92 



during June, July, or August I have observed approximately 50 

 fishing vessels IV2 miles off of Cape Chacon and about 50 more 

 fishing just off Cape Muzon. 



To show though the impact on the Canadian troll fleet upon the 

 U.S. fisheries, two of us, the fishing vessel High C and myself, the 

 fishing vessel El Sol, spent a day fishing outside of Nunez Rocks 

 in the disputed zone. Our catch per boat is as follows: 50 cohos; 8 

 kings, which were released; 3 sockeyes; 4 chum salmon; and about 

 300 pink salmon, which were released. 



This totals about 365 salmon as a very low, conservative esti- 

 mate, as we only fished 10 hours, and we used four tag lines. The 

 Canadian fleet uses up to eight tag lines and fish about 13 hours. 

 Assuming this and their ability to target species, I believe I can 

 conservatively double our catch to 700 per fish per boat per day, 

 times 100, which equals 70,000 salmon per day. In one month that 

 computes to 2,100,000 salmon. 



While we were closed down for our king retention and our coho 

 closures this fleet is still fishing. The fleet also is allowed to use 

 our harbors, McLoud Bay and Nicholas Bay while fishing this area. 

 The Canadian Coast Guard about 20 years ago made our U.S. troll 

 fleet use their Canadian harbors because the wind was blowing less 

 than 25 knots. This was during the time of the 12-mile limit. 



I was informed at a Snake River salmon meeting held at the 

 American Legion Hall in May of this year by the Department of 

 Fish and Game, State of Alaska, that Canada does not supply 

 tagged fish information to our United States or State on how much 

 tagged fish they intercept and where and when they are caught or 

 the origin of their tagged fish. 



When my Government tells me I can fish this fishing zone but 

 at my own risk of seizure of my vessel by Canada, what am I to 

 do? Am I to arm myself with LAWS rockets to prevent pirating of 

 my vessel? 



Because of this, I feel that the Magnuson Act is hindering our 

 State's ability to manage our fisheries in the most economical way 

 to benefit our system. If the Magnuson Act was formed to serve 

 Alaska fisheries, then I agree, but at our fishermen's expense. 

 While our fisheries has dwindled since the act, Canada, Washing- 

 ton, Oregon, California, has increased. Since statehood, I have seen 

 our fisheries decline especially our troll and halibut fishery. Our 

 halibut fleets used to remain open most of the year, and our troll 

 fleet could retain the halibut they caught while fishing for king 

 salmon year around. 



I would like so see a time set aside for testimony from Alaska 

 fishermen when it would be — when it would not interfere with 

 their limited openings. 



My questions to you are: 



Why do we cater to the violators of the Magnuson Act by allow- 

 ing them to anchor in our harbors? 



Is the Magnuson Act one way? Does Canada follow it? 



If it is not followed by Canada and not enforced, then why keep 

 it? 



My other question, can I fish without being seized in our fishery 

 zone? 



Thank you very much. 



