84 



Adequate council activity, with public participation, will pave the way for the 

 framework to which I have referred. Such a framework will provide the means to 

 flexibly preserve and rebuild the stocks while balancing economic and environ- 

 mental concerns. Properly framed, it will also require the federal government to rec- 

 ognize, in real terms, its obligation to support conservation plans with financial re- 

 sources. 



Finally, we are quickly approaching the point when a consensus and vision must 

 be reached for the future of our fisheries and the commercial enterprises which they 

 support. Through a comprehensive vision process our ports can develop specific 

 products and markets to maximize optimum utilization oi species and minimize du- 

 plication. 



Several months ago this process began in Gloucester with a Harbor Conference 

 which I sponsored along with twenty other members of our community. Using a 

 total quality format, that planning committee oriented participants to the process 

 from each waterfront user group. The result was an enormously successful con- 

 ference with more than 280 participants. Three hundred cooperative ideas for con- 

 servation and development were put into a database and are being catalogued for 

 future use. 



I continue to believe that this process, or a similar effort, must be underteiken 

 pursuant to the Magnuson Act by the federal government. Each port should be em- 

 powered to resolve conflict, reach consensus, and be prepared to take its rightful 

 place in this framework for transition. 



REGULATORY REX^OMMENDATIONS 



Regional Councils 



Many recommendations relating to the Magnuson Act reauthorization appear to 

 be intent on preserving strong Regional Councils, and they are appropriate. Main- 

 taining an open, representative process is the only way to ensure fishery manage- 

 ment plans which are comprehensive and respected by those who will be regulated. 



Along these lines, modifications to prohibit conflicts of interest are in order. Cau- 

 tion must be used, however, in defining when these conflicts occur. Eliminating 

 members who earn their living (directly or indirectly) from the sea would strip the 

 council of its credibility and effectiveness. 



There is a particular danger in seeking to exclude such p)ersons in order to in- 

 crease the number of knowledgeable but uninterested persons on the councils. Ac- 

 tive involvement in a fishery is not necessarily a disability. Rather, it is evidence 

 of commitment to its future. 



Council participation and membership should be open to as many parties as pos- 

 sible, but without seeking in advance to, wittingly or unwittingly, promote a particu- 

 lar agenda. 



Moreover, the reauthorization of the Act should leave the councils poised to con- 

 sider the entire environment in which regulations are undertaken. Beyond retaining 

 requirements that socio-economic impact studies be conducted prior to adoption of 

 amendments, a reauthorized Act should also cause the councils to make specific rec- 

 ommendations as to the resources necessary to enforce new regulations and mitigate 

 scoio-economic damage to communities impacted by these regulations. 



This holistic approach will give council members a greater sense of the practicabil- 

 ity of new regulations, and snould allow them to communicate directly to the Sec- 

 retary of Commerce the financial ingredients for success to any new plan. 



Secretarial Actions 



Intervention into the workings of the regional councils by governmental agencies 

 and the Secretary of Commerce should be minimized. When present, intervention 

 leads to a compromising of the councils authority and diminishes the democratic 

 process which is critical to moving forward in our fisheries. 



Sp)edfically, the suggestion of "interim measures" which would extend for a period 

 of up to one year unnecessarily removes the public from the regulatory process. This 

 would amount to no more than an emergency action for a 365 day period. 



Perhaps a more reasonable approach would be a 100-120 single emergency action 

 period, to be followed by a public hearing. 



Increasing secretarial involvement with regard to preservation of habitat is a 

 sound concept. Critical to the rebuilding of depleted stocks is the preservation and 

 enhancement of habitat. 



Such a change to Magnuson should also serve to focus attention on habitat and 

 pollution, rather than merely on the expedient of overfishing. In turn, the Secretary 

 should be given power to issue recommendations relative to expenditures necessary 

 to habitat preservation by such entities as the Secretary of the Interior. 



