80 



qualitative factors should be considered. They noted that the preferred alternative would provide 

 greater stability to the shorebased sector, even at low stock sizes, while Alternative 2 would have 

 all sectors more equally affected by the natural fluctuations of the whiting population. If 

 shoreside capacity was found to be less than the initial allocation, at-sea operations would 

 needlessly face multiple short seasons rather than a single longer season. Multiple short seasons 

 add considerable cost to operations. And the team noted the considerable uncertainty about how 

 the license limitation program will affect the fishery in 1994 and beyond. 



The majority of the Council's Groundfish Advisory Subpanel (constituent group representatives) 

 supported the preferred alternative, noting that it would provide the longest and most stable 

 opportunity for the traditional whiting catcher boat fleet. 



The Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee did not comment on the allocation issue. 



Mr. Schmitten, Director of the Northwest Region of National Marine Fisheries Service, indicated 

 the federal government (i.e., NMFS) should not take the lead in allocation issues, but rather act 

 as umpire. He stressed the need for a long-term solution that provides opportunity for 

 adjustment over time. He suggested that perhaps this issue should be revisited in 1995, after 

 markets have settled. He stressed the need to be equitable and to avoid encouraging more 

 capitalization. He questioned the need for a reserve and suggested that a single offshore release 

 would be better. He suggested the two hardest proposals to justify were the prefened alternative 

 and the new alternative favoring at-sea processing interests. He advised the Council to focus 

 on fairness and equity. 



The Council considered a motion to allocate the first 50,000 mt of the whiting harvest guideline 

 to vessels delivering to shore-based processors and the next 50,000 mt equally between vessels 

 which catch and process and catcher vessels delivering to processors at sea. Any additional 

 portion of the harvest guideline would have been equally divided between shoreside and at-sea 

 sectors. There would have been no further subdivision of the additional at-sea allocation. In 

 1993, the 142,000 harvest guideline would have resulted in shore-based processors receiving 

 71,000 mt, catchers delivering at sea would be expected to harvest 31,300 mt, and catcher- 

 processors would take 39,700 mt. The motion failed and the Council then adopted its final 

 decision with a 9:2 vote. That recommendation would establish a multi-year, sliding scale 

 allocation plan based on stock abundance. The first 50,000 mt of available whiting harvest 

 would be allocated to shore-based vessels. The next 30,000 mt would be held in reserve with 

 shore-based priority; and, the next 30,000 mt would be allocated to the at-sea processing sector. 

 Any amounts in excess would be allocated according to the sliding scale formula: the next 

 10,000 mt would be allocated 90 percent shoreside, 10 percent at-sea; the next 10,000 mt would 

 be 80 percent shoreside and 20 percent at-sea; and, the next 10,000 mt 70 percent shoreside and 

 30 percent at-sea, etc., until the pwint (210,000 mt) at which it all would go to the at-sea sector. 

 In 1993, based on the 142,000 mt harvest guideline, shoreside vessels would have been allocated 

 75,300 mt, the at-sea sector 36,800 mt and the reserve would have been 30,000 mt. Thus shore- 

 based processors would have had access to as much as 105,200 mt in 1993. 



