50 



putting in production equipment to produce value-added products 

 and to control product quality. 



This was done, and it was done under what I think very fair 

 rules. Now the problem is that Commerce has overturned this. It is 

 very important that Commerce, if it has its own policies, that it let 

 this be known early to the policy process, to the people in this 

 region, so they can respond to that, and make rational investment 

 decisions. 



One of the concerns that I have had here in listening about the 

 economic analysis that was done by the NMFS economists, the re- 

 gional NMFS economists are very competent. In fact, we worked 

 with them as part of their analysis and supported them in tr3dng to 

 do this. 



One of the problems, though, was trying to do the analysis of 

 such a complex fishery in such a short period of time. One of the 

 problems is data is missing. You cannot do this kind of analysis in 

 a 2- or 3-month period of time. 



Some kind of decision needs to be made if you are going to make 

 serious allocation decisions or other long-run management deci- 

 sions, to have a truly comprehensive economic analysis. It brings 

 together the biological issues, efficiency issues, and social economic 

 benefits. 



The Magnuson Act does not allow — if you read the act — does not 

 allow fisheries to be managed solely on economic efficiency criteria. 

 You are supposed to bring in social economic benefits. What we 

 need is analysis that shows the tradeoffs between solely efficiency 

 and jobs, income, to different sectors of the economy. I think this is 

 what the act says. 



Thank you for this opportunity. 



[Mr. Sylvia's statement, with attachment, may be found in the 

 appendix.] 



Chairman Wyden. Gentlemen, that was very helpful and well 

 said. 



Mr. Kopetski. 



Mr. Kopetski. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 



Neal, thank you very much for your testimony. I really appreci- 

 ate this. This is very concise and to the point. I appreciate the 

 chart. 



Gilbert, did you say you were an economist? 



Mr. Sylvia. Yes; I don't know if I should say this here. Yes; I am 

 an economist. 



Mr. Kopetski. I could understand what you are saying, which is 

 normally not the case when I have to deal with economists. You 

 make a lot of sense. 



I don't think there's anybody in this room, though, that think 

 that the decision was reversed back in Washington, DC by a couple 

 of your economic economists-type colleagues. I hope you don't be- 

 lieve that because you seem like a really smart fellow to me. 



If you are the quality of economists we have on the west coast — 

 and I am sure you are — that folks back in Washington, they just 

 look at numbers. They're not looking at the broader perspective 

 and impacts on this. So, it leads them to a recommendation. Be- 

 lieve me, they did not reverse this decision. None of us think that. 



