81 



We have also failed the trust of future generations who will not have the access to 

 plentifiil and healthy fish stocks that we had. 



CLF is part of the Marine Fish Conservation Network, a consortium of groups 

 representing millions of citizens in this country formed to state loudly and clearly 

 for all to hear that the United States is failing its mission as trustee of our fisheries, 

 and to focus public and political attention on the tragedy that is contemporary fish- 

 eries management in this country. In thee 1960's, we had Soviet factory ships to 

 blame for the intense fishing pressure that devastated haddock and herring stocks 

 on Georges Bank. In the 1990^s, we have only ourselves to blame. It is time to get 

 serious about managing fisheries for the long-term in this country and Congress 

 holds the critical key to change in these reauthorization proceedings. 



The Network supports the provisions of HR 4404, the Marine Fish Conservation 

 Amendments of 1994, recently introduced by Rep. Wayne T. Gilchrest (R-MD), 

 which go far in their attempt to address a number of the key shortcomings of the 

 current Magnuson Act. The Network would like to highlight the following provisions 

 of HR 4404 for the Senate's deliberations: 



• HR 4404 prohibits overfishing and requires rebuilding plans to be developed for 

 any stock that is currently overfished. As obvious as it might seem to an outside 

 observer that overfishing is wrong, councils and NMFS continue to over-emphasize 

 political and social considerations to the long-term detriment of the health of the 

 stock biomass. Thought should be given to raising the stakes with respect to this 

 issue by removing council jurisdiction for any stock that is overfished. The Senate 

 must speak strongly and unequivocally on this issue. 



• HR 4404 recognizes for the first time the critical importance of habitat protec- 

 tion in the long term vitality of this nation's fish resources and gives the implement- 

 ing agencies some authority to protect essential habitat from destruction. NMFS 

 should have veto power over activities that destroy or degrade the habitats of our 

 marine fish resources. Along the same lines, language needs to be included that 

 mandates NMFS and the councils to evaluate the impact of mobile and fixed fishing 

 gear on subtidal habitat. 



• HR 4404 focuses on the horrendous problem of bycatch and discarding of fish 

 and marine mammals. Agenda 21, the blueprint that emerged from the Environ- 

 mental Summit at the UN Conference on Environment and Development, includes 

 language urging fishing nations to "promote the development and use of selective 



fear and practices that minimize the waste of catch of target species and minimizes 

 ycatch of non-target species." US fishery management law needs specific language 

 implementing this international commitment. CLF knows of no other resource-based 

 inoustry that wastes as much of its resource during the harvesting process as the 

 fishing industry. Moreover, fishermen are powerless to effect these changes. High 

 bycatcn and discards are a research, technology, and management failure that must 

 be, addressed. By way of comparison, we are informed that in many of the fishery 

 management plans in Canada, discarding fish is strictly prohibited; all fish cau^t 

 must DC landed. Landing data on juveniles and non-target sj)ecies is used by Cana- 

 dian scientists to immediately close areas that need protection. 



• HR 4404 reforms the council and agency process in ways that will promote the 

 development of effective and appropriate management plans. Members of the Net- 

 work continue to be committed to a council system as a regional management tool, 

 but the current form is not working and structural changes are needed. Representa- 

 tion of the broader public interest needs to be built into council membership in order 

 to reflect the broader trust obligations established by the Magnuson Act. Moreover, 

 financial conflict-of-interest questions must be faced and satisfactorily addressed in 

 this reauthorization. 



• HR 4404 repeals the provisions of the Fishery Conservation Amendments of 

 1990 (and associated language in the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act) which limit 

 council authority over highly migratory species to the implementation of inter- 

 national recommendations, which are often weaker than councils might otherwise 

 deem appropriate. Secretarial jurisdiction over these species has not improved their 

 management, has eroded public confidence and access to the process, and has re- 

 duced public accountability of the fisheries managers. 



• HR 4404 introduces a fee system to help redress the chronic and irresponsible 

 underfiinding of fisheries management in this country. Councils, NMFS fisheries 

 centers, NMFS administrative and enforcement staff, and the Coast Guard are sim- 

 ply incapable of performing the tasks necessary to manage marine fisheries for lack 

 of funds. This funding gap has been pointed out time and time again to Congress 

 to no avail. For example. Amendment 5 to the New England Multispecies Ground- 

 fish Management Plan requires the New England region to administer a groundfish 

 management plan that is at least an order of magnitude more complex than its 

 predecessor. Yet fiinding levels for the region have remained the same despite the 



