described ITQ system would have the effect of reducing overcapitalization by 

allowing a consolidation of the fleet and providing industry stability by creating a healthy 

investment climate for the development of additional value-added processing capacity on-board 

our vessels and shoreside facilities in Alaska. In addition, the ITQ approach would help reduce 

waste and by-catch as each vessel individu tlly becomes accountable for its own actions thereby 

rewarding the "clean" fisherman and penalizing the "dirty" fisherman. It would enable fishermen 

to schedule their individual fishing operations (i.e. predictability) so as to avoid hazardous 

weather conditions, optimize recovery rates an~ deliver their products at times and places when 

and where market opportunities are best. 

I would suggest to the Subcommittee that these benefits are more than hypothetical. They 

have been demonstrated in other ITQ fisheries nationally and internationally. For example, we 

are already realizing some of these benefits through our active participation in a Community 

Development Quota (CDQ) program in the Bering Sea fishery. As a partner to the Bristol Bay 

Economic Development Corporation (BBEDC) for the past three years, we have been actively 

pursuing groundfish harvesting and processing opportunities off the coast of Alaska with our 

BBEDC partner. In our opinion, the CDQ program has been extremely successful, and we 

continue to be major proponents of the CDQ program's continuation and expansion to other 

species. 

The current reauthorization process is an excellent opportunity for Congress to recognize 

that CDQ's and ITQ's can be useful management tools dealing with many of the problems 

currently facing the North Pacific fishery, in addition to reemphasizing the importance of the 

existing CDQ program. As the Subcommittee is aware, under the CDQ program, certain 

communities in Western Alaska are allocated a portion of the annual Bering Sea pollock quota. 

Each community, or group of communities, then contracts with a vessel operator to harvest the 

-2-

89-569 96 - 11 
318 

community's quota. Allocation of quota is based on the performance of development plans 

submitted to the State of Alaska. As a CDQ participant, Oceantrawl is extremely pleased to 

report at this juncture that the CDQ groups have all implemented new objective measurements 

for measuring the total catch of fish . In addition, the groups have agreed to place two observers 

on their boats when harvesting CDQ quota, and in fact, lead the industry in reducing and 

controlling by-catch and waste. In summary, the CDQ program is assisting in building a private 

economy in a region that has historically suffered from one of the nation's highest levels of 

poverty and unemployment. 

With regard to specific provisions of H.R. 39, Oceantrawl has the following comments: 

I. By-catch and Wast ~· We agree that current levels of by-catch and waste in the 

fisheries are too high, and support the inclusion of a new National Standard that would direct the 

Councils to address those issues in their management plans. We propose the following language: 

Conservation and management measures shall promote fishing and processing 

practices that, to the extent: practicable, avoid the harvest and reduce the mortality 

of fish that are not utilized by U.S. fishermen and, to the extent feasible, 

maximize the utilization of those fish harvested by U.S. fishermen . except that no 

such measure should have economic allocation as its primary purpose. 

However, please be aware that we do not support the inclusion of any Congressionally mandated 

solutions. Each fishery is different. and the measures necessary to control by-catch and reduce 

waste in each fishery should be left to the individual Councils. As we mentioned previously, 

Oceantraw! favors an ITQ system as the management measure in reducing waste and by-catch. 

As a final point to the issues of by-catch and waste reduction measures, these issues are 

endemic in !!!1 U.S. fisheries and the mandate to reduce by-catch and waste should apply on a 

national level, not just to the North Pacific fisheries. It is ironic that the North Pacific is singled 

out in H.R. 39. As the Subcommittee is aware, the North Pacific is the one area of the country 

where the Council is already working on a variety of measures to reduce by-catch and to 

minimize waste in fisheries under its jurisdiction. By-catch caps and vessel-incentive programs 

imposing substantial fines on vessels with unacceptably high levels of by-catch are already in 

place in the North Pacific. · 

2. Data Collection. We support the provisions of H.R. 39 that would result in the 

establishment of uniform or standardized procedures for the collection of data concerning bycatch. As indicated above, all of our vessels carry at least one, and sometimes two, federal 

fisheries observers during all fish.ing operations. Such observer coverage provides an excellent 

opportunity for the collection of accurate and reliable by-catch and target fishing data. We arc 

concerned, however, that by-catch and/or other data from vessels with lower or non-existent 

levels of observer coverage will be used to compare performance (in terms of by-catch or other 

operational characteristics) between those vessels and ours. It is not only unfair, but misleading 

-3-
319 

to assume that data generated by vessels, sectors or gear types with varying levels of observer 

coverage or no coverage at all is comparable data -- especially when that data is used as a basis 

upon which to justify preferential allocations or harvest privi leges between such vessels, sectors 

or gear types. In our view, a comprehensive observer program is the cornerstone of a reli able 

data collection system and all commercial fishing vessels should be required to carry observers. 

3. Catch Measurement. Oceantrawl supports measures to improve total catch 

measurement but opposes any requirement that mandates vessels to only utilize onboard scales to 

weigh fish. Such a requirement may not only be impractical, but may be unnecessary as well --

especially in large-volume single species fisheries such as mid-water pollock where volumetnc 

measurement may be just as accurate and dependable. If Congress should mandate scales, we 

ask only that this process be phased in on a gradual basis once the technology is completely 

available and allow for volumetric measurements as a back-up system, in case of scale 

breakdowns. 

4. Fishing Dependent Communities. Ocean trawl is a fishing dependent company 

and our employees are fishing dependent men and women whose livelihoods are dependent on 

the fisheries of the North Pac ific. We have invested more than $150 million in an effort to help 

Americanize the groundfisheries of the North Pacific and the Washington-Oregon-California 

fisheries. At the time our investments were made, the groundfish fisheries in the Bering Sea and 

Pacific Ocean were largely conducted by foreign fishing and processing vessels. There were at 

that time virtually no groundfish fishing dependent communities in the Bering Sea area. We are 

strongly opposed to any measure that would create a preference for any fishermen based on the 

region, state or community in which they reside. In our view, such a preference would constitute 

an unfair "taking" of the legitimate investment expectations that Oceantrawl had when, at the 

urging of U.S. Congress, the Department of Commerce, the National Marine Fisheries Service, 

the Pacific and North Pacific Fisheries Management Councils and the State of Alaska, we 

invested millions of dollars to assist in Americanizing the fisheries of the North Pacific and the 

Pacific Coast. 

5. Conflict of Interest, Recusal Provision. We believe the recusal provisions of H.R. 39 

fail to adequately address the conflict of interest problems that have created a crisis of confidence 

over the integrity of the Council process. As we understand the recusal mechanism, onl y those 

Council members who have a direct financial interest in the outcome will be prohibited from 

voting on a specific measure, and even then. only if their particular interest represents a minority 

of the interests that would benefit from the proposed measure. Accordingly, as drafted. H.R. 39 

would allow representatives, lobbyists or employees of trade associations or fishing groups 

appointed to the Councils to continue to be e ligible to vote on controversial allocation, 

management and conservation measures. In many instances, such individuals' actions arc 

dictated by people who have direct financial interest in the outcome of certain measures. 

Therefore. we suggest that the recusal mechanism be expanded to include mandatory recusal of 

trade assoc iations, gear groups and indi vidual fishing/processing company representatives whose 

members (or clients) have a direct financial stake in the issue before the Counci l. 

-4-
320 

Finally, there has been considerable debate in the past over the disproportionate allocation 

of seats on the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. The primary issue in our view is the 

failure of th(: Secretary of Commerce to comply with the existing statute regarding Council 

appointments. Section 302 (b) (2) (B) of the Magnuson Act directs the Secretary (when making 

appointments to the Council) to "ensure a fair and balanced apportionment on a rotating or other 

basis of the active participants (or their representati ves) in the commercial and recreational 

fisheries unde r the jurisdiction of the Council." To date, industry appointments to the Pacific and 

North Pac ific Fisheries Manageme nt Councils have not reflected a "fair and balanced 

apportionment" of the active participants in the fisheries being regulated. Consequently, most of 

the industry seats have been allocated to small boat fishermen who are only marginal participants 

in the ground fish fisheries being managed by the Counci ls. For example, longline 

representati ves recentl y occupied more than half of the industry seats on the North Pac ific 

Fisheries Management Counc il -- eoven though their sector of the industry accounts for less th an 

I 0% of the overall harvest in fisheries re gulated by the Counc il. Trawlers, on the other hand, 

which account for more than 90% of the harvest in the North Pacific fisheries currently have onl y 

one representative on that Council. We do not believe this is a "fair and balanced" 

appottionment. It is an apportionment that has resulted in a skewed regul atory regime that 

distinctl y favors one sector over th•! other. This perceived unfairness in the Pac ifi c and North 

Pacific Fisheries Management Counc ils structure could be addressed, and possibly remedied, if 

the Secretary adhered to the appoir.tmcnt guide lines already specified in the Magnuson Act. 

6. Over-fishing Provisions Oceantrawl supports the provisions of H.R. 39 relating to the 

regulation of overfishing, but note;, that there is probably not one comprehensi ve definition o f 

overfishing that can be applied to a.ll fisheries. We woul d therefore suggest that the Standing 

Scientific Committee (SSC) for each of the respective Councils play a key role in defining the 

term as it applies to the fisheri es within their Council's jurisdiction. 

7. Total Allowable Leve l r{ Foreign Fishing (TALFF). Section Sb of H.R. 39 contains 

provisions which have the effec t of legislating a zero T ALFF for Atlantic herring and mackerel 

for the next four years. We believe that these provisions violate our Govern ing International 

Fishery Agreement (GIFA) with the Russi,m Federati on and provisions of the Law of the Sea 

Treaty, and as a result will have a chilling affect on our fishery relationship with Russia and other 

countri es which seek to explore busi ness opportunities with the U.S. As you are aware , the 

Magnuson Act grants to the appropriate management Council the right to determine surpiuse., in 

our fishery eso r~ . To the best •:lf my knowledge, Congress has never before legislated this 

type of sc ientific determination. Since 1992, the Mid-Atl antic Council has established a zero 

T ALFF for mackerel, even though we understand the stocks are quite healthy and American 

fishermen harvest less than one-tenth of the Allowabl e Biological Catch (ABC). In 1993, for 

example, U.S. fishermen caught less than 4,700 MT of the almost 100,000 MT of the ABC. In 

view of these actions taken by the Mid-Atlantic Counc il for the past three years, we question the 

wisdom of th is provision. Many of us are aware of an interest in Europe to fis h and purchase 

these stocks. European companies have established markets for these species and we believe 

they would be willing to in vest in ,;horeside facilities in New England which might assist 

-5-
321 

displaced groundfish fishermen through investment and technology transfer. T ALFF could be 

instrumental in providing much needed economic opportunities to New England and East Coa.~t 

fishermen and processors. As the Subcommittee recalls, T ALFF in the North Pacific and Pacific 

fisheries was instrumental in Americanizing our fisheries. 

