150 



off our shores. It established the regime under which the United States gained con- 

 trol of its fisheries, which led to the Americanization of the immense groundfish 

 fisheries off Alaska. 



But these same successes, and the rapid development of the domestic offshore 

 fleet in response to the policy of Americanization, have led to many of the manage- 

 ment and allocation issues which will be the subject of this next reauthorization of 

 the Act. Interestingly enough, there are striking similarities between the issues 

 which were facing the Nation when the Act was first passed and those facing us 

 now. 



Once again, national concern about the environment and the health of our fish- 

 eries resources, coupled with a growing awareness about the problems of bycatch, 

 discards, and waste are front-page issues. Once again, competition between a mobile 

 at-sea factory trawler fleet and a local shorebased industry are the subject of na- 

 tional debate; and escalating concerns about fishing rights, jobs, and the economic 

 health and stability of our coastal communities are hot topics on the waterfront. 

 And once again, the question of who owns our nation's fisheries resources, tied to 

 the age-old problem of too few fish and too much harvesting capacity, is again a 

 major source of contention. Only this time, it's not a matter 01 the U.S. fleet versus 

 the foreign fleets; this time the issues are more difficult because we are fighting 

 amongst ourselves. 



My comments today regarding the Act will focus on three major issues: 1) the 

 need to strengthen the conservation standards of the Act to further promote the 

 long term health of our nation's fisheries resources and address the problems of dis- 

 card waste and bycatch; 2) the importance of fisheries in the economies of our coast- 

 al communities and the need to reaffirm our national goals to protect and enhance 

 those local fisheries economies; and 3) the importance of maintaining and strength- 

 ening the regional council process. 



THE IMPORTANCE OF FISHERIES TO ALASKA 



In order for you to understand the significance of these issues to Alaska, let me 

 first provide you some information about the importance of our fisheries to Alaska 

 and the nation. 



If Alaska were a separate nation, it would rank among the world's top ten in total 

 fish harvest. In 1992, the catch off Alaska totaled over 5.2 billion pounds of seafood. 

 This was about half the national harvest and over three times greater than the 

 amount landed by fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico, the nation's second ranking re- 

 gion. Alaska's 1992 catch was up about six percent from the year before. 



The exvessel value of Alaska's commercial fisheries has grown from an estimated 

 $565 million in 1985, to a record $1.8 billion in 1988. The first wholesale level was 

 estimated at $3 billion in 1988. Preliminary figures indicate the 1992 exvessel value 

 was roughly $1.5 billion. 



In a state with little or no manufacturing-based economy, the seafood industry is 

 the largest private, basic industry employer, providing more than 77,000 seasonal 

 jobs, which equal 33,000 year round direct and indirect jobs. Total investment is es- 

 timated at roughly $4 billion, and the payroll is the largest in the state among pri- 

 vate industries: approximately $600 million. Dutch Harbor-Unalaska ranked num- 

 ber one in the nation for seafood landings in 1992, with total landings in excess of 

 736 million pounds, nearly three times greater than the next largest non-Alaska 

 fort, seafood landed at Dutch Harbor-Unalaska was worth about $194 million to 

 commercial fishermen, about 25 percent greater than seafood landed in New Bed- 

 ford, Massachusetts, the highest ranking non-Alaska port in the country. Two Alas- 

 ka communities were among the top ten volume ports in the United States in 1992. 

 In one region of the state, the seafood industry accounts for almost 90 percent of 

 the private sector income, and many of our coastal communities are almost entirely 

 dependent on commercial fisheries for cash income. 



The economic and social significance of fisheries to Alaskans underscores the im- 

 portance the state places on the effectiveness of the Act to govern domestic fisheries. 

 While the Act has been a remarkable success since originally passed in 1976, the 

 transfer from a foreign dominated fishery to a fishery which is almost wholly domes- 

 tic created new issues and management problems not foreseen at the time of pas- 

 sage. 



THE NEED TO CONSERVE OUR FISH STOCKS AND FULLY UTILIZE HARVESTED RESOURCES 



The State of Alaska does not condone the waste of fish. In fact, state law makes 

 it a criminal offense for any individual to engage in the wanton waste of seafood 

 or seafood products. Similarly, the nation has an overriding interest in seeing that 



