122 



allocative issue in conservation language and decorate it with conservation justifica- 

 tions. 



We are concerned about real conservation — taking care of all our marine resources 

 so that they remain renewable resources and the ecosystem which provides our live- 

 lihoods and feeds the world remains healthy. 



Legislation can promote and create the opportunity for conservation as the 

 MFCMA does, but no legislation can successfully assure conservation. The assur- 

 ance of conservation occurs, I believe, under the following conditions: 



1. A good working relationship between scientists and industry that includes re- 

 spect of each group for the other. 



2. Involvement of industry in research priorities and, when appropriate, in re- 

 search design and in the research itself. 



3. Adequate funding for research. 



4. A financially healthy industry. Starving men will kill the last dinosaur. 



5. Enforcement that concentrates on crimes against the resource (not paper viola- 

 tions) and is followed by timely and severe punishments that far outweigh any prof- 

 it which might have been gained by the infraction. 



ECONOMISTS 



The MFCMA recognizes the validity of social and economic issues as well as con- 

 servation issues. Where the long term health of a stock is seriously at stake, it is 

 obvious that true conservation issues should outweigh economic and social concerns. 



We do have concerns that the theories under which the NMFS economists appear 

 to be working, at least in Alaska, are contrary to the long range health of the indus- 

 try and to conservative management. The MFCMA requirements to consider "net 

 benefit to the nation" as well as the term "efficiency" have been interpreted as 

 "maximum short term corporate profits." 



Under the "net benefit to the nation" requirement, conservative management to 

 encourage rebuilding of depleted stocks has been opposed by economists. Since biolo- 

 gists can't say how fast and how much the stock will rebuild, the economists deter- 

 mined that the loss of revenue caused by reduced quotas is not in the interest of 

 the nation. 



A processing operation which does many species and holds its markets even dur- 

 ing years when there is little or not profit in a particular species or product, because 

 the processor knows that market may be profitable next year — in other words, a 

 prudent businessman — is considered a net loss to the nation. 



Net gain to the nation, according to the economists, is produced by the company 

 or operation which made the biggest profit last year — usually a big boat operation 

 which targeted only the highest value species and produced only the most profitable 

 product. 



I have a few recommendations, should Congress decide to make changes in the 

 MFCMA this year. I want to emphasize that we feel the act is working and all the 

 following suggestions are in the spirit of "if changes are going to be made, consider 

 these proposals too." 



1. Provide legal language following regional directors inseason authority, when 

 provided by the council in a fishery management plan (FMP), to take specified ac- 

 tions such as closing a fishery without waiting for the notice to be published in the 

 Federal Register. 



The requirement that all regulatory actions be published in the Federal Register 

 takes at least three days. In the Gulf of Alaska where many high value species 

 quotas are small, effort large and fisheries short, the three day delay in closing fish- 

 eries has resulted in overharvests for some critical species and underharvests in 

 other species. 



2. define "net benefit to the nation" so that more than short term corporate prof- 

 its are considered. 



3. Prohibit law suits against NMFS on conservation issues unless it can be shown 

 that NMFS clearly acted against the advice of its own and the regional council's sci- 

 entific advisors. I believe when the council and the NMFS, in an open public proc- 

 ess, have acted on the best advice of their scientists, neither NMFS nor the industry 

 should be subject to suit by law firms. 



4. Include conflict of interest requirements similar to those used by the Alaska 

 Board of Fish. 



5. Set time deadlines for regulatory amendments which allow any regulatory 

 amendment to automatically go into effect after the deadline is reached unless spe- 

 cifically rejected in writing for cause by the Secretary. I suggest 60 or 90 days after 

 approval by the regional council. 



