32 



alternatives. In contrast to past Council hearings, the hearing officers 

 were receptive to industry suggestions and open debate. This is critical 

 for the success of management efforts. In the past, discussions within 

 the five Council process were not as open. The recreational ly-dominated 

 view was already established before they sought public input or 

 considered scientific reports. 



There are two areas of the ATCA where additional Congressional 

 instructions are necessary. The first involves the need for Plan 

 Development Teams (PDTs) which include outside non-NMFS Scientists and 

 members of user groups. NOAA has resisted industry requests for this 

 type of approach based on perceived problems with the Federal Advisory 

 Committee Act (FACA) . We believe this is a smoke screen because NOAA 

 wants to control the selection of advisory panels and doesn't want any 

 supervision or outside involvement in that selection process. To retain 

 the public involvement and outside participation so critical to the 

 process of developing workable management plans, BWFA offers a proposed 

 amendment (copy attached) that would provide FACA exemption for PDTs 

 established from the membership of the U.S. Section of the International 

 Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) Advisory 

 Committee and Species Working Groups established under this Act. This 

 eunendment would improve the Secretary's management process by opening it 

 to more constructive outside involvement. By establishing tecims from the 

 ICCAT Advisory Committee, it would enhance the linkage between effective 

 domestic and international management programs. 



The second missing element which must be addressed is whether U.S. 

 fishermen should be put at a competitive disadvantage and restricted 

 beyond what ICCAT has recommended. This issue was debated when the Acts 

 were amended in 1990. Congress spoke clearly that it did not want to put 

 American fishermen at a competitive disadvantage by stating that "no 

 regulation . . . may have the effect of increasing or decreasing any 

 allocation or quota of fish to the U.S. agreed to pursuant to a 

 recommendation of the Commission." NOAA has interpreted the use of the 

 terms "quota or allocation" in the Acts quite literally. If an 

 internationally negotiated management recommendation is phrased as a 

 reduction in "fishing mortality levels", NOAA has determined that it does 

 not have to follow this section since the recommendation is not 

 specifically called a "quota or allocation". As a fisherman, it seems 

 incredible to me that NOAA would deny the linkage between a fishing 

 mortality rate and a quota when they immediately translate it into a 

 quota for enforcement and monitoring purposes. 



We suggest that Congress amend the references to allocations and quotas 

 in the ATCA and the MFCMA by adding the term "fishing mortality levels" 

 to address what we consider to be a rather questionable interpretation by 

 NOAA attorneys of the ICCAT swordfish recommendations (copy attached) and 

 to clarify Congressional intent that U.S. fishermen should not be 

 required to do more - or less - than our foreign competitors for 

 conserving these fish that migrate throughout the Atlantic Ocean. 



According to NMFS and ICCAT 's latest statistics, the total U.S. share of 

 Atlantic highly migratory species landed is only 3.5% of the total 

 Atlantic catch reported to ICCAT. We have included a table of the 

 reported international landings of most of the species that are under 

 ICCAT 's jurisdiction and the share that is attributed to U.S. fishermen. 

 BWFA fails to see how unilateral restrictions on U.S. commercial 

 fishermen can have any significant impact on conserving most of these 

 resources when our share is less than five percent of the total catch. 

 This clearly illustrates the need for international management for 

 effective conservation. How the professional scientists of the American 

 Fisheries Society (AFS) can justify support for unilateral restrictions 

 on the minor U.S. component is beyond the comprehension of U.S. 

 commercial fishermen. This is particularly true given the AFS support 

 for the Interjurisdictional Fisheries bill which we think is an 

 appropriate analogy for HMS . 



Regulating only the U.S. commercial and recreational fishermen will not 

 conserve these fish which are found in virtually all areas of the 

 Atlantic. How successful can conservation negotiations be if other 

 countries across the table know (before we even sit down to negotiate) 

 that the U.S. will take all necessary steps unilaterally? What incentive 

 do they have to agree to management and conservation measures? 



If domestic fishery managers require American fishermen to take on a 

 disproportionate share of the conservation burden without regard to the 



