141 



eries." This statement may be aptly applied to the case of the fisheries off the coast 

 of Alaska. 



The ACC recognizes that it will not be an easy task for this Committee, the Con- 

 gress, and the Administration to build upon the conservation-related provisions of 

 the 1990 amendments and to bring the Act into conformity with the newly emerged 

 concept of "responsible fishing" and new international standards of fisheries con- 

 servation and management. Nor will it be a simple matter to amend the Act to en- 

 sure that fisheries management measures contribute to safety and do not threaten 

 it. Nevertheless, the ACC believes that our government will rise to the challenge, 

 as in 1990, and that our nation will be able to look forward to the sustainable — 

 and safe — use of a national treasure, our still vast fisheries resources. 



Thank you. 



RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ALASKA CRAB COALITION, AMERICAN FACTORY TRAWLER 

 ASSOCIATION, AMERICAN HIGH SEAS FISHERIES ASSOCIATION, FISHING VESSEL OWN- 

 ERS ASSOCIATION, MID WATERS TRAWLERS COOPERATIVE, AND NORTH PACIFIC 

 LONGLINE ASSOCIATION 



Members of the Washington State fishing industry, including harvesters and proc- 

 essors participating in the halibut, crab, groundfish and salmon fisheries of the 

 North Pacific and the west coast, are seeking changes in the Magnuson Fishery 

 Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson Act). The undersigned trade associa- 

 tions, which represent participants in the fisheries identified above, suggest four 

 issue areas upon which Congress should focus during the reauthorization process. 



The four issue areas are (1) the regional fishery management council regulatory 

 process, (2) the development of a rational fishery management scheme for the North 

 Pacific, (3) the composition of regional fishery management councils, and (4) ethics 

 issues pertaining to council members. Within each of the four areas, we offer a vari- 

 ety of alternatives to address existing problems and to improve conservation and 

 management of U.S. fishery resources. 



We would also like to take this opportunity to encourage Congress to focus on the 

 issues of bycatch and discards. Specifically, there should be a national policy regard- 

 ing the impact of bycatch of nontarget species on fish populations and the marine 

 ecosystem, and adequate support for research in the area of gear selectivity, includ- 

 ing the development of bycatch reducing technologies. In addition, there should be 

 an emphasis on management strategies that include incentives for fishermen to in- 

 crease gear selectivity or use more selective methods of fishing. Finally, Congress 

 should also examine practicable approaches for ensuring maximum utilization of 

 commercially marketable species consistent with conservation goals. 



1. FISHERY MANAGEMENT REGULATORY PROCESS 



The following alternatives seek to make regional fishery management councils 

 more accountable and to improve the fishery management regulatory process. 



• Create a national Fishery Management Review Board as a factfinding panel 

 empowered to review certain council actions. This recommendation echoes a pro- 

 posal put forth by the National Academy of Sciences and seeks to reduce the 

 politicization of fishery management actions. We recommend that the review board's 

 actions occur concurrently with the existing 95-day review period for fishery man- 

 agement plans and plan amendments. 



• Time limits should be applied to Department of Commerce review of regulatory 

 amendments similar to the existing time limit placed on Secretarial consideration 

 of fishery management plans and plan amendments. 



• The Secretary and the councils should be required to choose the management 

 alternative dictated by the weight of the evidence on the record. This provision 

 should be part of section 303 of the act (required provisions of a fishery manage- 

 ment-plan) and should apply as a standard of judicial review. 



• The Secretary and the councils should be required to consider a range of rea- 

 sonable alternatives when addressing a perceived management problem. This pro- 

 posed change is not meant to delay council action by requiring analysis of all con- 

 ceivable management alternatives. This change is intended to require councils to 

 analyze those alternatives that best address legitimate conservation and manage- 

 ment concerns and not to dismiss viable management options. 



• Individuals seeking to testify before a regional fishery management council 

 should be required to sign a declaration that their testimony is being delivered 

 under oath. 



72-216 - 94 - 6 