This concludes my testimony. I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the 

Subcommittee for this opportunity to testify. 
322 

AlASKA OCEAN 

~ SEAFOOD 

March 22, 1995 

The Honorable Jim Saxton 

Chairrruln, Subcommittee on Fisheries, 

Wildlife and Oceans 

United States House of Representatives 

Committee on Resources 

WashingtonD.C. 20515 

Dear Congressman Saxton: 

liMJTEO PAii:TNERSHIP 

Thank you for your letter of March !6, 1995, requesting our response to additional questions 

on our testimony concerning H.R. 39. We welcome the opportunity to share our views on these 

issues and hope that our answers will be helpful to the Subcommittee Members as they continue their 

consideration of Magnuson Act Reauthorization. 

I. How do you determine by-catch rates on your vessels? (By weight, volume or number of fish 

and by actual measurement or by estimation?) 

The ALA:>'KA OcEAN operates primarily in tbe Bering Sea and Aleutian Island pollock 

fishery and pacific whiting fishery off the coast of Washington, Oregon and California 

Because poUock and pacific whiting are primarily pelagic (midwater) fisheries the bycatch 

rates average less than 4% of the targeted species. 

In foUowing H.R. 39, there are three forms of Bycatch; Regulatory Discards, · 

Economic Discards and Retainable Bycatch: 

~egulatorv Discards Non-target species that are required by regulation to be discarded. 

Regulatory discards inc:lude the foUowing prohibitive species: 

Salmon: AU salmon are retained until counted individually and examined for species, 

sex, length and weight 

Crab: Crab aH: counted individually from sampling and the total number per tow is 

extended from the sample. 

Halibut: Same format as crab. 

2415 T Ave nu e · P.O. Bo• 190 • AnacNte s, WA 96221 

Phone : (20<1) 293 -6759 • fa .. 12061 293-6232 • Te lex: 883481 
323 

The Honorable Jim Saxton 

:March 22, 1995 

Page 2 

Herring: Herring is recorded by weight from sampling. 

Economic Discards: Target species that are not retained because they are undesirable size, 

sex or quality, or for other economic reasons. Except for rare or unusual circumstances the 

ALASKA OCEAN has negligible discards on targeted species. 

Retainable Bycatch: Non-target species which could be retained legally but are not for 

economic or other reasons. (Not mentioned in H.R. 39) 

All of the vessel's bycatch is detennined by tow by the NMFS Observer's sample weight and 

is extrapolated to total weight based on the total catch. The Third Officer visually checks 

each tow in the fish bins and on the processing line for estimate veruication and records the 

Observer calculations in the vessel fishing logs and NMFS reports. 

The ALASKA OcEAN accurately weighs all targeted species prior to processing. A Mare! 

inline scale is located on the conveyor belt between the fish bins and the processing line. This 

scale is calibrated daily during the season and the Observer has complete access to it and the 

vessel's fishing and processing records at all times. The NMFS Observer samples between 

60 and 80% of all tows. For tows not sampled, the Observer and Third Officer extend and 

apply an average bycatch from previous and/or succeeding rows 

2. What type of observer coverage do your vessels carry and is this because of the requirements 

passed by the Councils or because you feel it is necessary for reporting requirements? 

Each of our three vessels - the ALASKA OcEAN, the AURJGA, and the AURORA - has 

100% observer coverage, meaning that there is an observer aboard each vessel whenever the 

vessel is operating. This coverage is mandated by the North Pacific Fishery Management 

Council. 

Separate and apart from that mandate, however, we believe that the NPFMC observer 

program has played a crucial role in insuring that the stocks of North Pacific groundfish have 

remained healthy, and we vtew the program as critical to the success of any ITQ program that 

the Council might implement. We also support a concept that is advocated by the CDQ 

communities and others: that vessels should carry two observers at all times so that 24-houra-day coverage is available. 

We do wam to mention one aspect of the observer program that we find unacceptable, 

!.&. its cost. Until recently, we were responsible fo r paying the observers on our vessels 

directly; in the case of the ALASKA OcEAN, for example, the cost averaged about $23 5 per 

day. Under regulations recently implememed by the NPFMC, we will now pay the observers 

through an assessment based on our catch; in the case of the ALASKA OcEAN, this assessment 
324 

The Honorable Jim Saxton 

March 22, 1995 

Page3 

will be approximately 1L§QQ per day. Needless to say, we are more than a little puzzled by 

an exponential increase in cost fg~ exactly tru; ~ observer coverage as we had before, and 

can atuibute it only to the bureaucratic expenses built into an assessment system that do not 

exist in a direct payment system. 

3. Do you feel there are other methods of dealing with over-capitalization of the fisheries 

without enacting ITQ programs? 

In a word, no. The other methods that have been suggested - moratoriums, license 

limitation programs, buy-back programs, eic. - do not address the root cause of overcapitalization, which is the open access system. So long as a fishery is open to all comers and 

so long as any participant is allowed to harvest as much of the resource as he possibly can, 

participants will have a continumg incentive to retain - and increase - existing capitalization 

levels. This will come in the form of direct capital such as addition of new vessels, and in the 

form of "capital-stuffing" such as improved technology, increased horsepower, added gear, 

etc. 

In our view, over-capitalization can be dealt with only by addressing its cause -by 

eliminating open access and replacing it with a system under which each individual participant 

is limited to a set percentage of the available resource. Under such a system, additions of 

capital simply become irrelevant because the harvest cannot exceed the percentage established 

by the quota. 

4. Would you still support limited access systems if the quota shares were not transferrable, but 

reverted to NMFS for redistribution if they were not being fished? 

We believe that it is possible to devise an acceptable system that would invoke nontransfemlble quotas. The acceptability of such a system to us would depend in large part on 

what happens to shares that an: not being fished. For example, depending on specifics, we 

migln be able to support a system in which unused quotas are cancelled. On the other hand, 

we could not support a system in which unused shares are distributed to new entrants; such 

a system would do nothing toward reducing capitalization. 

5. Why do you feel that ITQ plans are essential for maintaining healthy stock levels? Don't the 

Councils set Total Allowable Catch (T AC) levels whether there is limited access or not? 

We do not believe that ITQ's are essential, at least in the near term, for maintaining 

the health of the Alaska poUock stock. As mentioned in my prepared testimony, we feel that 

the combined efforts ofNMFS, the scientific community, and the NPFMC have ensured that 

that resource has remained healthy. ryl e of course cannot address the practices of other 

Councils nor the health of the Hocks they manage.) 
325 

The Honorable Jim Saxton 

March 22, 1995 

Page 4 

What we do believe is that expeditious adoption of an ITQ program for the Alaska 

groundfish fishery is essential to the continued health of the industry and to the many 

businesses and conununities that depend on that industry. We also believe that an ITQ system 

is the best way to address the very real and very serious problems that result from open access 

- problems relating to safety, discards, bycatch, insufficient resource utilization, and economic 

instability. 

6. You talk about reducing over-capitalization through ITQ plans but then you advocate a 

requirement that would not allow the Councils to reduce any vessel's existing catch by more 

than 5 percent. How does this reduce over-capitalization? 

At the outset, let me clarify that the initial allocation parameters we are proposing are 

intended to apply only to the NPFMC and only with respect to the groundfish fishery in the 

Bering Seal Aleutian Islands. We believe that those parameters are fair and workable in the 

comext of that fishery. We are not suggesting their use for other fisheri es or other Councils. 

With respect to your specific question, we do not look upon reduction of 

capitalization as the primary purpose of our initial allocation parameters. We believe, as 

explained above, that ITQ's in and of themselves will have that result. Rather, we view the 

suggested parameters as a fair way of implementing an ITQ system. The parameters are fair 

because they prevent the distribution of large windfalls to some industry participants at the 

expense of other industry participants. 

A secondary result of this fairness however. will be the prevention of additional 

capitalization in the industry. If all present participants have access to the same or slightly 

lesser amount of catch as they are now harvesting or processing, there will be no point in 

capital-stuffing. On the other hand, if some participants receive windfalls of quota that 

exceed the catch upon which they presently rely, capital-stuffing will inevitably occur as those 

participants seek to gain the benefit of their windfalls 

7. There have been several ballot initiatives to ban the use of nets in commercial fisheries. This 

could be considered a direct attack on factory trawlers and your way of life. How do you 

defend your fishing techniques to a public that believes you discard more fish than are caught 

in other U.S. fisheries? 

We heartily agree that such proposals are a direct anack on factory trawlers; 

moreover. such attacks are~ unwarranted. While we cannot speak to the practices of 

all fishermen who use nets, we can speak to our panicular industry and our factory trawler. 

The ALAsKA OcEAN participates in the pelagic (mid-water) fisheries for pollock and 

pacific whiting. Because these species typically are found concentrated with few other kinds 
326 

The Honorable Jim Saxton 

March 22, 1995 

Page 5 

of fish, and because they tend to swim in large schools, we are able to avoid much of the 

bycatch problem experienced in some other fisheries. Indeed, a recent United Nations study 

declared the Nonh Pacific pelagic fishery to be the cleanest fisherv in the world in terms of 

discard rates. ("A Global Assessment of Fisheries Bycatcb and Discards, • United Nations 

Food & Agriculture Organization, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper #339 (1994).) 

In addition to our ability to fish clean because of our target species, we have a strong 

commitment to sound bycatch management and full utilization of the fish we catch. As 

detailed in my prepared testimony, the ALASKA OcEAN does not only produce its high value 

produa of suri.mi; the vessel also uses that ponion of the catch not suitable for surimi to 

produce fish meal and oil. In addition, the AlASKA OCEAN is equipped with state-of-the-an 

scales, permitting us to weigh accurately the fish we catch. 

As a result, the AlASKA OCEAN has less than 4% economic discards and its regulatory 

discard rates average less than .05%- discards which, by the way, are not done by our choice 

but by regulatory mandate. 

• •• 

We hope that these responses are helpful to you and the Members of the Subcommittee. 

Again, thank you for the opponunity to share our views. 

SincerelY. 

Jeff Hendrie s 

General Manager 
327 

CLF Conservation law Foundation 

March 23, l99S 

Honorable Jim Saxton, Chairman 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans u.s. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman Saxton: 

I am happy to provide answers to the following additional 

questions from Congressman Peter ·Torkildsen regarding the 

reauthorization of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act, for the record of the .Fisheries, Wildlife and 

Oceans Subcommittee hearing on H~R- 39 on February 23, 1995. The 

additional questions are referenced on page 158, lines 3614-3616, 

.of the transcript for the hearing. 

Ql) What is CLF's long term plan for Georges Bank? Included in 

your response. should be a proposal .that addresses the social. and 

economic ramifications of ·ectal closure of Georges Bank to the 

fishing communities which depend on the fishing industry for 

their livelihood. 

CLF response: CLF's goal for Georges Ba!)k is to restore its 

potencial production of groundfish by allowing the severely 

depleted stocks of cod, haddock and yellowtail flounder to rebuild to levels that can produce much higher yields chan we are currently obtaining. While the authority for developing a specific fishery management plan that can achieve this goal rests with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the New England 

Fishery ·Management. Council, CLF.is working with the managers and 

the fishing communities to develop management .measures that will 

achieve this goal while minimizing short term impacts ·on fishing 

communities. 

