109 



New England Fishery Management Council 



5 Broadway Saugus, Massachusetts 01906-1097 

 TEL (617) 231-0422 ■ FTS 565-8457 

 FAX (61 7) 565-8937 FTS 565-8937 



Chaiiman Executive Direcloc 



Joseph M. Brancaleone Douglas G Marshall 



November 5, l'?93 



The Honorable Thomas Manton, Chairman 

 U.S. House of Representatives 

 Subcommittee on Fisheries Management 

 Ford House Office Building 

 300 D Street, SW 

 Washington, D.C. 20515 



Dear Mr. Chairman: 



I apologize for the lateness of this response to the subcommittee request for 

 our views on full U.S. participation in the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization 

 (NAFO). We understand that H.R. 3058, the implementing legislation, was voted out 

 of the House of Representatives on November 3 as part of H.R. 3118, a bill to limit 

 fishing by U.S. vessels in the Sea of Okohtsk. 



After extensive discussion at our most recent meeting, the Council decided by 

 unanimous vote that it does not support passage of H.R. 3058 in its present form. On 

 a national level Council meinbers recognize the arguments for our accession to the 

 treaty. On a regional basis and from the viewpoint of the fishing industry, a nuinber 

 of our members see little to be gained and considerable potential loss to fishermen 

 from full participation. Our industry advisors and other interested parties are almost 

 uniformly opposed to a U.S. role beyond the existing observer status. 



Particularly disturbing are the provisions in Section 8 of the bill that deal with 

 a process for fishery negotiations between the United States and Canada. We are, 

 and have been, aware that proper management of resources of mutual concern 

 requires good communications and consistent management programs. The language 

 in the bill implies that "measures" for management would be the same on both sides 

 of the boundary. Both we (NMFS and Council officers) and the Canadians (DFO and 

 industry organization officers) have agreed as recently as last month that while 

 measures on both sides should be consistent and complement each other, those 

 measures need not be identical and neither our management system nor theirs need 

 be changed to accomplish such consistency. 



Some of the goals of the desired U.S -Canada agreement are already in place. 

 There are regular informal exch-nngey bet-ween DFO and NMFS and an ongoing 

 scientific dialogue The appointment of members of our Council under Section 9 to a 

 "consultative committee" to advise the federal officials who would conclude some sort 

 of an "agreement" would clearly be a derogation of the Council's management role 



