144 



It is truly remarkable that consensus eluded the UN Committee on only two 

 among the multitude of complex, substantive fisheries issues — straddling stocks and 

 highly migratory species. (The question of financial assistance to developing coun- 

 tries across a wide spectrum of environmental matters also remains open.) The reso- 

 lution of those matters must await the Rio meeting. 



Many other important points of consensus arose in the UN Committee. However, 

 the overarching principle, which reflected the most fundamental and universal com- 

 mitment, was that living marine resources must be conserved. 



The United States Delegation played a leading role in the negotiations on living 

 marine resources. By joining in the consensus, the US Government signalled to the 

 international community that America would respect the principles and adhere to 

 the commitments adopted by the United Nations Committee. 



The ACC believes that the Department of Commerce and the North Pacific Fish- 

 ery Management Council are under a solemn obligation to implement the principles 

 and commitments made by the United States at the United Nations. This means 

 a renewed commitment to conservation, first and foremost, and a closer focus on 

 measures to minimize the wasteful incidental catches of crab, halibut, salmon, and 

 herring, and the massive discards of target species, in the groundfish trawl fish- 

 eries. This also means the implementation of the comprehensive data collection pro- 

 gram, including adequate start-up funding for observers. 



The fisheries for which the Council and Commerce Department are responsible 

 are among the most productive on the face of the planet. With the Preparatory Com- 

 mittee having done its work, and the UN Conference about to meet in Rio, it now 

 can truly be said that the world is watching. 



PREPARED STATEMENT OF ARM THOMSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA CRAB 



COALITION 



Mr. Chairman and members of the NPFMC1 I am here today to speak on the sub- 

 ject of Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands crab fisheries management. Management of the 

 king and tanner crab species in this area is classified as interjurisdictional, under 

 a federal fisheries management plan (FNP), which delegates certain day-to-dav 

 management to the State of Alaska. However, with the exception or the actual land- 

 ings, these fisheries occur almost entirely in the Exclusive Economic Zone, (EEZ) 

 from three to 200 miles offshore. 



As the public comments, industry petitions and Congressional letters contained in 

 the administrative record indicate, the shellfish fisheries, particularly, the Bering 

 Sea crab fisheries, (1992 U.S export value, $350 million: U.S. Dept. of Agric.) rank 

 amongst the most valuable and the most controversial interjurisdictional fisheries 

 in the United States. 



The history of State of Alaska management of EEZ king and tanner crab fisheries 

 is replete with controversies over allocative management actions which have been 

 regarded as violative of the Constitutional rights of non-Alaskan U.S. citizens, par- 

 ticularly from the State of Washington. It is within the context of these controver- 

 sies, I make my comments today. I note at the outset that there have been two fed- 

 eral appeals in the last calendar year, one a successful challenge to pot (or trap) 

 gear limits, and the other a pending challenge of State authority to impose 

 superexclusive registration areas. 



The administrative record surrounding the twenty years of controversy is summa- 

 rized in a letter from Mr. Clarence Pautzke to Mr. Steve Pennoyer. That letter, 

 dated June 17, 1993, was prepared for the NPFMC Crab Interim Action Committee 

 meeting of June 18, 1993, to review the State of Alaska decision on a 

 "superexclusive registration area" for Norton Sound. 



A revised Bering sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crab Fishery Manage- 

 ment Plan, which took three years to develop, was approved in 1989. In response 

 to industry complaints, the plan attempted to redefine jurisdictional authority be- 

 tween the State of Alaska and the federal government. Unfortunately, it remains 

 a fact today that today the State is overreaching its management authority in some 

 areas, while at the same time, is not fulfilling its proper and essential research and 

 conservation responsibilities. 



I. History of ACC support for State of Alaska management under a federal over- 

 sight fisheries management plan. 



1. In 1985-86, development of Bering Sea EEZ flatfish fisheries threatened 

 king and tanner crab stocks. 



2. ACC sought help from State of Alaska on bycatch problems with the devel- 

 oping bottomfish fisheries and with conservation and stock rebuilding in the di- 

 rected king crab fisheries. 



