48 



There is a bycatch implication. Slower fishery allows avoidance 

 tactics and gear experimentation so you are not out there just fish- 

 ing your fannies off because you know the gun is going to go off 

 and the season is going to stop. You can take your time and take 

 that fishery at your leisure. There is major market implications. 



In the past we have produced all our surimi on some of our facto- 

 ry trawlers in a two to three-month period and sold it over a year- 

 and-a-half. Why aren't we producing it at a time when we can 

 market it rather than store it? There is quality advantages. 



We can take advantage of seasonal fluctuations when the prod- 

 uct is in better form to catch and process rather than taking it 

 right now because we have to take it, because if we don't, the guy 

 next to us will. There is utilization by having higher recovery rates 

 because you can run your operation slower and get better recovery 

 for the fish. 



That is just some of those issues. So with that, I would like to 

 end and thank you very much, and I am available for questions. 

 Thank you. 



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

 Mr. Manton. Thank you, Mr. Jensen. 



That concludes the testimony of our panelists. We now move to 

 the question and answer phase, and for those members who may 

 have been out of the room, we changed the time mechanism so you 

 are now limited to three minutes for questions. I think we have 

 about a half hour before we have to be out of here, so I am going to 

 be brief. 



It seems that conflict of interest has popped up in some of the 

 presentation here today. What should we do about that in the 

 broadest sense, anybody? 



Disclosure statements? We have to file them as Members of Con- 

 gress, as do other people within the administration, the State legis- 

 lature, city councils. I know when I was in the New York City 

 Council they passed a law that required disclosure. We are all 

 living with it. 



Should that be true also of council members? 

 Mr. Looney? 



Mr. Easley. It is required right now, the disclosure, of any con- 

 nection to the fishing, any money coming out of the fishing indus- 

 try. At least in the Pacific Council you can get them from the coun- 

 cil staff if you want. 

 Mr. Manton. Are they sufficient? What is in the law now? 

 Ms. Graham. To the extent that they go, sure, they are, but we 

 think there are a couple of problems. One is that not all interests 

 in the fishery are financial, and that is the only thing that is re- 

 quired right now. 



There are a lot of recreational fishermen sitting on councils, for 

 instance, that have no financial interest but they have a real 

 strong interest in what happens in allocation disputes, so we think 

 that part of the law should be broadened to include that. 



We also think really we are talking about a perception problem 

 more than anything else, and one of the things that you could do to 

 take care of that is to require something like a two-thirds majority 

 for allocation issues. You don't need to compromise to get a simple 

 majority, but for two-thirds, it is a lot tougher to do that. 