Our principal objective is to obtain this stock rebuilding as soon as possible, because a swift· re-covery will maximize fish 

production and minimize -social and economiC costs over the. long 

term. Part of the challenge is to.better coordinate with Canada so that groundfish management is consistent on both sides of the 

Hague Line. Another part of the challenge is to understand to. what extent fishing gear is having long term negative effects on groundfish reproduction and rec_ruitinent by the habitat damage that it causes. 

As for the short term social and economic disruption caused 

by the groundfish crisis, only the federal and state governments 

• HeadQuarters: 62. Summer Stroot. Boston, Massacnusetts 02110-1008 • (617) 3SO..Q990 ·FAX (S17) 3504030 - ............. - • --·-- ....,_....._,_--4 u~;-..,no~QA1.~ .... ,~.(?07)!;A4-R107•FAX(20n596·T70G 
328 

Conservation Law Foundation 

can p_rovide assistance to help fishe=en either survive the 

period of low catche,; until fish stocks have rebuilt or make the 

transition out of fiBbing and into another livelihood. 

CLf does .not en•1ision a permanent closure of all of Georges 

Bank, although it may be wise to keeps parts of it closed as a fishery reserve to assure future harvests. What is needed now is 

the marine equivalent of a fallow period for agriculture : we need to give the ocean a rest so that it can produce more in the 

future. The NMFS bol:tom trawl surveys will infonri -us of how· well 

and how fast the rec"very is progressing, btit the hard .fact · is 

that , even with no fishing, recovery ··will take a long time. 

Q2) What proposals, if any , has CLF. made concerning bluefin tuna? 

CLF Response: CLF ha..; not made any proposals ·concerning . bluefin tuna. 

Q3) What scienti-fic :information did CLF use to estimate the return of critical biomass of haddock would take -approximately 1.2 

years? 

CLF response: The figure of 1.3 years for haddock to rebuild to a critical biomass of BO,OOO metric tons (mt) is a ·recent estimate 

made by the Groundfish Plan Development Team of the New England 

Fishery Management Council. That figure was included in a memorandum to the Council's Groundfish Oversight Committee dated 

January 30, 1.995. I~ is the estimate for rebuilding time if 

fishing pressure is :reduced to a fishing mortality rate known as F 0 .l. , ' the -Council's stated objective for Ge-orges Bank groi.mdfish 

in amendment 7 to th•' groundfish plan, which is currently being 

developed : A footno-::e to that figure indicates that it is 

derived from ·a -1986 scientific paper and should be considered 

preliminary. An updated assessment of the Georges. Bank ·haddock 

stock, .planned for later this spring, . should give a more reliable 

estimate of the expe•:ted rebuilding time. 

Please note tha·t . this amount of rebuilding would not be a full recovery. .Full recovery would be to a higher biomass level 

capable-of producing the maximum sustainable yield, rather than 

producing just the average recruitment,. as· is expected for a . biomass of 80,000 mt . There are no estimates for ·how long full 

recovery would take, but full recovery could be . reached with 

some"'hat more'fishing all"owed than the F 0.1 level planned for 

amendment 7. 

Put more simply, the best available scientific information 

indicates. that more than a decade will be needed to resto"re 

Georges Bank haddock to a level that can produce average 

recruitment. The upcoming re-assessment of the stock . may reveal 

2 
329 

Conservation Law Foundation 

a slightly different· estimate, but I · would be surprised if it is 

radically different, because haddock has been reduced to such a 

low level. Of course; it: is possible that haddock ·will recover 

more qUickly than the scientific estimate if w.e are lucky enough 

to see bet"ter than average year classes produced and if w'e ·· 

succeed in protecting those year classes from too much fishing 

pressure. Some American and Canadian fishermen have been seeing more .haddock in their nets recently, and Canadian scientists 

report recent .improved recruit:ment, so we can hope that the 

recovery is beginning, but· there is still a very long way t6 ·go 

·before we can hope to catch anything like the amount of haddock 

.that Georges Bank is capable of producing. · 

I hope that the above .responses are useful, and I extend to · you· and the other ·subcommittee Members ·my best wishes for the 

difficult job ·of ·reauthorizing the Magnuson Act . 

Sincerely, 

;t:~o~F Staff scientist 

.cc: Peter G. Torkildsen 

3 

89-569 96 - 12 
330 

Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation 

P 0 Box 1~.64 • Dillingham, Alaska 9957t; • (907) 842--4370 • Fa)( (907) 842·4336 • 1-B00-478·4370 

March 24, 1995 

Congressman Jim Saxton, Chairman 

U.S. House of Repres·~ntatives 

Committee on Resour·~es 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

Washington, D.C. 205'15 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

I will answer all of the questions to the best of my ability by posing 

your question and giving my answers. 

1. Can you elaborate on some of the community development 

programs that the CDO groups have funded? 

All of the CDQ group:> have established training and internship 

programs with their factory trawl partners. In addition, Each of the 

CDQ groups have established vocational and technical training 

programs, job training, and aggressive employment programs. Over 

1600 jobs have been ·:reated as a result and we are expecting many 

of our interns and graduates of our vocational and technical training 

to be involved in the off-shore and on-shore fishery from the 

manufacturing lines all the way up to captains of factory trawl 

vessels. 

One group, the Aleutian Pribilof Island Community Development 

Association, has infrastructure development as one of their projects 

to provide commercial service centers for the Bering Sea fishing 

industry. Docks and gear storage facilities are being studied for 

support of the fishing industry as well. 

The Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation is involved in a 

comprehensive regional fisheries planning effort to add value to 

salmon and herring so that full-time, year-round jobs can be 

created. An academic Scholarship Program has been established 

which will be in plac.~ in perpetuity for juniors, seniors and graduate 

students to get their 'Jndergraduate and graduate degrees so that 
331 

they can compete for jobs at all levels in the fishing industry, other 

industrial sectors of Alaska, the U.S. and globally. 

An observer training program is being developed so that more 

Alaskans will be able to compete for factory trawl observer jobs 

once mandatory 100% observer coverage of all vessels operating in 

the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea is in place. A Bristol Bay Regional 

Internship program is in place that encourages all businesses in 

Bristol Bay to implement an internship program so that more local 

people will be qualified to eventually take over all of the 

management functions required to keep Bristol Bay operating its 

schools, municipal governments. hospital, businesses and non-profit 

organizations . 

A Salmon Limited Entry Permit Brokerage has been established to 

allow Bristol Bay region residents to purchase permits that have 

been migrating out of the region. A Bristol Bay Revolving Loan Fund 

will be established by mid or late 1996 that will allow residents of 

Bristol Bay to acquire the capital needed to purchase permits before 

they are sold to people outside of the Bristol Bay region. 

A seafood investment fund (ASIF) that would allow Bristol Bay to 

invest in fishery related joint ventures in Alaska and the Northwest 

Coast of the U.S. is in place. Plans are to look at crab, longlining for 

cod, tendering and partnerships in a factory trawler. 

Coastal Villages Fishing Cooperative owns 50 % equity in a 197 ft. 

factory trawler. Brown's Point. with the long-term goal of owning, 

managing and operating a fleet of at-sea processing and harvesting 

vessels. They along with other CDQ groups are engaged in training, 

internships and scholarship programs. 

Central Bering Sea Fishermen's Association has a boat loan program 

for the purchase and construction of vessels 32 to 125 ft. in length 

that are capable of participating in the multi-species fisheries of 

the Bering Sea. They also have set aside funds to develop 

infrastructure to support the fishing industry and have job training, 

internships and scholarship programs as well. 

Norton Sound has a strong training and education scholarship 

program for their people. They have also started a winter, fresh crab 

operation, pioneered new markets for salmon and herring, provide 

low-interest loans for salmon and herring permits, to purchase 
332 

fishing gear. and funds to upgrade fishing vessels. They have set 

aside funds to revitalize shore side fish processing in several of 

their villages and are exploring building processing plants in other 

communities in their region. 

Yukon Delta Fisheries Development Association has set up a fund for 

purchasing salmon limited entry permits and are exploring halibut 

and cod fisheries in the upper Bering Sea. They have a strong 

scholarship, training and internship programs that are training their 

people in management, finance and human resources. 

They have developed a fleet of small catcher vessels designed to 

operate in local longline and/or the crab pot fishery. They have a 

training program with the goal of 258 trained residents by the end 

of 1995. 

These are a few <!Xamples of what the CDQ groups are accomplishing 

with the CDQ program. This program is showing measurable results 

because the area that the Western Alaska CDQ program impacts has 

been the most neglected part of the United States in terms of 

economic development assistance. The CDQ program is allowing 

Western Alaska to acquire capital to allow them to train people, 

provide jobs, get people off welfare and made investments in fishery 

related industries that will create a vibrant economy. 

2. Are there restrictions on what the profits from the CDQ allocation 

can be used for? 

The understandin>l that we have is that the proceeds from CDQ funds 

are to create jobs, provide training and get as many people as 

possible involved in the fishing industry from manufacturing to 

outright ownership of on-shore and off-shore fishing processors. 

Some of the funds are used for basic vocational and technical 

training so that the people can move into more advanced programs or 

get into the academic area. 

3. What are the State of Alaska's certification criteria for CDQ 

groups? 

The State of Alaska took into consideration the following factors 

when they reviewed the certification of the CDQ groups. 

1. The number of eligible communities participating in the COQ 

program; 
333 

2. the size of the allocation of the fishery resource requested by the 

qualified applicant and the number of years the qualified applicant 

requires the allocation to achieve the milestones, goals and 

objectives of the COP as stated in the complete COP application; 

3. The degree to which the project(s) is expected, if any,. to develop 

a self-sustaining local fisheries economy and the proposed schedule 

for transition from reliance on a CDQ allocation to economic selfsufficiency; 

4. The degree to which the project(s) is expected, if any, to generate 

capital or equity in the local fisheries economy or infrastructure, or 

investment in commercial fishing or fish processing operations; 

5. The contractual relationship between the qualified applicant and 

joint venture partners, if any, and the managing organization. 

4. How do the corporations fish their COO allocations? Are the 

allocations leased to other vessels or do the corporations have their 

own vessels? 

The CDQ groups, or corporations, have established partnerships with 

factory trawlers and receive a royalty for harvesting their pollock 

quota allocations. The agreements include the necessity of the 

factory trawler partner to train residents of the respective CDQ 

groups to become knowledgeable in the off-shore Bering Sea fishery. 

Most CDQ groups did not have the funds necessary to purchase 

factory trawl vessels when the CDQ program began and there was an 

over capitalized fleet of factory trawlers chasing too few fish No 

new factory trawl vessels were built to add to the problem and the 

CDQ groups used the existing fleet to accomplish their goals. Several 

of the CDQ groups are studying the purchase or equity position in 

factory trawlers at this time since capital has been accumulated to 

allow such a venture. 

