61 



Fourth, we are very concerned about the recent Commerce De- 

 partment strategy that basically makes wholesale changes to some 

 of the recommendations in the fishery management council under 

 the guise of partial approval, partial disapproval. We heard some 

 good testimony about this earlier today. 



We recommend that Congress once again remind the agency that 

 the primary responsibility for formulating fishery management 

 plans rest with the councils. Certainly the agency has the national 

 standards by which they can judge the accuracy of the plan that 

 is sent to them, but we think it is in error for a centralized deci- 

 sionmaking process that may not have some of the local knowledge 

 and expertise to interject a selection process in agreeing to a chief 

 financial plan. 



Fifth, one that is, I think, of particular significance at this junc- 

 ture, there is a great deal of testimony and discussion arouna the 

 country about the utility of ITQ plans, or plans that would pri- 

 vatize the resource. And there are certainly some positive things to 

 be said about ITQ plans; however, it is incumbent upon us to recog- 

 nize that all the current participants in fisheries have gotten there 

 under an open access system and also to recognize that an ITQ 

 plan basically changes the ways that the fisheries are conducted. 

 It also threatens to change the basic capital flow, and there is no 

 uniform way to implement an ITQ system. 



So, there is some concern about trie fairness of putting a system 

 in place and I would like to propose some language for you. We 

 suggest that a new national standard could be added to section 301 

 of the act that would be applicable specifically to implementation 

 of an ITQ, or a resource privatization management system. And 

 that language would basically require that no existing sector of a 

 fishery, this would include competing fishermen or competing proc- 

 essors, shall be disadvantaged by the initial implementation of an 

 ITQ resource privatization system. 



We think this makes good sense. It would also be fundamentally 

 fair to the players that are currently in the fisheries and we would 

 ask that you consider it. That concludes my summary and I would 

 be happy to answer questions. 



The Chairman. I have been in Washington too long. Let me ask 

 you, how do I do this? Now, you are proposing that no existing sec- 

 tor of a fishery, including competing fishermen or competing proc- 

 essors, be disadvantaged by the implementation of an ITQ resource 

 privatization system. How do I determine disadvantage? 



Mr. Curry. Well, of course it is the council's job, I think, to de- 

 termine what is — what that means, but my vision of it is you look 

 at the status quo. People have invested their livelihoods, invested 

 their lives in the fishery, I think basically Americanized the fishery 

 here in the North Pacific. And when you implement the system, 

 you are probably going to look at the status quo in terms of pre- 

 serving it, in terms of people participating in an ITQ system. There 

 is a great potential that some entire sectors would be excluded 

 under an ITQ plan that could be formulated and, by virtue of that 

 action, be taken out of the fishery because of a governmental direc- 

 tive rather than their ability to produce quality food. 



The Chairman. But with that in mind, then, all ITQ's would be 

 voluntary; is that not right? 



72-216 - 94 - 3 



