47 



that concerns me is that we started this process in the early 1970's 

 in bilateral treaty negotiations with foreign countries; we ended 

 with the 1976 Act; and then in the early 1980's we had industry to 

 industry meetings with the Japanese and Russians and various 

 countries by industry to industry, which I chaired to try to get the 

 industries of these countries, especially Japan, off our fisheries. 



I think we have made substantial gains by the U.S. fishermen in 

 displacing all the foreign fishing activity off our coast and in the 

 growth of the U.S. processing sector. But I don't think all has gone 

 as anticipated. There are important conservation and management 

 problems that require immediate attention. 



Specifically Congress needs to emphasize market-based solutions 

 to fishery management problems and restore credibility to and im- 

 prove administration of the regional fishery management council 

 process. For a person that has been president of companies that 

 have been the largest, obviously I have been production-driven. 



Well, I am wearing a new hat today because I believe in it, and 

 that is market driven, and I think this process has got to look at 

 that when you look at the Magnuson Act. We must recognize that 

 many sectors of the U.S. fishing fleet are now overcapitalized. In 

 dealing with overcapitalization, councils have attempted to solve 

 scarce resource issues using allocation schemes that transfer bene- 

 fits from one sector of the fleet to the other, frequently leaving 

 access issues unaddressed. 



I think this is very important that this has to be addressed, the 

 overcapitalization issue. 



Conflict of interest issues have in some instances gone beyond 

 that expected by the framers of this act. You have heard that today 

 at this table by other people. 



Distribution of council seats among States has resulted in a 

 single State dominance of council decisions. Lack of funds and /or 

 political manipulation has resulted in delegating council authority 

 for multi-State fisheries to single States. That should be looked at. 



There is inadequate and questionable use by some councils of 

 their SSCs. There is a serious lack of legal advice or direction at 

 the council level. There also is an erosion of the quality of council 

 members. 



NOAA has for all practical purposes abandoned its stewardship 

 of this resource. In order to address these shortcomings, modifica- 

 tions to the Act or to the administrative direction given councils is 

 greatly needed. 



Kate mentioned ITQ programs. We strongly support ITQs. We 

 hope that during this process of reauthorization that that is ad- 

 dressed. I am sure it is not for everybody across the country and in 

 certain fisheries, but I tell you in the North Pacific we think it is 

 definitely needed in order to root out some of the problems that are 

 inherent in that fishery. 



What are the benefits of the ITQ programs? Well, eventually 

 they reduce overcapitalization. They reduce discards. This has been 

 shown in the CDQ fishery where they are not on the Olympic 

 system. Some discards are mandated by regulation, such as halibut, 

 herring and salmon. Those will continue to be, but you will have 

 less discards. 



