15 



catchers, held a reserve onshore of about 30,000 metric tons, but 

 basically allowed the other catcher boats to sell where the market 

 provided the best price. In 1992, the council made a decision that 

 basically said, we're not interested in what the market has to say. 

 We're interested in supporting over the long term the coastal com- 

 munity onshore development, and basically took away from, in the 

 initial allocation, the at-sea sector in order to provide that support. 



The professionals within National Marine Fisheries Service in 

 January 1992, when that issue was being decided, wrote back to 

 the regional director and said, there's no justification for this 

 action, at least as dramatic a realization as is envisioned in 1992. 

 The realities of 1992 are that the shore-side folks were unable to 

 process their allocation, and there are a variety of reasons for that, 

 but the reality is they were unable to process by about 50 percent 

 their allocation, and so that got released in a series of what I will 

 say, with all due respect, herky-jerky releases that aren't good for 

 anybody, either to the at-sea sector. 



"The 1993 decision, we are pleased, to be very honest with you, 

 that the decision was finally announced on the 15th of April. That 

 didn't do anybody any particular amount of good. We had urged 

 early on that the Secretary reject the council's proposal. Just as in 

 1992, there was no basis for the type of dramatic reallocation that 

 was taking place. What ultimately has played out is that in 1993, 

 the shore side, with the 42,000 metric tons, will increase — if they 

 use it all — their utilization by about 3 percent over what they uti- 

 lized in 1992, which means we will be provided the opportunity to 

 utilize 3 percent less. 



The allocation process is a troubling process. It is a process 

 within the context of a council system that was basically estab- 

 lished for conservation and to eliminate foreign fishing, and right 

 now we have a council process in that context that is allocating be- 

 tween U.S. fishers, and, quite honestly, we don't believe that the 

 councils are appropriately set up to do that. 



I will say something now that some people are going to be un- 

 happy with, but the reality is there's no factory trawler vote on the 

 Pacific Council. There is no consumer vote on the Pacific Council. 

 There is no conservation vote in the context of a recognized asso- 

 ciation. So, maybe the council system, and I would drop the maybe, 

 we think the council system needs to be looked at very, very hard 

 as to what are you going to do now that we are no longer fighting 

 the battle of the foreign fleets sitting off of our shores, but are allo- 

 cating between and among U.S. fishermen. 



Finally, and then I'd be happy to answer questions, councils are 

 regional. The American Factory Trawler Association factory trawl- 

 er fleet employs over 600 Oregonians. Over 80 percent of our total 

 employment are made up of people who reside in the communities 

 of the four States that comprise the Pacific Council. We also have 

 some Alaska members, and we have members, I believe, from every 

 State except two in the country. Communities that these folks 

 come from, whether it be the 600 in Oregon or the several thou- 

 sand in Washington, those in Idaho, or those in California, they 

 also have coastal economies. They also have local economies that 

 working on a factory trawler help support. I don't believe, Mr. 

 Chairman, Congressman Kopetski, that those should be forgotten 



