42 



As far as conservation is concerned, we think that the Secretary 

 has all the tools he needs to hold the Council's feet to the fire if he 

 has the will to use it. 



On conflict of interest, we have heard a lot about that, out of the 

 North Pacific it has been getting a big play. Everyone has got con- 

 flicts of interest. It just depends on where your interest lies. In our 

 case even the States do. They get fees, landing fees out of the prod- 

 uct that is landed — even the so-called environmental organizations. 

 Since a lot of them are using it as a fund-raising gathering thing, I 

 think it is way overblown. You do already require people to dis- 

 close their interest in fisheries. In fact there is so much rigmarole 

 about the employment of council members, I know a few good 

 people that have declined to accept a nomination from the gover- 

 nor just because of all the fingerprinting and everything else that 

 goes on. 



Dedicated seats for any organizations, I am opposed to them, we 

 are opposed to them. We think you have got enough dedicated 

 seats with the States and the Federal seats that are there. The rest 

 of them should not be dedicated. 



There is no way that everybody can have a dedicated seat with 

 all the interests that are in the fisheries. What you need to do is 

 pick good people, not dedicated to some interest. 



There is a lot of talk about individual transferable quotas or fish- 

 ermen's quotas. We aren't necessarily opposed to them, but in our 

 look at them so far we think that the cost is rather high for the 

 management of those. We think that maybe you ought to take a 

 close look at that and see if it really makes sense. 



The one they are talking about here in the Pacific, the enforce- 

 ment people tell me it would cost $6 million to enforce it, and then 

 they don't think they can enforce it very well, and that is about as 

 much as the exvessel value of the fishery, and that don't make a 

 lot of sense. Fees for government to cover the cost of management, 

 we don't reject the concept. 



We do think that there needs to be some discipline or sideboards 

 to go along with it. First, we believe that there needs to be an over- 

 all cap on fees that can be charged against any fishery, taking into 

 account the fees also charged by States. 



Second, we believe that there needs to be an intense look at how 

 the gathering of information to base management or is collected, 

 with the thought of looking for less expensive ways to do it, and if 

 the information is actually going to be used and what for. I have 

 seen a lot of information that is collected, just gathers dust and is 

 never used by anybody. If that is what we are going to do with it, it 

 don't make much sense. 



Fourth, if the fees are to be charged to commercial fisheries, we 

 think there should be in the law that the money collected is spent 

 in the region where it is collected. 



And fifth, we believe that there should be a review committee 

 made up of members from the commercial fisheries that have an 

 oversight of how that money is being used for management. We 

 think it ought to be in a revolving fund so that it can be used and 

 doesn't get tied up reducing the deficit or something else. 



Bycatch. It is our experience that every fishery is different, and 

 you can't craft a legislative solution that will fit all the fisheries. 



