96 



I would like to talk about another conflict that we see within the 

 act and we would like to see amended. I heard prior testimony ad- 

 dress this issue, and I will try to sum this up as soon as possible. 



Some of our issues that we are concerned with, are the cost of 

 managing these resources, obviously. We are very concerned about 

 the numerous loan guarantee programs that were authorized under 

 the Merchant Marine Act which effectively set up a symbiotic rela- 

 tionship between the fishing industry and NMFS. Essentially 

 NMFS provides the funding for vessel construction and operation, 

 only to have the fishing industry indebted to the agency, which in 

 turn must maintain fishing quotas so that vessels can continue op- 

 erating in order that their loans can be paid off. 



Currently the overcapitalization of the U.S. fishing fleet in the 

 North Pacific alone has caused federally funded vessels to go bank- 

 rupt. And all the while, NMFS has knowingly approved loan guar- 

 antees that allowed for excess capacity. Subsidy programs to the 

 U.S. fishing industry should be scrutinized with the U.S. taxpayer 

 in mind. 



In addition to these subsidy programs, the U.S. fishery industry 

 is the only extractor of natural resources that does pay to utilize 

 the resource. And the costs of management are borne by the U.S. 

 citizen. The fisheries of the United States are common property re- 

 source which belong to everyone or which belong to no one. It is 

 high time that the users of this resource pay a fee because fishing 

 is not a right. It is a privilege. 



The Magnuson Act should be amended to allow for a user fee 

 mechanism that will offset the cost of management. This is not a 

 tax, but a user fee that is earmarked for fisheries conservation, re- 

 search, and maintenance. In order that this user fee plan can be 

 implemented, we recommend a standard national registration pro- 

 gram for all vessels that fish in Federal waters. This would serve 

 to provide a standard data base in order that resource user fees 

 could be assessed. 



Interestingly, a time not too long ago, the State Department suc- 

 cessfully collected access fees from nations wishing to fish in U.S. 

 Federal waters. Failure to pay the fee resulted in the denial of a 

 fishing permit. Later, as a joint-venture fisheries developed, the ac- 

 cess fee and the price of fish was paid by foreign vessels that 

 worked with U.S. catcher vessels. When the fisheries became 

 "Americanized" we dropped the user fee concept altogether. And 

 now, oddly, we have no method of collecting a fee to fish, nor do 

 we have total consensus from the fishing industry to help pay the 

 costs. 



In conclusion the Magnuson Act has the framework to become an 

 effective conservation-oriented law. Adjustments will need to be 

 made in order that the act adequately address the conservation 

 concerns. By updating the law to keep pace with the present status 

 of U.S. fisheries, the nealth of the marine environment may be re- 

 stored and the economic stability of coastal communities from Alas- 

 ka to Maine could be maintained. 



As a nation that boasts the largest EEZ in the world and as a 

 region that boasts the largest fishery in the Nation, we have reason 

 to be concerned about the future offish. We also have learned from 

 our antiquated management practices of the past and we are 