One group, Coastal Villages Fishing Cooperative, used their CDQ 

pollock allocation proceeds to purchase a 50% interest in a factory 

trawler. 

5. Do any of the CDQ groups plan to use the corporation profits to 

purchase vessels or are all of the plans for on-shore development? 

As stated earlier, capital has been accumulated so that the purchase 

of equity positions, joint ventures and outright purchase of existing 

fishing vessels is a strong possibility. The current economic 
334 

situation in the factory trawl business is that there are too many 

vessels fishing for a finite number of fish and very strict fishing 

guidelines have to be structured to protect the long term survival of 

the fish resources. ll would not be prudent for purchases to be 

considered at this time. 

6. You mention that the fishing vessels which lease the COO 

allocations are held to strict by-catch measures. Can you tell us a 

little more about thi s and how you enforce them? 

Our enforcement mechanism is a part of our royalty agreement 

where we state 1,1at heavy bycatch must be avoided . Our partners 

will move from a bycatch area and fish where bycatch rates are low. 

We have daily re'port requirements so that the National Marine 

Fishery Service nows exactly what the CDQ factory vessels are 

doing on a daily basis. 

We mandate and pay for 100% observer coverage on our factory 

trawlers. No other groups have this requirement and this should be 

the norm for all fisheries controlled by the United States. 

We have volumetric bin measurements certified by NFMS which gives 

us a more accur;3te measurement of what we are catching. 

We are encoura~ting that scales be installed on all fishing vessels so 

that the measurements will be more exact. 

We are constantly and consistently advocating for very low bycatch 

rules and regulations , low discards and full utilization of all species 

caught if fish cannot be returned to the sea in a condition to survive. 

7. In your testim)ny you talk about COOs being a "laboratory for 

conservation". C"uld you explain in more detail what other measures 

you have taken in managing the resource and how others in the 

fishery could follow your example? 

The reference to the CDQ groups as a laboratory is that we have 

special rules an,J regulations that have proven that fishing in the 

Bering Sea can be cleaned up and that a profit can still be made. 

We have proven that you can have 100% observer coverage of your 

fishing activities and not go broke. 

We have proven that a group of people with little of no experience in 

the off-shore fishery can succeed in establishing successful 

business relationships that are economically beneficial to Alaska, 

Washington State and others who benefit from the Bering Sea 

fishery . 
335 

We have proven that the CDQ fishery is a cleaner fishery in terms of 

bycatch, recovery rates. and quality than the open Olympic fishery. 

We have proven that our fish product quality during the COO fishery 

is superior and that our recovery rate is higher than that of the open 

season. This means that fewer fish are needed to meet market 

demands and that the health of the resource can be protected and 

still contribute to the overall fishery economy of the United States 

and state of Alaska and the state of Washington. 

We have proven that the United States of America can entrust the 

targeted use of a national resource and achieve economic, social and 

national benefits unknown to lhis time. 

We believe that the COO groups are a model of how the nation, states 

and local people can work together to fight unemployment, cut 

welfare, educate and train people, provide hope and establish a 

vibrant economy where none existed on the mainland of Western 

Alaska before. We believe that this program provides only good 

results for the United States and we are proud to be a part of it. 

I hope that these comments are satisfactory and that you receive 

them in a timely manner. I cannot recommend that the Alaska model 

will work in other coastal areas of the U.S. but elements of it may 

be useful to you and your colleagues. 

We are hoping that language can be found to make sure that the COO 

program can become a part of the Magnuson reauthorization 

legislation. We are hopeful that your committee efforts will be 

successful and that the Magnuson Act is concluded in Congress this 

year. 

If there is anything else that I can do to help, please call or write 

and I will do all that I can to be of assistance. 

Mr. Chairman, please accept my thanks for the courtesy of allowing 

me to finish my testimony during the Magnuson hearing. 
Chairman 

Joseph M. Branca!eone 

336 

New England Fishery Management Council 5 Broadway· Saugus, Massachusetts 01906-1097 

TEL (617) 231-0422 FTS 565-8457 

=AX (617) 565-8937 FTS 565·8937 

March 28, 1995 

The Honorable Jim Saxton, Chairman 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

U.S. House of Representatives 

805 O'Neill House Office Bu'Jding 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

Executive Director 

Douglas G_ Marshall 

ln response to your letter of March 16, I submit the attached responses to the 

questions from Representative Torkildsen and other subcommittee members. The 

questions are numbered and repeated with my response following each one. 

Attachment 

JMB/pwc 

Sincerely, 

~1(~~~ 

Joseph M. Brancaleone(OO.....J 

Chairman 
337 

Joseph M. Brancaleone responses to additional questions from the Hon. Peter 

Torkildsen to both Rollie Schmitten and Mr. Brancaleone. (Feb. 23, 1995) 

Q. 1. Is it your view that Georges Bank will remain closed after Amendment #7 

regulations are passed? If so, for what period of time? Please proyide me 

with a detailed outline of the proposed long-term plan for Georges Bank. 

A. Mr. Brancaleone: Yes it will. We can't say yet for how long but Amendment 

#7 will contain a timetable or a mechanism for reopening the bank at an 

appropriate time. There is not a detailed long-term plan for Georges Bank. 

Amendment #7 will be that. We haven't yet decided all details of the 

amendment. 

Q. 2. Is the Council considering support for aquaculture as a viable component to 

any long term plan? 

A. Mr. Brancaleone: Not actively but the possibility is not precluded. 

Q. 3. When will NMFS and NOAA brief the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers 

of their commitment to aquaculture in an effort to expedite the application 

process? 

A. Mr. Brancaleone: The Cou'lcil cannot speak for NOAA or NMFS. That is Mr. 

Schmitten's prerogative. 

Other Questions to Mr. Brancaleone 

Q. 1. You feel that there is only a perceived conflict on the Councils. How do you 

think this "perceived conflict" should be addressed? 

A. The Council is sending a letter to the Subcommittee with numerous comments 

on proposed changes to the Act. We will address that question in our letter. 

Q. 2. Do you feel that Council members. should ever refrain from voting on an issue 

that might affect their personal finances? 

A. Yes. It has been a continuing practice for most, if not all, of the Council's 

existence for members not to vote on issues that directly affect them financially 

beyond the degree to which all participants in a fishery are affected. Members 

have generally erred on the side of caution where there has been any gray 

areas of doubt. 

Q . 3. Why are you opposed to the NOAA General Counsel making a determination 

on conflict? 

A. It seems to me personally that it is better for the Council itself to decide such 

matters. 
338 

Q. ic. Do you feel that Crmncils should develop guidelines on recusal? 

A l believe that is an entirely desirable and practical course of action. 

Q. 5. What type of fees would you like the Councils to be able to establish? What 

would these fees pay for? 

A. Basically Councils' fishery management plans should be able to require fees to 

fund data collection or administration of limited entry programs that allocate 

quotas, resource shares or units of effort that may be expended in a fishery. 

Such fees should be expended in the area of the Council that manages the 

fishery where they are collected. Such fees should not be an offset to regular 

budget appropriations for NMFS. 

Q. 6. You state that you think the 602 guidelines arc adequate to control overfishing. 

How do you explain the overfished groundfish fishery in New England? How 

do you explain that NMFS currently estimates that up to 1/3 of all 

commercially harvested species are overfished? 

A. The language proposed for defining overfishing in the Act is essentially 

identical to the language in the current 602 guidelines. National Standard 1 

already requires preventing overfishing while achieving optimum yield. 

Section 303(a)(1)(A) requires management plans to contain measures necessary 

to prevent overfishing, etc. Redundant language in the Act will not be a quick 

solution to overfishing. 

Overfishing in New England has resulted from several causes including 

(as major ones) too lax controls on fishing in the past and government 

encouraged overcapitalization of the fleet. 

The reason \IMFS estimates that up to one-third of all commercially 

harvested species are overfished is because it is very likely true. I think that 

estimate covers all U.S. fisheries -- it may even cover all fisheries worldwide --

so it is a problem not peculiar to New England alone. 

Q. ?. Why do you feel that a description of essential habitat for each fishery is too 

burdensome on the Councils? Don't the Councils currently look at habitat 

concerns? Isn't th:.s something the Advisory Panels and the Scientific and 

Statistical Committees can develop for Council approval? 

A. Describing habitat is a very technical exercise best done by oceanographers 

and other marine :;dentists working collaboratively. The Councils do not have 

enough staff nor staff with the requisite skills to do such descriptions beyond 

the simplest, commonplace level. 

FMPs do generally make reference to habitat or environment on the 

basis of information readily at hand. Council staff does not research habitat. 

Our advisory panels are composed of industry members who generally have 

only minimal scientific knowledge or skills. Our scientific and statistical 

committee (SSC) r<eviews and comments on scientific analyses performed by 

staff or plan development teams. The sse does not do staff work for the 

Council. 
339 

Q. 8. In Lee Anderson's paper from the last Congress, there is a request that the 

Magnuson Act be amended to allow an emergency action to be voted on 

without the Regional Director voting. In your opinion, does the Secretarial 

review of an emergency action unnecessarily delay the implementation of the 

action? Can you give any examples? 

A. Secretarial review of a Council request for emergency action may result in 

emergency action not being taken at all. It is discretionary for the Secretary if 

the Council vote is less than unanimous. See section 305(c)(2)(B). Regional 

Directors have standing orders from NMFS headquarters to always vote 

against requests by Councils for emergency action. This leaves the decision of 

whether or not to implement emergency rules to the Secretary. That makes 

section 305(c)(2)(A) essentially meaningless. 

Q. 9. Do you know of any instance where a Regional Director has voted with the 

rest of the Council for a unanimous vote on an emergency action? 

A. Virtually never. There may have been one case where NMFS instructed the 

Regional Director to ask the Council to request an emergency action and where 

the R.D. then voted yes on the request by the Council. 

JMB/pwc 

Corres./Saxton.Ques.3.21.95 
4/4/95 

Honorable Jim Saxton, Chairman 

House Committee on Resocrces 

340 

BWE WATER FISHERMEN'S 

ASSOCIATION 

1525 WILSON BLVD. (SUITE 500) 

ARLINGTON, VA 22209 

TEL (703) 524·8884 FAX (703) 524-4619 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

Hou•e Annex I 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Jim, 

In response to the additional questions presented to me in your letter of March 16. 

1995, l offer the following document. Please include it into the public record , along with 

my testimony 

I have also included an addendum that details some of my experiences on how the 

current opprooch 10 bycatch ond waste issues ha• affected the U.S. Atlantic pelagic 

Jongline fishery for swordfish and tunas. I have included this for your information and to 

illustrate my point that it is impossible for Congress to address the complexities of each 

fi:;hery within the Magnusor Act. 

Do not hecita.to to 11 on me if odditiona.l questions should llri5c . I look forward 

to working closely with you throughout the task of reauthorizing these impor.ant fisheries 

Acts. 

