226 



page 3 



devastated the coastal fishery and established clear preference for an industry that is both 

 new to the fishery, environmentally destructive and lacking in its contribution to local 

 communities. 



Mr. Chairman, this decision, though technically within the iegal confines of the 

 Magnuson Act, clearly violates the intent of the Act to have the Councils allocate. I am 

 disappointed the Administration has chosen to pursue such a blatantly political solution 

 to such a complex and technical natural resource issue. — ■ 



The previous Administration asked for and received an allocation plan from the 

 Council that was designed to end these allocation fights. By being abundance driven and 

 long-term, the volume of the resource determines how much each user group receives, 

 net politics. Further, the Council's allocation plan was part of an overall complex of 

 fishing allocations, including salmon. The Proposed Rule narrowly preserved this 

 complex but the implications for all fishing plans including salmon and other groundfish 

 Species because of by-catch problems with the Final Rule are potentially devastating. 



The Council's plan was also developed in accordance with national goals to 

 minimize overfishing and is designed to reduce fishing pressure wherever possible. The 

 Final Rule could result in a skyrocketing of the incidental catch of salmon and rockfish as 

 it did last year. This could further jeopardize the salmon season which is already facing 

 severe cutbacks. 



Mr. Chairman, as a result of Commerce's decision, the coastal communities of 

 Oregon, Washington and northern California stand to lose S100 miilion in revenues, while 

 the factory trawlers profit and run. Pacific whiting is put to much better economic 

 advantage by the on-shore sccior thruugb more efficient utilization of the resource and a 

 longer season. For example, 10,000 tons of Pacific whiting means 2 days of work for the 

 factory trawlers while it represents one month of work for the shore-based fisherman. 

 Further, in Oregon, on-shore fishermen and processors contribute significandy to State 

 and local government* through landing, trawl commission, corporate and property taxes, 

 while the factory trawlers and mothcrships contribute nothing. 



Mr. Chairman, it is hard to say where we should go from here. I agree with 

 Council director, Larry Six, when he says the public may not be willing to support a 

 process that can be overridden so easily. The Council process is vitally important to local 

 fisherman because it is the most significant opportunity they have to be a part of tbc 

 allocation process. I am hopeful thai the Council will find the wfll to gear up for next 

 year's whiting allocation. 



