79 . 



standards of behavior which will guarantee a continuing and sustainable flow of 

 benefits. 



I realize that presently it is not fashionable to defend fishery management in gen- 

 eral and the Magnuson Act in particular. Phrases like "strip mining the sea" and 

 "foxes guarding the henhouse" convey the cynicism of the critics all too well. Yet 

 fishery management has not all been futile. I cite as an example of success the spec- 

 tacular recovery of the striped bass. Through a decade of sacrifice and expense we 

 restored habitat and cut fishing mortality. This did not happen spontaneously. It 

 took the leadership of political institutions (the U.S. Congress, the ASMFC, and the 

 affected states) and the dedication of the fishing communities to agree to a course 

 of action, to spend the money and to endure the sacrifices of forgone revenue and 

 recreation, to make it happen. 



I firmly believe that this success can be replicated in other fisheries. I further be- 

 lieve that the fishery councils are the forum in which the appropriate courses of ac- 

 tion can be promulgated. 



Unfortunately the councils are at present seriously encumbered. In addition, at 

 least in New England, the displacement of excess fishing capacity from the scallop 

 and groundfish fisheries is threatening a cascade effect into other areas. The 

 groundfish crisis could soon become a dogfish, monkfish, or squid crisis unless 

 proactive steps are taken. 



To facilitate a timely, credible and goal effective conservation program I rec- 

 ommend that Congress seriously consider the following points: 



1. Streamline the fishery management plan development process. 



Rationale: In delegating management authority to the RFMC's Congress and the 

 Department of Commerce have maintained accountability to the public interest by 

 insisting that numerous social, economic, and legal consistency analyses accompany 

 each draft FMP or plan amendment. The result is that the pendulum has swung 

 too far from timely conservation decisions toward process. A better balance must be 

 struck. 



2. Require an objective and quantifiable overfishing definition for aU important 

 stocks/species. 



Rationale: Presently overfishing definitions are required only for species governed 

 by a fishery management plan. Once a stock is overfished managers find themselves 

 on a slippery slope having to either mandate restrictions to an economically stressed 

 industry or to temporize while conditions further deteriorate. This indecision, not 

 the greed of rapacious commercial fishermen, is what allowed New England ground- 

 fish to degenerate to its deplorable current status. Overfishing is a line which 

 should never be crossed, to avoid crossing it we must first know its location. 



3. Allow incremental management. 



Rationale: Present NOAA guidelines require comprehensive management pro- 

 grams. Within any program are elements of varying complexity and controversiaUty. 

 It is far more effective to implement elements which enjoy broad support and derive 

 their benefit while debate continues in other areas, 



4. Do not encumber the Council process with excessive conflict precautions. 

 Rationale: The popular notion that the councils are packed with fishermen who 



are enriching themselves at the public's and resources expense is a fallacy. Propos- 

 als that would disenfranchise fishennen from debate and vote on any matter where 

 there could be a remote taint of conflict would cause substantial harm to the council 

 process. Not only would the colloquy be bereft of it's most experienced voices but 

 also the fishing communities' confidence in the outcome decision would be under- 

 mined. 



As an alternative, I would recommend broadei representation by non-fishing 

 groups such as environmental and public interest organizations. 



As a final point, one which is not germane to Magnuson issues but is within the 

 scope of this hearing, I would like to comment on the ongoing emergency assistance 

 programs being provided by the federal government to the Northeast fishing indus- 

 try. 



The impact of the groundfish and scallop crisis is probably equivalent to that of 

 other natural disasters. However, this situation differs in that we knew that it was 

 coming yet failed to take decisive action. The assistance programs now underway 

 are appropriate as agents of social and economic justice but they should not be seen 

 as a comprehensive remedy to overfishing. There are simply too many boats and too 

 much capital in the New England area to be completely absorbed by any diversifica- 

 tion program. 



In addition, any continued use of public funds to sustain excess fishing capacity 

 becomes an operating subsidy which I fear will quickly erode the values of self-reli- 

 ance, entrepreneurism and work ethic which characterize the fishing communities. 