Sincerely, 

Y}L""'/. /Nf_~ ~~ R. Heideman 

Exec. Dir. BWFA 
341 

BWE WATER FISHERMEN'S 

April4, 1995 

Honorable Jim Saxton, Chairman 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Occnns 

House Committee on Resources 

805 House Annex I 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Jim, 

ASSOCIATION 

1525 WILSON BLVD. (SUITE 500) 

ARLINGTON, VA 22209 

TEL (703) 524-8884 FAX (703) 524·46111 

Reducing waste in all U.S. fisheries is a formidable task that will take a long time to 

achieve. We simply do not have the technology or the research resouro.;t:.s that are required 

Fishermen as well as the public aspire to the common sense "Waste not- Want not" goal and 

continuously adjust their fishing gear to maximize their targeted catch. Hook fishermen are 

especially aware of incidental catch because every hook taken by an unmarketable species is 

unavailable to catch a targeted species. Managers must apply this approach to fisheries 

management. The species-specific regulatory approaoh f•vored by NMFS and state managers, 

often results in increased regulatory waste while they are attempting to address allocation 

conflicts between users. Congress must begin turning the management of our fisheries toward a 

more effective multi-species and ecosystem-based approach. Initiating a holistic management 

system will require considerable resources; however, postponing this effort will gain nothing. 

It is impossible and ineffective for Congress to micro-manage all aspects of U.S. fisheries. 

Our fisheries are simply too complex and the users too diverse to cover all circumstances under 

specific definitions in the Magnusun A~1. To do so will almost certainly undermine the flexibility 

that managers will require to work with user groups in a public process to develop practical 

measures relevant to each fishery. The regional councils and in the case of Atl•ntic highly 

migratory species, the Secretary's task is to interact with the different fisheries stakeholders and 

address the biological and the socioleconomic issues in an open public forum. The result should 

be effective,~ and enfOic~able. What may be effective for the Northwest fisheries 

probably does not fit the issues of the Southeast or New England. Congress must find a way to 

set finn mandates to eliminate waste as an overall national fisherie.~ m~naeement policy and cut 

the funding and programs that stray from this mandate. All levels of fisheries management must 

be accountable for their actions. 

The suggested "bycatch" management amendment (attached) addresses what a 

building coalition of fisheries groups , including BWF A, consider to be a viable solution that will 

allow Congre.s lu m<ndate a fllir and practical national policy on this issue. We feel this National 

Standard should replace the detailed bycatch regulatory language in HR 39 including the present 

standard, the various bycatch definitions. the section 303 pro\'i~ions and the region-specific 

provisions. 
342 

To respond to the questions presented to me in your letter of March 16,1995: 

How to address regulatory waste. bycatch and utilization 

I). Congress should fimrly mandate a national policy to deal with utilizing, to the extent 

practicable, dead fish captured in all U.S. fisheries while reducing avoidable bycatch and 

d~!crea.sing bycatch mortalith~s. This national policy must provide a finn directive to alter NM:FS's 

reliance on regulations that result in waste. It must also allow the managers the flexibility to work 

with users to develop effective programs and phase in changes in regulations that will minimize, to 

the extent practicable, waste in specific fisheries. Because we are food producers and also 

business people, we need to address these issues from an economic as well as biological 

p<npective. 

The emphasis must noma in on eliminating waste. Ideally, <:Very fish that is either dead or 

mmtQily injured should be retained and used fur something, rath•:r than u~ dis<arded overboard. 

!fit is edible, it should be used for food- either sold or donated to the hungry. !fit is not fit for 

human consumption, it should be made into pet food or other corrunercial products (oils. 

fenilizers, meal, etc.) to the eJ.'tent economically and physically possible. If possible, it is better 

used than wasted; however, we clearly recognize that little if anything is ever actually wasted in 

thoe &ea since virtun11y 111J dca~ discards arc ultimately consuJned by vw.iou:; marine life and thus reenter the food chain. 

Full utilization is not practical In many fisheries. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't 

begin heading in that directicn where it is feasible and when it makes good s:nse. Perhaps during 

a transition, some fisheries could be required to land a ponioo of their bycatch to he """ly,.ed fur 

species by count, size, sex ar.d then properly utilized in some way either for commerce, donation, 

animal feed or fertilizer. It has been my OJ.-perience with the pelagic longline fishery that the 

majority of what is disc•rdc:<l could b~ used to supply needed protein to hungry people. It is not 

unusual to see fish in Europe's markets that are similar in species and size to what U.S. fishermen 

are required to discard. 

In the present bill the definition ofbycatch together with the new National Standard #8, 

exempts a large source of fish mort..alitie~ out of the bycatch is~ue ...... the recreational &ector. 

Re<:reational fishermen are also involved and have discards caused by regulation on size and bag 

limits and catch unusable species. Presently, HR 39 does not directly address the overall issue of 

r~ducing U:illlatory waSJe in fisheries management to the extent practicable. 

Documenting all fish mortalities. 

2). If we are to continue a scientific based approach, we must look at what is imponant to the 

scientific models. From a la;man's point of view, the data must reflect how many fish monalities 

occur by age class and sex: if possible. If this basic information is not reasonably accurate, our 

current reliance on analysis of catch by age to set allowable harvests is undermined and may 

re.nder our approach to fisheries ma.na.gcmcnt ineffective. Yet NMPS ~ntiuuously fail ~ lu tu.lUrt:S!; 

the reliability of our basic catch information as they promulgate regulations that are directed at 

user groups instead of across the entire fishery involved. This is especially true for highly 

mi,gratory species fisheries. 
343 

Congress should require catch snd effort documentation for all u:Jer!l of mnrinc resources. 

It should be a responsibility of all who want the ''right" to fish - commercial and recreational alike 

We must require all who catch marine species to rcpon their catch because there is no other way 

to keep track of exactly what is being caught. 

Allfisbermen and/or processors should submit timely repons either daily. weekly, or 

monthly to the National Marine Fisheries Service. Scientists can then accurately track quotas and 

assess the status of the stocks. Logbooks are already in place for most commercial fisheries, yet 

they are a.bscnt from for-hire and recreational fleets that contribute substantially to fish mmlalities. 

The use of observers should be as broad as the budgets will allow and used as a crossc:hcck to verifY sclf·reporlins. All Ve$Sels: chaflt:t, p1t.rLy. cununt:r'-ial, and recreationalin...all 

~ should be covered by observer programs, or appropriate levels of dockside intercept 

surveys. 

The need to have observers to ensure that commercial fishennen do everything they can to 

release unmarketable fish alive is not an efficient u•• oflimiterl fimding In my mind, observer 

coverage is necessary only to provide a cross-check to already fairly accurate daily logbooks in 

many fisheries. An ongoing national observer program may provide managers 'vith invaluable 

data on trends in U.S. fisheries. The Atlantic pelagic longline fishery has obtained extremely 

valuable infonnation from approximately 5% coverage. 

Currently, the pelagic longline fishery has mandatory daily logbooks, mandatory tally 

sheets within 5 days of offioading, mandatory observer coverage if selected, and mandatory biweel:ly dealer reports. We are also exploring dealer reporting within 24 hours and daily vessel 

catch reports via continuous satellite position monitoring. Unfortunately, despite the wealth of 

infonnation available from the longline fishery, the scientific data fur many of the species we 

harvest is little more than guesswork because NMFS can only estimate what the recreational 

sector is catching, discarding dead, and the mortalities of hooked fish when they escape or are 

relea.<ed The r~~CrMtional sector hat r«.ently raised thi< i<rue because the U.S. has reported only 

about 400 MT ofyeUowfin tuna to ICCAT in the past few years. Since ICCAT has recommended 

capping effort, recreational users may face unnecessary restrictions if their catch is actually several 

thousand metric tons, as they maintain. 

Congress should ensure that data gathering, monitoring, and observer coverage are 

comparable for all users contributing to mortality in a fishery, without exception. We suggest that 

all businesses including headboats, chanerboats, taxidennists, and tournaments be required to 

have trip reporting, logboor..s, and appropriate observer coverage to volidote this reporting. W c 

think that outside contractors could supply recreational boaters with mail-in optical scan 

postcards through the state and federal agencies that require vessel registration. NMFS could 

obtain weekly reports that would provide much better information than presently exists. 

Haw to determine bycatch ratios. 

3). The answer to this question will vary from fishery to fishery. The issues should be 

discussed between the fishery managers and the fishery panicipaots. It is difficult to set a number 

or percentage of allowable incidental harvest but it can be workable and practical if it is reviewed 

and revised to reflect the current situation on the ocean. It should be based on an average 
344 

interaction rate by monch? area. o.ndlor method ofharve~t . [fthe pc:n.cntages are based on u1tl 

data, they may result in waste. For example, the incidentallongline quota for Atlantic bluefin tuna 

above 34°N was set in the early 1980's at 2"/o of the trip catch in weight Depending on how 

much you caught, this could be 3 or 4 fish. Due to reduced catches, as swordfish stocks have 

declined, the 2% criteria now amounts to a fraction of a fish. The criteria has not been revised to 

reflec:t the current situation in the fishery and ls c.au3ing unnecessary wasLt:. 

Any proposed system should include an incentive to reduce the catch of unwanted species 

and encourage fishermen to improve the monaliLy talius, not punish them for trying new ideas. It 

should offer some incentive to vessels that catch fewer of the regulated species with perhaps an 

emphasis on tag and release programs. 

All concerned parties muSt recognize that as some stocks offish (such as blucfin tuna) and 

prote•ted turtles and mammals improve, interactions will increase. Logic dictates that this will 

happ100 and fisheries managers should not be alarmed to see more interactions if the management 

programs in place \'lOCk in rebuilding the interacting stock. 

Bycatch data and monitoring. 

4). In torms of actually meo>uring byoatch, l can only wnuuent on the pelagic longline fishery, 

whero fish are individually handled . . In trawl fisheries, there will be a much greater problem, as 

accurate measurements may in fact contribute to higher mortalities. In the longline fishery, the 

existing observer coverage allows NMFS to estimate not only any dead discards but also live 

releases. It is important to reoogrtize that in terms of stock assessments, we can use reasonable 

statistical estimate• of dead disc.vds in the model as long •• they •re b .. ed on a good sa<llple •i:re 

and the discards are a relatively small portion of the total number caught. The U.S. is the only 

nation that has formally submitted estimates of our dead discards to ICCAT. 

I hope these explanations help clarifY the difficulties involved with the "bycatch" issue and 

illustrates the complexities that must be discussed. If you h•ve any further questions, please 

contact me and I will help in anyway that l can. Thank you for your interest in finding solutions 

to these difficult problems. 

Sincerely, 

-dL_-.f. ~~~ z;:;n-R. Beideman 

Exec. Dir. BWFA 
345 

Arldcndum: 

Some of the effects that the atrrent lack of a firm fisheries mandate to deal with bycatch 

and rej(l.datory waste has on the Atlantic highly migratory specie.< 1"'/ngjc long/in• fish•ry. 

