135 



allow a levy of up to two percent of ex -vessel value to fund the program. We agreed 

 to this in hopes that the information obtained will ensure better fisheries manage- 

 ment. This is an extremely expensive program, however, and one should not under- 

 estimate the impact these self-imposed costs have on the small businesses that 

 make up the bulk of the fishing industry. 



This is a significant dilemma we face in resolving conservation concerns: all man- 

 agement measures impose a cost on fishermen that can be the final straw for many 

 01 the operations that are already struggling to get by. All around the coast the fish- 

 ing industry is overcapitalized. New technology has given fishermen the ability to 

 catch more fish than they used to, and the size of the fleet has expanded to the 

 point where it's difficult for any fisherman to catch enough to earn a profit — even 

 when fish stocks are abundant. The industry is now in a precarious position; imposi- 

 tion of further taxes and fees increases the burden; poorly planned conservation 

 measures could cost this country-its fishing industry. 



Most of the proposals that purport to be incentives are actually penalties. Some 

 urge an allocation away from trawlers because it supposedly isn't a "clean" gear 

 type. Others advocate further reducing the amount of prohibited species, such as 

 salmon and halibut, we are allowed to catch. We are already subject to extensive 

 closures of fishing grounds to protect prohibited species and more have been pro- 

 posed. Each of these measures makes it more difficult for us to break even, thus 

 increasing the proportionate financial burden. In addition, bycatch has often become 

 an emotional issue, and the facts have sometimes been ignored when searching for 

 a resolution. Under these circumstances, the real root of the problem becomes ob- 

 scured: it is simply not possible to protect our resources effectively as long as we 

 continue to use the Olympic system as the basis for our commercial fisheries. 



The Olympic system spawns a race for fish — a contest to see who can catch the 

 most the fastest. The result is our industry's dismal safety record and overcapi- 

 talization in both harvesting and processing capacity nationwide. It is also the root 

 of our conservation problems: the Olympic system actually discourages the reduction 

 of bycatch of non-target species, and at times even provides an incentive to discard 

 target species. There is little inducement to fish responsibly other than one's own 

 sense of what is right. 



American High Seas Fisheries Association has always been a strong advocate for 

 conservative management of our fisheries. For us, fishing isn't just a husiness ven- 

 ture — it's a way of life, and we want our children to have the same opportunities 

 we have had. We have consistently been strong proponents of adequate observer 

 coverage. We are responsible for a new gear definition that should greatly reduce 

 halibut bycatch in the pollock fishery. We convinced the fleet to institute a vol- 

 untary herring avoidance program that has been far more effective than the one 

 that is in regulation. We have been experimenting with different net configurations 

 to reduce bycatch. 



One of our biggest frustrations is that the system penalizes us for doing these 

 things. Developing each of these measures cost us money in lost catch and lost fish- 

 ing time and, because we operate under the Olympic system, it put us at a competi- 

 tive disadvantage with the fishermen who chose not to take these actions. 



People continually cite the ability of the foreign fishing fleets to reduce bycatch, 

 and conclude that we are wasteful and irresponsible for not doing the same. They 

 overlook a critical difference between the two situations. The foreign fleets were es- 

 sentially, operating on individual fishing quotas — when each country had used up 

 its share of bycatch it had to stop fishing. The domestic fleet, on the other hand, 

 is treated as one huge entity. The bycatch reduction efforts by one boat penalize 

 that boat while allowing more fishing time for the fleet as a whole. 



Until each fisherman is made accountable for his actions, our efforts to achieve 

 effective conservation of our resources will be stymied, and the "dirty" fishermen can 

 continue to hide behind the rest of the fleet. We have worked hard to create proce- 

 dures to emulate the foreign program, and the North Pacific Council has agreed to 

 both a penalty box system and a vessel incentive program. Neither have worked be- 

 cause of NMFS's interpretation of individual rights under the U.S. Constitution. 



This situation is one of the maior reasons we are strong proponents of an individ- 

 ual transferable quota system. We believe that a carefully constructed program will 

 reward the "clean fishermen and penalize the "dirty" ones. The North Pacific Coun- 

 cil has made great strides toward instituting an ITQ program, but much work still 

 remains. 



We believe the most effective action Congress can take to promote the long-term 

 health of our fishery resources is to encourage the councils to establish systems that 

 promote individual accountability, and discourage those that require the whole fleet 

 to shoulder the burden created by a few irresponsible fishermen. 



