156 



MFCMA and NEPA are not-consistent, and sometimes cause serious bureaucratic 

 delays. The already painful process of making difficult management decisions is fur- 

 ther compounded by an apparent lack of standard procedures on the part of NMFS 

 for analysis of important issues. Congress should look to reconcile the requirements 

 for analyses and schedules under the MFCMA with other appropriate federal stat- 

 utes to streamline the process and make it more consistent. Procedures should be 

 standardized, streamlined, and simplified as appropriate, and applied with consist- 

 ency throughout the Nation. 



As a final comment, the State of Alaska has a firm commitment to the process 

 of managing and conserving our nation's fisheries resources. We work through the 

 Council process and with our counterparts in the federal management agencies to 

 ensure that the process goes well and the resource managed properly. The impor- 

 tance of this partnership between the states, the Councils, and the federal agencies 

 must not be overlooked in this time of declining revenues and tight budgets. This 

 partnership should be strengthened both in the Magnuson Act and in our day to 

 day working relationships. 



Thank you for this opportunity to come before you today to discuss these impor- 

 tant fishery management issues. 



Prepared Statement of Nancy L. Lande, Spokesperson, Alliance Against 



IFQ's 



The Alliance Against IFQ's is a grassroots organization that was founded for the 

 sole purpose of fighting the implementation of the individual Fishery Quota for Hal- 

 ibut and Sablefish in the Bering Sea/Aleutian islands and Gulf of Alaska. Our mem- 

 bership is diverse as far as ethnics, gender, geographical location, economics, and 

 education. Our one common denominator is IFQ's. 



We feel that the Magnuson Act should be amended to disallow any allocative fish- 

 ery management plans. Sec. 303(bX6) of the Magnuson Act states that any fishery 

 management plan may establish a system for limiting access to the fishery in order 

 to achieve optimum yield. Under the current fishery management plan using TAC 

 (total allowable catch) we have achieved the optimum yield for our fisheries. A 

 straight forward reading of this provision would leave an ordinary person with the 

 impression that the phrase "in order to achieve optimum yield" had some meaning. 

 It would be reasonable to take this phrase in the context of the Magnuson Acts Con- 

 servation purpose to mean that the application of such a draconian measure as de- 

 priving U.S. citizens of their rightful access to a fishery resource would be necessary 

 for the future' safety of the resource, ie. "In order to achieve optimum yield." How- 

 ever, a court has determined that these words do not mean what they appear to 

 say: "SeaWatch international vs. Mosbacher, 762F. SUPP.370(379):" * * * the Act 

 does not mandate any finding of necessity before fishery access can be limited: If 

 it is the intent of Congress that its laws mean what they say and that this measure 

 allows limited access as a last resort to protect a resource then the requirement of 

 a finding of necessity for limiting access In order to achieve optimum yield" should 

 be included in the reauthorized Act. 



Sec. 303(aXlXC) REQUIRED PROVISION: Any fishery management plan.with re- 

 spect to any fishery, shall be consistent with the National Standards, the other pro- 

 visions of this Act, regulations implementing recommendations by international Or- 

 ganizations in which the United States participates * * * On June 14,1992 the 

 President of the United States signed the United Nations Conference on Environ- 

 ment and Development (UNCED) Agenda 21, which included the following lan- 

 guage: "Promote the development and use of selective gear and practices that mini- 

 mizes waste of catch of target species and minimizes bycatch of and effect of law 

 put back into the Magnuson Act. This would give the Regional Fishery Councils a 

 more concise idea of what the National Standards mean without having to solely 

 rely upon each individual council members interpretation. If Congress has a prob- 

 lem with allowing the Secretary to mandate these guidelines than it should be up 

 to Congress to establish them. 



Safety concerns have been a major factor in the IFQ fishery management plan. 

 The race for fish, regardless of weather, loss of life and/or vessel, have been highly 

 publicized. Sec. 303(aX6) REQUIRED PROVISIONS.— Any fishery management 

 plan shall — Consider and provide for temporary adjustments, after consultation with 

 the Coast Guard and persons utilizing the fishery, regarding access to the fishery 

 for vessels otherwise prevented from harvesting because of weather or other ocean 

 conditions affecting the safe conduct of the fishery; except that the adjustment shall 

 not adversely affect conservation efforts in other fisheries or discriminate among 