Over the life of Blue Water Fishennen's Association, we have been most successful on our 

scientific and research program~ wiTh fishe~n who understand the basic principles and potential 

benefits of fisheries management and conservation. Understanding the theory behind maximum 

sustainable yield enhances our already present "conservation ethic" and at the same time tweaks 

"our seiJish dt:>iro" to have greater seeurlty, in tenns of healthier stocks, tor our future to support 

our families and crew. Mistrust tends to fade with education as we recognize that sensibfe and 

effective management sustains the stocks and our income.<. It moy he that the moct eotu~tructive 

thing the Congress could do for the MFCMA is to instruct NMFS to make basic lite!1lture more 

accessible and to begin the arduous task of educating all fishermen on the basics of responsible 

fishing pra~ti~s. 

I'd like to briefly explain some of these issues; however, quantitative studies of all users are 

necessary to set bycatch priorities in a fishery. The Atlantic pelagic longline fishery is being 

proactive by attempting to study and address bycatch priorities for this fishery. BWF A and 

National Fisheries ln<titute (NFI) hove initiated steps, through a Saltonstall-Kennedy Gront, thnt we 

feel are necessary to prepare for a comprehensive management plan for the pelagic longline fishery. 

There are three phases to the overall study of this fishery. · 

S:K Gmqt Obiey;tjg. This project will provide baseline information to members of the industry to 

encourage practical suggestions relating to operational changes which could minimize bycatch. 

I). Prepare quantitative infonnation covering observed bycatch in the pelagic longline 

fishery. This includes placing intn a '"able fonnot observer information on dead/live ratios for all 

species captured and retained, released or discarded. 

2). Industry Bycatch Workshops to promote two way infonnotion on •void•nc" and 

mitigation techniques and to develop the industry's ideas for setting species priorities and necessary 

research. This will include a questionnaire being dcvdoped by BWF AINFIINMFS to receive 

infotmlltion on the fishcnnen's attitudes aud lin:ir wncerns and priorities on these issues. 

3). If funding is available, a panel of pelagic fishery experts including the different interest 

groups and international ICCAT p4tlicipants could comprehensively address tl'"'"' multi-species 

fiiheries and bycatch priority issues; by: 

• First, laying out the status ofinvolved species and catch. 

• ACCU!1ltely describe sources of mortality including landings and discards from 

various user groups. 

• Reviewing known industry techniques for bycatch avoidance, decreased 

mortality and utilization of dead catch. 

• Set research priorities tor potential avoidance and mitigation techniques. 

• Determine practical measures to implement the best available techniques to 

reduce bycotch of priority SJ'<"ics. 
346 

Despite the best efforts of fishermen and managers to develop methods to reduce bycatch, a 

certam amount (depending on an:a and season) of unmarketable resources may still be wasted 

unless and until we implement programs to recover that waste and find uses for it. Unfortunately, 

poverty is increasing in America :md the World. If allowed, U.S. fishermen could alle-..iate some of 

the hunger in America, while adding to the scientific data necessary to provide better management 

for U.S. fisheries. 

These issues and their difliculties cannot be discussed without mentioning the role that user 

group conflicts plays in complicating and slowing the process. Often, politics and hidden agendas 

derail practical and scientifically !Ound ideas. For example: 

As you may know (letter attached). there have been additional complir-'ltion< in NMFS 

implementation of the final rule for the Second Harvest Undersized Swordfish Donation Program 

Despite nearly three years of intensive work to develop a strictly controlled program that was still 

~11 for voluntat) paJ.Li.;ipatiun, delays continue. An impossible demand from several groups. 

including sportfishing interests and one "conservation" group, has created these delays. In an 

attempt to make this program so impractical and prohibitively expensive that industry would 

aband(1n it, they demanded 100% observer coverage to ensure that a vessel releases all live 

undersized swordfish. Observer <:overage is not necessary for fishermen to release live fish that 

cannot be mnrkctcd. Further, one: hundred percent observer wn:rage for this program is not the 

best use of limited NMFS resourc:es. However, industry has worked to meet this new requirement 

in orde~ to prevent further delays. This sport/environmental group is opposed to the program, 

because it may bring U.S. commercial fishermen good public relations for assisting needy 

individuals. The politics inside NMFS may squash this experiment, even though public comment 

throughout the open procc33 was overwhelmingly jn support. 

This is only one example of good faith ideas from fishermen being stymied by a small 

minority of politically-powerful individuals because the proposal did not suit their agenda. There 

are many among them that really do not want to see the "bycatch" issue addressed in an effective, 

realistic way but would rather use the issue of "bycatch" to promote their true agenda to clo<e 

comm1:rcial fisheries altogether. Nothing short of that will satisfy their cause. 

Ther~ are nther areas of fish~rit:s management whae wast11 is built into the regulations: 

The pelagic longline fishery targeting Swordfish and Tunas has documented a small bycatch 

of Largo Coastal ShMks through voluntary reporting and by scientists on cowmercial and research 

vessels since the early 1960's. NMPS encouraged a directed shark fishery to develop in the late 

1970's and early 1980's. The recently implemented Shark Fishery Management Plan established a 

total allowable catch with closures once the semi-annual quota is reached. When the shark closure 

occurs, the traditional bycatch on longline vessels must be discarded. There must be a mandate in 

the legislation to prevent conservation efforts from imposing more unnecessary w~t(:. BWF A 

repeatc.:lly suggested that the traditional incidental shark fisheries be given sufficient year-round 

allocation before setting a directed quota. This did not happen and the unnecessary waste of the 

resoun:e continues. 

Another Example: Year after year, the pelagic 1ongline fishery for swordfish and tunas has 

done its best to avoid unnecessary hook-ups of bluefin tuna. U.S. longline fishermen have been 

forced by law to discard these valuable edible fish since 1982, regardless of where they are fishing 
347 

We submitted proposals to NMFS and the !CCAT Advisory Committee to alleviate this problem 

since the data shows that bluefin tuna stocks are stabilized. This proposal sets up a U.S. longline 

index of abundance for bluefin tuna, that takes advantage of the far ranging areas, temperatures, 

and times of the year in which this fishery may interact with bluefin tuna. The JCCAT Advisory 

Committee is supportive; however, NMFS has ignored our ideas because they are entrenched in 

their wasteful regulatory approach, and do not want to deal with protests from other users, even 

though these fish have been documented and reported to ICCAT. 

We are the only country that records discards. Without changing the amount of quota to 

the U.S. (as recorded in the actual assessment) or taking quota from other user categories, the 

incidentallongline category could land the average amount estimated as dead discards. This would 

also provide additional monitoring data including critical Catch Per Unit Effort data· from the more 

widely distributed pelagic longline fishery. The only problem is this would require allowing 

multiple landings (2-3 per trip) during the times of the year that bluefin migrate through the 

om.hore waters where pelagic longlining is prosecuted. Again, there is no finn mandate for 

managers to develop constructive programs to help eliminate waste when feasible. Each year as the 

stock rebuilds. an ever greater nurnher ofbluefins will sinlc dead to the bottom, without the age/size 

data that help to track stock condition and size. Instead these fish could provide a substantial 

benefit to our economy and also have a positive effect on our trade deficit with Japan. Without a 

ftrm mandate, the politics within NMFS will continue to require this waste 

Another example: The Billfish Fishery Management Plan takes a political, rather than scientific, 

approach. It provides exclusive access to an international foodfish for the U.S. recreational sector, 

while totally preventing other owners of this public resource, including seafood consumers, from 

shAring in any benefit from the resourC<l. Commercial fishermen largely ignored the developmeul uf 

this plan in 1988, in the hope that upon receiving this "sacred cow", the recreational sector would 

moderate their threat of eliminating U.S. commerciallonglining. This did not happen. The Billfish 

Foundation recently submitted a proposal to NMFS that, if implemented, will close the majority of 

the U.S. EEZ to commerciallonglining during the most productive months. They have taken the 

position ofportr;:~ying Iongline as deru-uctive gear, despite the simila.ritics in method of harvest and 

species catch composition between longline and offshore sponfishing. Cash tournaments that can 

pay more than $240,000.00 for a single 67 pound white marlin, raise funds for this lobbying effort 

This approach is seriously flawed, ineffective, and undermines constructive attempts to 

gather the international cooperation that is necessary to rebuild declining billfish stocks. The 

combined U.S. recreational and commercial share ofbillfish catches in the Atlantic, including 

longline discards reported to ICCAT, for 1993 are as follows: 

8. I% Hlue Marlin 3.2% White Marlin U%Sailfish 

Currently, sponfishing interests fail to acknowledge that the combined effons of hundreds 

of recreational tournaments, charter vessels, and private sportfishing boats. is clearly a significant 

source ofbillfish monalities. In fact the number ofbillfish they kill may be comparable to or even 

exceed U.S. longline billfish mortalities. Although many sportfishermen have placed a concerted 

effort to promote "release" tournaments; many .. kill .. tournaments continue to expand. U.S. 

sponfishennen and reson developers have extensively promoted tournaments throughout the 

CaribbeAn. PromoLiuu offunher etfon on these stocks is not a responsible direction for any 

industry to take. 
348 

A .few span fishermen are dedicated to making billfish a "gamefish" world-wide and 

eliminating all commercial longline fisheries in the process. They have resoned to campaigns 

targ<~ ng consumers, reslaurams, and retail outlets to eliminate even legally lu!rvested marlin. 

Fleets from other nations, as wdl as our o"'n fishermen, must sec incentives and eward~ for their 

conservation effons. If effective steps are to be taken to rebuild depressed billfish stocks to 

healthier levels, the value of thi ; commcrciallu!rvest for food consumption must be recognized. All 

Atlantic harvesters will not cooperate without a fair and equitable approach. 

It has never been a protlem for U.S. longline fishermen to release billfish that come to the 

boat alive. BWF A has worked to spread the common sense practice of tag and release for all live 

billfish to the other JCCAT countries. Thineen of our BWF A Captains are in the top 20 taggers for 

the Southeast Coopemtive Tagging Program and the Dlllfish Founda.tion, itself, r"Ccogni~eO BWFA 's 

effons in a special recognition •ward in 1994. This approach internationally would potentially 

reduc:e biUfish monalities by 30 - 40%. U.S. commercial fishermen understand the relevant value 

sponfishing for these species has compored to the low market value ofbillfish fur consumption. 

However, discarding dead billfish is yet another regulatory loss of valuable protein. Not only is the 

American public denied market access by this wasteful regulation but also the loss of valuable 

scientific data and monitoring infOrmation that is inherent to this one-sided approach. 

