131 



Page 3 



Parenthetically I also protest the Department of Ccmnerce's overriding of 

 the PEMC SaMon Management Plan. 



The PFMC has long recognized that whiting is part of the groundfish 

 car5>lex of stocks. The Council has tried to manage so that the pioneers 

 in this fishery continue to maintain their historic places in the whiting 

 fishery as a means of alleviating stress or increased fishing effort on 

 the traditional groundfish stocks. NMPS's reasoning on this last point is 

 intellectually and scientifically bankrupt and I invite the Corotnittee to 

 question roe on this point. 



Question 2. I do not believe that the Department of Cotinerce adequately 

 explored the impact of their decision on small shore based fishing 

 operations. Commerce in its ruling provided exactly \*at the American 

 Factory Trawler Association had advanced as their wishes in the allocation 

 of whiting for 1993. 1 believe Comierce responded to heavy lobbying 

 efforts by a lavishly funded special interest group (soroething that 

 President Clinton said would not be tolerated in his administration) . The 

 incoming Department of Comierce officials never approached either PFMC or 

 the coastal port fishermen and processors to obtain their views as counter 

 arguments to v*iat the factory trawlers proposed. Further, on or about 

 March 15 Commerce proposed an allocation of its own which contained most 

 of the PFrC's framework allocation plan. We reluctantly supported this. 

 Vfe now regard that Ccmnerce proposed plan as an exercise in duplicity to 

 lull us to sleep. The Factory Trawlers Association had advance notice of 

 what the final Ccmnerce ruling would be some 10 days before the rest of 

 the world was acquainted with Ccmnerce's ruling. The factory trawlers 

 were hiring catcher boats and told the catcher boats exactly what tonnage 

 would be allocated ten days before the Department of Ccmnerce announced 

 the final allocation. This whole area of conduct should be vigorously 

 investigated, as should the vAiole allocation process by an organization 

 such as GSVO v^o we feel would be fair and objective. 



Of greater inport, we believe that the Department of Ccmnerce has acted 

 illegally in carrying out its obligations under the FCMA of 1976. No 

 vhere in that Act can I find language that allows or justifies Conroerce 

 imposing its own allocation decisions in contrast to the Fishery 

 Managonnent Council recorantendations. If Ccmnerce wants to reject a plan it 

 is supposed to do so in a critique to the Council as to where and how the 

 Council's recomnended managanent plan does not meet the requironents of 

 the law or the criteria set forth as National Standards of the PCWA. 

 Comnaerce's actions on the vAilting allocation sends the message that there 

 is little use in trying to conduct regional fishery management and that 

 the regional management process laid down by the Congress in the PCMA la 

 not important since Ccmnerce may override the Council's recommendations on 

 fishery managanent plans and eaiocations without any analysis, justiflca- 

 tioD or docanentation of its own. We do not believe that this weus the 

 intent of Senator Magnuson, Congressman Studds, and the other members of 

 the U.S. Senate and House of Etepresentatives vAio overwhelmingly passed the 

 K31A in 1976. 



