82 



repeated promises by senior NMFS ofdcials that adequate funding would be avail- 

 able to administer and enforce this complex program. The success and efiicacy of 

 a fisheries management plan — like any terrestrial resource management plan — is a 

 function of good science, data collection and management capability, administrative 

 and enforcement resources, and education. Without these resources, plans are a 

 meaningless joke on everyone. 



Speaking to the Committee now only as CLF and not a member of the Network, 

 I would like to focus on two issues that the Network has not resolved that seem 

 critical, to us as far as resolving some of this region's persistent management prob- 

 lems. 



One of the major deficiencies of the Magnuson Act is that it only requires man- 

 agement after data has been developed proving that a fishery is in need of conserva- 

 tion and management. That stage is too late for effective management. Not only 

 have the fish stocks already been reduced, but an entire fishing sector has developed 

 around that species that will inevitably be resistant to effort restrictions or mortal- 

 ity reductions. Councils and NMFS have to be charged to develop some broad man- 

 agement framework for all fish species within their jurisdiction, regardless of 

 whether they are mature fisheries, developmental fisheries, or unutilized fisheries. 

 Again, Canada seems to be ahead of the United States in this area and we are in- 

 formed that a conservation plan has to be approved before any new fishery is pros- 

 ecuted. Somehow, the cycle of endless catchup must be broken if the country is to 

 witness rational management in the coastal zone. 



Second, something must be done to, control access to marine fisheries, which rep- 

 resents the number-one policy demon in fisheries management in this region. Open, 

 uncontrolled access to resources is a formula for ecological, economic and social ruin, 

 a downward spiral on which we in New England now find ourselves. This is not an 

 open theoretical question; it is axiomatic that open access resources are overutilized. 



Much of the political volatility around this issue in New England has emerged as 

 a result of the intensive, external promotion.of individual transferrable quotas 

 ("ITQ's") by NMFS over the past several years. ITQ's have been characterized by 

 some as an almost magical market-driven route to sound resource utilization. 



In fact, it is probably too early to tell whether ITQ's work to produce a conserva- 

 tion benefit, even though they certainly seem to work well to consolidate fishing 

 rights in a few individuals or corporations if improperly designed. The fishing com- 

 munities of this country are well advised to be suspicious of the so-called benefits 

 of ITQs, which all too often seem to come at the expense of community values and 

 traditions. 



But ITQs are not the only form of controlled access. Any number of schemes that 

 have the effect of restricting entry can be developed. CLF believes that we must face 

 this policy demon if our fisheries are to have a serious chance in the future without 

 the repeated boom-and-bust cycles that have plagued this industry for centuries. 



While councils may be the best venues for this discussion, we are now convinced 

 that this discussion will occur at that level only if there is a credible threat that 

 such a closed system can be externally imposed on a regional fishery. The only way 

 to do that is to remove the restriction i in the Magnuson Act on the Secretary of 

 Commerce's ability to establish a limited access system without council approval 

 where the record indicates that the relevant council has failed to achieve the con- 

 servation and management objectives of the act on its own. These marine resources 

 belong to the pubhc at large and the Secretary of Commerce has to have the ability 

 to act aggressively and economically rationally where the councils fall short. 



As we nave already mentioned, such a statutory change could have profound and 

 unintended social and economic consequences without necessarily producing any bi- 

 ological benefit. It must be considered carefully, but we believe that fimited access 

 must be mandated under appropriate circumstances. 



On behalf of CLF and the other members of the Marine Fish Conservation Net- 

 work, I want to thank you for this opportunity to testify to your committee .2 I would 

 so like to acknowledge and thank you. Senator Kerry, for the strong position you 

 seem prepared to take in these prodeedings. The fisheries, of this country and the 

 communities that depend on the health and vitality of those fisheries need that 

 leadership now, perhaps, more than any other time in the history of federal fisheries 

 management in this country. The Marine Fish Conservation Network will continue 



1 Section 304(cX3). 



a CLF would also like to commend to the Committee's attention the excellent legislative brief- 

 ing statement prepared by the American Fisheries Society on Magnuson Act reauthorization, a 

 statement which makes many of the same points we have in this testimony. 