A>k these same question• of fishermen iu dilfcrcnt fl>heries and you will probably receive 

descriptions of many similar examples of waste and possible solutions. Without a strong mandate 

from Congress, it will continue. Last year, the Second Harvest, national foodbank network, based 

in Chicago, put fonh a Magnuson Act amendment (anached) that you supponed. Our industry 

coatirlon amendment also addresses the same concerns within the broader context of the "bycatch" 

issue:, in o. more flexible manner. BWF A, Nf1 and many other groups atttlll(.JlcU to addre~s the: 

waste issue in the definition and alterations to the new National Standard #8 in H.R. 39. The 

environmental community successfuUy opposed these constructive sug_~test ons that were offered by 

many different fisheries. Their contention that bycatch can be reduced to zero is wrong. Bycatch 

will never be reduced to zero and Congress must address the waste issue. We must all try to ensure 

that unwanted bycatch monalities are minin1ized. We must also pu1~uc fuller utilization of all dead 

fish in the most beneficial way -· whether it be for commerce, donation, animal feed, or fertilizer. 

As tlshennen realize that we need accurate data for the security of our futures, many of our 

current problems caused by insufficient data will be solved. That message, once successfully 

ingrained in all fishermen, will minimize the need for extensive oh.erver covcrog• ~ 

s:mpjlasizc educatine- fishc:nuc:n? A more constructive positive attitude about working with 

fishermen, rather than the negative, mistrustful attitude which characterizes the NMFS command 

and control approach, might cltan~t: the polit;ic:s 1hat have cost this nation and our resources a great 

deal because of unnecessary waste. There must be an incentive to work toward a national goal that 

all fishermen can suppon. It cannot all be continual sacrifice with no end or reward in sight . 

With education, fishermen may see the reward of a more secure future. As market 

incentives develop. our ecosystem should be more brnadly used and r.he strP..<;S;es of ov ily selective 

removals lessened. It will take many forces at once - legislative, marketing and education among 

them to achieve the goal of a healthy ecosystem providing food for the public and a livelihood as 

well M rc"reation for fishenm:u 11111.1 tlu::ir fl1Illilies. 
349 

~'8ycgtch" Management: 

Both the fish harvesting and fish proce<sing industries, togc:thcr with Congress, must establish as a 

national priority improvement in the conservation and utilization of fish ami the reduction of discarded catch that 

can not be utilized. Even though this is'iue is of national ce m, the particulars of "bycatch ·· reduction and 

increased utilization are complex issues that differ widely from region to ,icgion and arc jllSt as dynamic and 

diverse as the fisheries themselves. Consequently, "bycatch" management soluJions will be equally diverse and 

Congress simply can not be expected to coutcmplat¢ cvcC)' unique detail of each U.S . fishery. 

Accordingly, like all national fishery pclicies, a national "bycateh pclicy" should provide a maximum 

degree of flexibility and discretion "'th.! Rei;on~t Councils and the s~retary to res.olve fithcry-rebted solutiom 

to "bycateh" management. The Councils, and in the case of Atlantic highly migratory species, the ICCAT 

Advisory Committee, arc in the best position to resolve these complex issues. In fact, effurts by Congress to 

micro-man!lga thr-...e mnttera through very detailed amendment~ to the Section 303 Fi:shcry Management Plan 

requirements or through region-specific language are likely to complicate the ability of managemcnt atrthorities to 

d"'-elop truly practical and workable solutions. 

Instead, by incorporating specific national objectives to minimize bycatch and waste and to encourage 

fuller utilization in the National Standards, Congress can make it clear that reducing waste is a national priority 

Congress ~ also '"lc:arly cstaLlbh thal .lhe reponsibility to implement this policy is the job of the proper 

management authority and they must irrqilemcnt these pclicies accocding to the ehamcteristics of each fishery. 

Such a clear statement avoids the need to develop interpretive definitions of new "bycatch'" terms. The following 

bycatc.b and utilization pclicy objecti~ are fundamental and straightforward: 

I. In the first place, minimiz.e the catch of fish that cannot be utilized. 

2. Minimize the mortality of those fish that are caught but cannot be utilized. 

3. Maximize the utili2ation of those fish that are captured dead. 

finally, a pn:u.;:li~l policy dictates that COngress require that the hal"\o-estlng and processing industries 

achieve these objectives to the extent practicable, and to ensure that these objectives are not used solely for the 

purpose of economic aliOClllions. 

Prqpqsed Amendmrnts tg U R. 39 - RYQ1lch; 

• On~· 4, strike lines 13 through zj, and renumber the succeeding paragraphs accorrlmgly. 

' On page 11 , strike lines 6 and 7 and insert tbe fOllowing in lieu ther"'f: 

'"(8) Conscrva!lon and management shall promon: practices by Unired States fishermen and fish 

processors in a fishery that, to the extent practicable, (A) minimize the harvest, and reduce the mOTtality of fish 

that= nor utilized by U.S. fishe;men or processors in that fishery, and (B) ma.'<imize the utilization ofthn<e fi<h 

that are captured dead; except thar no such meastm: shall have economic allocation as its sole purpose." 

• On page I 8, strike lioes 14 through 22 and insert the folla~<ing in lieu thereof: 

"(A) in paragraph (5) by inserting "according to a standardized reporting mc:thodology" immedian:ly 

after "thereof." 

• On page 19: 

( l) on line 14, insert "and" at the end of thereof; 

(2) strike lines 15 through 22; and 

(3) on line 23, sttike "(13)" and insert "(I!)" in lieu theroof. 

Strike page :30, line 10 through page 32, line 5, and re·number the succeeding sectiofi.S accordingly. (i .e. Strike 

section 14 of the bill and re-number succeeding sections of bill.) 
350 

/1 !UL•-•<fr ;? _' L /~,r<:J 

BWE WATER ~ FISHERMEN'S 

ASSOCIATION 

2112/95 

Richard Stone 

Chief, Highly Migratory Species Division 

Nlllional Marine Fisheries Servic.• 

1335 East- West Highway 

Silver Springs, MD 20910 

Dear Dick, 

I am writing in an attempt to jump start the Second H8IVest Undersized Swordfish 

Donation Prosram. As you may know. there have been complications at the Agency 1cvc::l with 

gettina this constructive experiment underway. Following nearly three years of intensive work to 

put forth a very tightly controlled program that was still practical for voluntary participation, the 

Impractical criteria set by the Center tor Marine Conservation has created these further delays. 

Unfornmately, CMC did not ••• fit to participate in the Second Harvest Tnsk Force. If 

they had. they would know Observer Coverage:is not necessary for fishermen to release live fish 

that cannot be marketed. One hundred percent Observer Coverage fur this program is not the 

best use ofNMPS resources: however, industry has worked to meet this new criteria to prevent 

further delays. 

We may need to alter implementation procedures South of Cape Hatteras where smaller 

vesSel& are unable to accommodate another man on board without sailing operationally 

undermanned and must bear insurance costs directly to the vessel. I recommend that we oontinue 

to seek volunteers who agree with the current program criteria while we discuss viable 

alternatives. M•.anwhile, the followins volunteen North of Cape Hatteras are prepared to toke 

the ne>:t step necessary to implement the program. Each vessel meets the criteria of having 

participated in previous conservation programs and have no negligent fisheries violations that 

would make their participation questionable. 

FN s.,a Lion VIII, Owner/Oper•tor Larry Thompson, currently based out of Portland, ME. 

FN Eagle Eye II, Owner/Operat•>r John Caldwell, currently based out of Fairhaven, MA. 

FN Hunl!1)' Dog, Owner/Operat·Jr Tom Davis. currently ha"'.rl out of Montauk, NY. 

FN Lori L., Owner John Larson, Capt. Mike Johnson, currently based out of Barnegat Light, NJ. 
351 

It will be necessary to obtain logistical information from each vessel; st1c-:h ~sa list of 

ports, docks and fish dealers typically encountered during a full year. Throughout the Second 

Harvest Task Force discussions, it was recognized that any dock or dealer willing to participate 

must be allowed to volunteer their services fur this pilot as nor to have our Government mandate 

who a vessel can or cannot do business with. In these cases all primary docks and dealers have 

already applied to the program. Ancillary logistical set-ups will be the primary focus. as each 

vessel uses different ports during their year-round operation. Once this information is obtained, 

information on the program should be sent to each dock, dealer, and Local Foodbank in a vessel's 

logistical chain to ha•·e them sign-up. 

Following this transier of information, I sujl,gest each logistical chain be brought together 

by Conference Call to ensure each operation is familiar with their perspective responsibilities in 

the program. Once this is accomplished, necessary equipment and letters of permission in plastic 

covers should be •cnt to each participant in a vessels chain oflogistics and the program be placed 

on line one at a time by vessel. If we start with the Lori L., I will be able to help monitor any 

initial problems that may arise. 

I'm sure we will be working closely to implement this program. Typically fishermen work 

long hud hours, even when ashore. 1 am ~vailablc to oonlcu,il these fishermen after hours or on 

the radio if necessary. I look forward to initiating this program that moves fishery management in 

a better direction than the current mandate of regulatory discarding and the resultin)! waste of 

science and protein. 

Thanl:: you for your con&ideration of my views on implementation of this constructive 

experiment. 

Sincerely, 

?~ ...... ~~- / z;;~n R. Heideman 

Exec. Director BWF A 
352 

August 2, 1994 

Congressman Jim Saxton 

Merchant Marine and Fisherie$ Commtttee 

United States HOU$e of Represen!lttlves 

1334 Longwo<th Office Oullding 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Congreosroar, Sa:don: 

The purpose of !his leiter is to ••k your support fOl a proposed amendment to the 

Magnuson Act which provides fish lo food banks. As you know, Congress Is 

scheduled to reauthOflze the Magnuson Act, the law that regulale$ fishing in u.s. 

wateTJ. From my perspective as tile president or an orvanizellon committed to the 

alleviation of hunger in Ame~ca, I think lhatlhla provision has the potential of making 

more protein-rich fish available for hungry Americans. This distribution is possible 

through the exls~ng network of 186 food banks serving over 48,000 chartlable 

agencies Including soup kitchens and emergency food pantries. 

Federal fisheries regulations presently requlr11the discard of millions of pounds or fish 

even though the fish are not alive and are therefore of no &ustainlng value to the 

commercial fisheries. There is no existing requirement that less wasteful alternatives 

l>e explored. The reauthorization of the Magnuson FiGheries Conservation end 

Management Act provides a great opportunity to addle99 what Is, !rom our point of 

view, an unnecessary barrier to available protein for hungry Americans. 

Second Harvest requests your strong s1.1pport for this amendment for these reasons: 

• It requires fisheries to seek alternative& to the mandatory discard of unlive 

fish. 

• It allows the option of donating r.oh lo food bonke as an alternate plan to 

dispose of unllve prohlb~ed species bycatch and other mandated discards. 

• The casts of processing and delivery are shared by both the private 

industry and tho nonprofit sector. 
353 

Page2 

• Redur:tion of National Marine Fisheries Service's administrative and 

logistical support expenses from direct donation of forfeited fish to 

domesilc hunger relief organizations would be a cost-effective benefit to 

the nation. 

• Since millions of tax dollars a~ spent for hunger relief each year, it seems 

unreasonable to discard, by taw, millions of pounds of usable protein rich fOOd. . 

• The proposed amendment Is moderate; suppcrtable, and potentrally 

effective as ·a mechM'srr· !t- r·r;><id& hur.gl!:r:re:lef a.'ld l;> TE!dUce · 

. inefficiencieS ai\d )HBSI8. . 

