70 



longline vessel to add to his longline operations ana failed 

 to let the other council members know that he had in tact 

 acquired yet another vessel. This in itself may npt appear 

 significant, however, at the time, the council was considering 

 regulations regarding the transferability of longline permits 

 and the increasing of the harvesting capacity of each vessel 

 and this council member was advocating no restrictions on either. 

 He had purchased a small longline vessel that could barely float 

 and with the new regulations, could transfer that vessels' permit 

 to a vessel twice the size. He also owns a company that operates 

 the largest ice house in the Western Pacific, is the largest 

 bait supplier and is the largest longline gear supplier as well. 

 Obviously it is not in this council members' best financial 

 interest to limit the number of boats or their activities. 



The other council member, who was in fact the owner of the 

 company operating the boat when it was caught harvesting illegal 

 lobster, had the nerve to suggest to the council, as a member 

 of the crustaceans committee, which is also on the record, that 

 the lobster fishery quota (the number of lobster that could 

 be harvested) be increased, so the fishery didn't have to be 

 shut down. This after the NMFS scientists told the council 

 that the stocks were in trouble. She was evidently concerned 

 about the lost income from her lobster operation. 



All in all, I believe in the system we're working with and feel 

 that our managers have to be free of outside influences. You 

 can't blame the council member for wanting to sell more gear, 

 but he shouldn't be involved in the regulatory process which 

 would ultimately restrict his companies' ability to expand. 

 This individual is even chairman of the council's committee, 

 that in effect, makes decisions in the fishery he and his 

 companies are directly profiting from. 



The council process does need people from all sectors of the 

 fishery represented on the council, but maybe not to the degree 

 that these members are. The Magnuson Act should clearly define 

 the criteria for establishing council ethics for both council 

 members and staff. The public's trust and confidence in the 

 council system is what is truly at stake. Whether it's through 

 their actions or simply the perception, to the general public 

 that there has been some sort of violation of the law, the 

 council members cannot give the appearance of any improprieties. 



As in the aforementioned case, it has taken nearly 16 months 

 to bring these council members to trial and during that time 

 they continued to participate as voting members on the council. 

 There should also be a mechanism in place that would allow the 

 NMFS Regional Director or the Assistant Administrator of 

 Fisheries to take immediate action and place members of the 

 council suspected and accused Of violating the public's trust, 

 on administrative leave, until final resolution of the matter. 



