17 



Mr. KoPETSKi. This is a regional council, and so it has represent- 

 atives from across the region, not just Newport, Oregon? 



Mr. Warrens. That's correct. In fact, there are three members 

 from the State of Oregon out of the 13 members on the council. 



Mr. KoPETSKi. Do you know the rest of the makeup? 



Mr. Warrens. Yes; there are three from the State of Washing- 

 ton, two from Idaho, and four from California, as well as the Feder- 

 al agencies that have a vote on it. 



Mr. KoPETSKi. Had you been told, either by NMFS or in Wash- 

 ington or out in the region that your plan violated either the Mag- 

 nuson Act or the council's own goals and mission statement? 



Mr. Warrens. We were not told to the best of my knowledge 

 anything of the sort. There was no communication between Com- 

 merce and the council that we were outside the legal parameters 

 from which we were required to operate within. 



Mr. KoPETSKi. The Commerce was fully aware of the process, the 

 debate, and where your decision was headed? 



Mr. Warrens. I believe that was well established in the 9 

 months previous to that decision, as well as input prior to that 9 

 nionth period. So, our direction, I believe, was very clear and well 

 situated as far as the rationale that we used to achieve our deci- 

 sion. 



Mr. KoPETSKi. So, there was no early warnings? 



Mr. Warrens. None whatsoever. 



Mr. KoPETSKi. No early warning system that perhaps you were 

 going beyond the Act or beyond your goals? 



Mr. Warrens. We were aware, as Mr. Blum has related, with re- 

 spect to the allocation issue, of the volatility of the two positions 

 with respect to allocations. 



Mr. KoPETSKi. Of the decision itself? 



Mr. Warrens. Of the decision itself, but we were never given 

 any indication that we were stepping over the line with respect to 

 either the national standards or any applicable law. 



Mr. KoPETSKi. Well, Mr. Warrens, why do you think the Depart- 

 ment changed the plan so dramatically? 



Mr. Warrens. My personal perception is that it was probably the 

 result of some continuing and very effective lobbying which oc- 

 curred outside the council process on the part of the Factory Trawl 

 lobby, and that lobbying obviously occurred in Washington, DC, 

 and I'm sure that many of the members of the fishing industry 

 were aware that was going on. However, I believe that we were to- 

 tally caught blindsided, both members of the fishing industry and 

 the council, and I make that statement predicated on conversations 

 I had when the decision was finally made by Commerce with mem- 

 bers of the fishing community. We were just totally blindsided by 

 almost a reversal of what the council decision was as it was recom- 

 mended through two national fisheries forward to Commerce. 



Mr. KoPETSKi. Thank you very much for your testimony and 

 questions. Mr. Blum, in terms of council representation, I'm a little 

 bit worried about this. Did the Trawlers Association give testimony 

 before the council? 



Mr. Blum. Mr. Chairman, yes; we did. 



Mr. KoPETSKi. Were you able to attend all of the public meetings 

 and see what was going on? 