• It would have no negative impact on federal fisheries management. 

Your support for this amendment and the ISsues it addresses In the Magnuson Act 

reauthorization p~ess could help us feed millions of hungry Americans. 

Sincerely yours, 

Christine 

~~rA Vladimlroff, O.S. 

President and Chief Exec 

Enclosure; Propo~ed Magnuson Act Amendment · 
354 

MAGNUSON ACT 

AMENDMENT PROPOSAL 

Add a new paragraph at the end of subsection 1851' (a) 

SEC. 301 16 USC 1851 

NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT. 

r 

(a) IN GENERAL --Any fishery management plan prepared, and any regulation 

promulgated to Implement any 6Uch plan, pursuant to lhl~ title shall be consls!ent 

.with the following national standards for fishery conservation and management: 

' Regulatory discard of dead fish or fish parts Will not be used as a 

management measure in .any fl&hllry unless altematives.are assessed, and it can be 

ohown tm.t oo effective sltomative can be Implemented." 

Add a new paragraRh at the end of subilectlon 1653 (a) 

SEC. 303 16 USC 1853 

CONTENTS OF FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLANS 

(a) REQUIRED PROVISIONS. -- Any fishery management plan which Is prepared 

by any Council, or by the Secretary, with resp~ct to any ftshery, shall -

"contain a description of measures taken to assess and Implement, wherever 

possible, aH.ernaflves tq re )~la!.,r; !'ll<~nd~f>:>ry) rll<i,:~rtl a.s a strategy for m>~!lagin!J 

prohibited catch. · 

(A) A~ernative disposition of prohibited catch can include the option to 

allow or require processing for, and contribution to, a National Marlne Fisheries 

Service approved, non-profit, distributor f<X the benefit of" national food bonk 

ne1Wor1< serving the economically disadvantaged.' 
355 

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL 

CO\!~ MISSION ON GEOSCIENCES, ENVIRONMENT, AND RESOURCES 

2101 Constitution Avenue Washington. D_C 2041R 

CX.:Et\1\ STUDIES BOARD 

The Honorable Jim Saxton 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, 

Wildlife and Oceans 

O'Neill House Office Building 

House Annex 1, Room 805 

House Committee on Resources 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Congressman Saxton: 

April 14, 1995 OFFJLF LCX-AT!Ol\ 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before your 

subcommittee on February 23, 1995 regarding H.R. 39 and the 

reauthorization of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act. I am pleased to respond to your follow-up questions of March 

21. My answers are given below. 

1. You apparently feel that there is significant overcapitalization 

of the U.S. fishing fleet. What do you propose to reduce this 

fishin9 effort? Do you advocate a vessel buy-out program and if so, 

considering tight budget constraints at both the State and Federal 

levels, how do you propose funding such a program? 

In the NRC report, the committee recommended that fishery 

management should control entry into and wasteful 

deployment of capital, labor. and equipment in marine 

fisheries. Furthermore, we recommended the fishery 

management councils should decide the form of controlled 

entry and that it must be responsible and equitable, and 

have adequate phase-in periods. We also noted that limited 

entry alone cannot prevent overcapitalization; some form of 

control of fishing effort andjor total catch is also 

needed. (p.33) 

We did not consider vessel buy out programs in our study. 

2. You seem to advocate limited access programs and ITQs in 

particular. How do you deal with the social and economic 

dislocations that occur with ITQ programs (both for individuals and 

communities)? 

(See also response to question 1 above.) In the NRC 

report, we describe and discuss briefly five possible 

mechanisms for limiting entry, including ITQs (p.20). 

However. we did not advocate any mechanism in particular. 

Regarding individual guotas. we specified concerns which we 

felt (either some or all of which) needed to be addressed 
356 

.in order to real ze higher benefits to conservation and 

.society: namely, 11 preventing overconcentration of the 

quotas; effectively discouraging the practices of bycatch 

discard and highqrading (keeping only the larger, more 

valuable fish) ; providing opportunities for future entrants 

to a sustainably managed fishery through future quota 

reserves or other means; ensuring certainty of tenure in 

order to reduce risk created by ambiguities in the legal 

fabric; preserving and promoting the economy and way of 

life of coastal fishing villages; addressing distributional 

or equity issues that arise with the disposition of access 

rights to a publ :c c resource in a manner that bestows 

potentially larg" windfall profits on the initial private 

recipients of thE! newly created marketable privileges; and 

ensuring that, a1: least initially, any increases in 

administration and enforcement costs necessary for a 

successful trans:i tion to, and implementation of, largescale individual quota systems is adequately funded by the 

owners of quotas andjor increased budget allocation for the 

agency." (p.2l) 

3. Whether a limited access system is in place or not , why is the 

Council setting an acceptable total allowable catch not adequate to 

protect fisheory resources ? 

OnE! of our major conclusions was that open access 

to fisheri es and the resulting overcapita lization 

were major problems inadequately addressed in 

most contemporary fisheries management. We 

recommended that in order to prevent overfishing. 

managers should control en tr~ontrol effort 

and/or total catch. (p. 33) 

4. In your r e port you advocate an independent entity to review 

management and conservation measures. Isn't this just adding an 

additional level o f bureaucracy to the system? 

In our study, we concluded that the present level of 

oversight of fisheries management by Congress is not 

suff iciemt. We determined that some form of independent 

mechanism is needed to address the issues of adequate 

oversight of management and implementation of the MFCMA, 

resolution of conflict involving objection to spec ific 

management measu:res andjor actions, and development of 

long-term strate9ic planning for securing the future 

viability of U.S. fish stocks and the U.S. fishing 

industry. (pp. 39-40 ) 
357 

Thus, the role of the independent entity is not redundant 

because. as proposed, it would execute functions that are lacking in the existing management process. 

Specifically, we recommended that the new body be 

responsible for: 

"(A) Reviewing and commenting on 

(1) Scientific and technical issues underlying the 

council's and Secretary's fishery-management 

decisions. 

(2) Philosophical aspects of emerging management 

strategies. 

(3) National management goals. 

(4) Overlapping provisions and jurisdiction among the 

MFCMA, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the 

Endangered Species Act. 

(5) Environment and habitat-protection issues. 

(6) Performance of the councils and the secretary. 

(B) Mediating or rendering non-binding conclusions on 

(1) Challenges to councils by the public on issues related 

to conflict of interest and improper statistical 

decisions. 

(2) Conflicts between the councils and the Secretary. 

(C) Reporting annually to Congress on the implementation of 

the MFCMA and to the President on the effectiveness of the 

implementation agencies: NOAA/NMFS (data collection and 

analysis) , the Coast Guard (enforcement) , and the 

Department of state (international)." (p.40) 

5. You mention a need to determine and protect those areas that "are 

critical in fish reproduction and growth." Do you feel the 

provisions in H.R. 39 are adequate to make that determination? 

As mentioned in my written statement submitted for the 

record, H.R. 39 contains several noteworthy provisions 

aimed at reducing bycatch problems and protecting fish 

habitats, including a requirement for the Secretary of 

Commerce to identify the essential fishery habitat for each 

fishery and for the council to include a description of the 

essential habitat in management plans along with 

conservation and management measures necessary to minimize 

adverse impacts on that habitat caused by fishing. 

The NRC report describes many human activities, in addition 

to fishing, that have altered habitats important for 

sustaining fishery resources. For example, in many areas 

habitats are severely affected by pollution, including 

nutrient loading from point and non-point source discharge, 

3 
358 

agricultural runoff, and aquaculture; dumped foreign 

:;ubstances such as toxic material, dredge spoils, or oil 

spills; thermal discharges; and excessive light and noise. 

'rhe introduction of exotic species, or of man-made 

structures such as artificial reefs that modify beach sand 

budgets, also alter habitats. Fishing activities can alter 

nutrient levels and bottom sediments resulting from bottom 

trawling, dredging, and processing operations. (pp.29-30) 

'rhe committee recommended development of a major national 

program to determine what habitats are critical for fish 

reproduction and growth and how they can be protected. 

Furthermore, the committee suggested that two early tasks 

~<ould be to define the environmental components essential 

f or fish reproduction, survival, and production at the 

level needed for maintenance of fisheries resources, and to 

identify and understand current causes of habitat 

degradation. (p.44) 

:rhus. H.R. 39 takes a first step toward identifying 

critical habitats and minimizing adverse affects by fishing 

activities. but there are other human activities that 

adversely affect fish habitats. We recommended that steps 

r1eed to be taken to protect critical habitats and more 

i nformation is needed about the current causes of habitat 

~legradation lin addition to adverse effects from fishing 

iiCtivitiesl . 

6. Aft:er listening to the first panel's testimony, there seems to be 

quite a difference in opinion on how much the Magnuson Fisheries 

Conservation and Management Act needs to be amended. Do you believe 

the Magnuson Act has the ability to work as it is written or are 

major revisions needed? 

The objective of the NRC report Improving the Management ot' 

U.S. Marine Fisheries, was to present recommendations while 

Congress considered changes in the MFCMA. We acknowledged 

that the report is not an in-depth evaluation or assessment 

of all of the issues relevant to the MFCMA. Rather it 

reflects the collective, deliberated views and 

recommendations of experts, who are well familiar with all 

aspects of the MFCMA, on how the act might be improved in 

the reauthorization process. The committee's 

recommendations were designed to enhance the most effective 

aspects of the present MFCMA and to introduce critically 

needed clarifications and structural improvements. (p.ll) 

'I'hus, we believed that management. currently under the 

MFCMA. could be improved: some of our recommendations 

reguire a change in the MFCMA and others do not necessarily 

require a change in the MFCMA but Congress could ensure 
359 

their implementation by incorporating them in the 

reauthorization legislation. 

In particular, we recommended that "Congress should clarify 

the authority and responsibility of the Secretary of 

Commerce and of regional fishery management councils with 

respect to allocation and capitalization controls, 

implementation and enforcement of fisheries management 

plans, strategic planning, review of management decisions 

and actions, and conflict resolution (p.34) ." In addition, 

we identified inadequate provisions in the MFCMA, and 

suggested improvements that would be most appropriate for 

Congress to address in reauthorization, namely, redefine 

optimum yield in terms that prevent overfishing (p.32) , 

specify recreational fisheries in the first national 

standard, specify optimum yield from each stock (rather 

than from each fishery) in the first national s tandard 

(p.33), and in gene ral, require that all the national 

standards include conservation and management measures that 

prevent overfishing a nd promote rebuilding of stocks 

reduced to low levels (p.32). 

Although most of the recommendations were directed to 

specific actions by fishery managers and NOAA/NMFS , 

Congress may choose to ensure that the NRC recommendations 

are implemented by inclusion in the reauthorization 

legislation. 

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any additional 

questions. 

Sincerely, 

rJ~ MS!!!'1---

Cha1rman rn~ I 

NRC Committee on Fisheries 

5 

0 
ISBN 0-16-052241-2 

9 80160 522413