43 



own and are forced to compete head-to-head with the much larger 

 and more powerful factory trawlers. 



We have been asking the council to base its allocation on the 

 type of harvester rather than the location of the processing activi- 

 ty. In 1991 they allocated between harvesters, but for the last 2 

 years have allocated between processors. 



The resulting impacts on Oregon's economy have been substan- 

 tial. There are three full-time motherships. In 1992, they employed 

 619 crew, and 197 of them were Oregonians. The payroll was re- 

 duced between 1991 and 1993 from $4.3 million down to $194,000 

 this year. That's a 95-percent reduction. 



There were 27 catcher boats which were contracted to fish for 

 these motherships, and 10 of them were from Oregon. Those boats 

 employ 130 people and 62 of them are from Oregon. The gross re- 

 ceipts of the mothership group of vessels between 1991 and 1993 

 were reduced from $5 million to $600,000. That's an 88-percent re- 

 duction. 



During this same period, payroll for Oregon fishermen employed 

 as crew was reduced from $2.5 million to $325,000. That's an 87- 

 percent reduction. The net loss to Oregon from this group was well 

 over $6 million in wages lost during this period. 



If you take the payments for goods and services that could be 

 added to these wage figures, and with an economic multiplier, 

 which we see from several of the groups, this could amount from 

 $60 to $80 million lost to the State. Those are conservative num- 

 bers. I can document them. 



Many of us use the shipyards and buy supplies, groceries, and 

 vessels parts in Astoria, Tillamook, Newport, Coos Bay, and Port- 

 land. I can offer two examples of the potential impact. 



One of the motherships did a $20-million project at a Swan 

 Island shipyard in Portland. Another catcher boat, a member of 

 ours, was doing a $3.5 million project on three different boats in 

 Coos Bay. 



We believe there is, in our opinion, a solution. We actually have 

 an allocation plan that is in the written statement. There's not 

 enough time to go into it here, but we think it has quite a bit of 

 merit. 



But we believe that if the license limitation doesn't go through, 

 or if it needs an allocation plan, that the council should follow 

 some guidelines which we don't think they have been doing the 

 last 2 years. 



The allocation should be based on harvesting, not processing. 

 Magnuson addresses that. The allocation should go to harvesting 

 vessels based on catch history. We have 15 years in the fishery 

 from 1979 to this year. The factory trawlers only have 3 years. 



The lack of mobility for the shoreside sector should be given con- 

 sideration. The allocation should promote market freedom and 

 competition so that fish prices reflect their true market value. 



Let's set the record straight. The fish prices are down this year, 

 but they are much lower than the at-sea segment. It shouldn't be 

 that way. The shoreside boats, the vessels delivering shoreside, 

 should have more money for their product because they are a 

 transportation facility. 



