43 



But if you think you need to address the issue, we would suggest 

 that you have the councils address it on a fisheries'-plan-by-fisher- 

 ies'-plan basis. We do think it is an issue that is becoming more of 

 an issue. 



One of the biggest problems we see with it is that there is no 

 good definition of what we mean when we are talking about "by- 

 catch". You talk to different people and you get different answers, 

 so we need one good definition of what bycatch is. Are we talking 

 about regulatory bycatch or are we talking about things that 

 nobody wants, jellyfish that they throw back over? 



What are we talking about? 



We did include some language for an amendment to the Act, for 

 regulatory actions that the Secretary, that the councils turn in and 

 we understand that language will be introduced in the Senate, and 

 we would like to see it introduced in the House. We think it would 

 have solved much of the problems with the two recent turndowns 

 we had by the Secretary here in the Pacific. 



Thank you very much. 



[The statement of Mr. Easley may be found at end of hearing.] 



Mr. Manton. Thank you, sir. 



Mr. Stuart Looney. 



STATEMENT OF STUART LOONEY, CEO, ROYAL SEAFOODS, INC. 



Mr. Looney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of this 

 committee, for the opportunity to discuss the Magnuson Fishery 

 Conservation and Management Act. 



My name is Stuart Looney. I am the President and Chief Execu- 

 tive Officer of Royal Seafood, Inc. We are a U.S.-owned vertically 

 integrated fish harvesting and processing company, and one of the 

 West Coast's largest dedicated whitefish manufacturing, marketing 

 and distributing firms. 



We operate three catcher processors and a shore-based secondary 

 processing facility at Pier 89 on Elliott Bay in Seattle. Our prod- 

 ucts are sold exclusively to grocery chains and restaurants 

 throughout North America. I can think of no better example of the 

 success of the Magnuson Act than our companies which got a start 

 in the early years after the passage of the Act. 



However, our recent experiences under the management system 

 created by the Act also evidences some of its weaknesses. In 1989 

 our three vessels operated 12 months a year and harvested approxi- 

 mately 110,000 metric tons of fish. At that time we employed ap- 

 proximately 500 employees. Now in 1993 we are down to operating 

 approximately four months a year, and our vessels operate — or our 

 production is down to 30,000 metric tons and our employees now 

 number under 250. 



None of this decline is the result of any problems in the fishery 

 stock. While business downturns have many causes, what hap- 

 pened to us and the rest of the at-sea industry was in reality a fail- 

 ure of the fisheries management system. My prepared testimony 

 addresses the evolution of that system and suggests a number of 

 potential changes. 



Because my time is limited today, I will cut right to the chase. 

 Chief among my concerns are those involving actual and perceived 



