Mrs. HANSEN. I know of your deep interest in the entire fishing industry. How many skipjack boats are still in operation? Mr. SIELING. There are still 52 licensed and we are working them at the present time moving seed oysters as part of our oyster repletion program. We are moving seed oysters this year and we will probably move close to a million bushels of seed oysters. In addition, we plant shells for catching the young produced by the seed oysters. About 6 million bushels of shell a year are placed on the spawning grounds. This is not funded by the Federal budget, this is a State program. Mrs. HANSEN. How much does the State of Maryland spend on fishery programs per year? Mr. SIELING. My budget for this division this year is $1,800,000. This is for finfish, shellfish, and the allied activities of management, planting shells, moving seed oysters, the salaries of the personnel and the fieldworkers. Mrs. HANSEN. Thank you so much. BUREAU OF COMMERCIAL FISHERIES WITNESS ROBERT D. NORDSTROM, DIRECTOR, FISHERY PRODUCTS PROGRAM Mrs. HANSEN. Mr. Robert Nordstrom of the National Canners Association. Please insert your statement in the record and summarize it for us. Mr. NORDSTROM. We have a sort of bureaucracy of our own within industry and I have to check out my statements with our members and am in the process of doing that and hope to have a statement to your committee later to include in the record. I briefly wanted to say the industry is very concerned. They received your letter and a great deal of talk and discussion has taken place on this budget constraint in meetings throughout the country. We did a breakdown in Washington of the budget for some of the people in the field. This culminated in another meeting last week by people representing various segments of fishing industry around the country. The indication is that the concern is widespread that even though the fiscal 1971 budget is in the process of having action taken on it, they feel they have to do something toward preventing what is happening now from happening in the future. We have some tentative plans for an industry wide meeting coming up later in the year, possibly in June, of leaders in industry who will take a look at Government in fisheries and industry's involvement with Government in the area of fisheries. Although this meeting won't be able to affect this budget, it will start industry, for once, toward a unified or at least a less fragmented position toward fisheries and fisheries budgeting. I did want to bring that to your attention today. We do hope to have a statement submitted to you. Mrs. HANSEN. Thank you. This committee is deeply concerned because the cuts in the field of commercial fisheries were so extreme. Mr. NORDSTROM. It is this million and a half dollars for management and investigation of resources that is the most troublesome to the industry. They can understand cutting construction budgets. If you don't have anything to build obviously you do not ask for more money. The other large cut being in the subsidy program, that has not been extended as of yet by the Congress, and as a result we can understand why they would not request $3 million for that. But this one and a half million just to cut it out instead of redirecting it to areas where they have been waiting to start programs-this is what hurts. Mrs. HANSEN. Thank you so much. Mr. NORDSTROM. Thank you. BUREAU OF COMMERCIAL FISHERIES WITNESS J. STEELE CULBERTSON, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL FISH MEAL & OIL ASSOCIATION Mrs. HANSEN. Mr. Culbertson from the National Fish Meal & Oil Association. Mr. CULBERTSON. Thank you, Madam Chairman. It is always a pleasure to appear before your committee. Most of the funds that have been appropriated for the industry fisheries have come as a result of add-ons before your committee. Mrs. HANSEN. We have had to use that method because funds were not included in the budget. Mr. CULBERTSON. That is because we started behind. We are still trying to catch up. I have a letter that I wrote outlining some of our thoughts in connection with some of the thoughts you had expressed. Mrs. HANSEN. We would be pleased to have it. Mr. CULBERTSON. Dear Madam Chairman, your recent letter outlining the cuts that have been made in the 1970 budget for the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries is most timely and to the point. Members of our segment of the domestic fishing industry, the largest in terms of production, fully agree with your appraisal about the negative attitude of the Bureau of the Budget concerning the value and needs of the domestic fishing industry. I have personally been associated with the commercial fishing industry in the Pacific Northwest and in the Atlantic and gulf for almost 40 years, and know of no other time when so many segments of our domestic fishing industry have been in the serious difficulty they are in today, or more in need of Government leadership and assistance. It is only necessary to examine the catch data and employment records of recent years for some of these fisheries that formerly provided significant contribution to our domestic fishing industry to realize what I mean. What is needed most, not only by those segments that are in serious difficulty, but by our entire fishing industry, is for the President, through the agencies of Government that are charged with the responsibility of maintaining our fishery resources and fishing industry to declare that our Government will provide the leadership, programs, and funds that are needed to move our fishing industry forward and see that it keeps in step with the growth and prosperity of this country. If this attitude were taken by the administration and proposed programs to accomplish this purpose presented, I feel sure they would receive the support they need for approval by the Congress. On the other hand, to suggest reducing present programs and expenditures for the study, development, and maintenance of the domestic fishing industry seems equivalent to serving notice to the thousands of people engaged in this industry, and whose livelihood depends upon it, that they do not have the full support and interest of their Government. This is not to suggest that some of the present programs do not need to be realined. Attached is copy of a graph that I prepared in 1950 and presented before members of the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries at hearings held in Juneau, Alaska. The purpose of this graph then was for showing a comparison of the funds provided by our Government for the study and management of the fisheries of Alaska, with the funds provided by Canada for the fisheries of British Columbia. For an area and fishery that was approximately one-third in size with Alaska, Canada was providing almost 21/2 times as much funds. While this was years ago, our funding level has never equaled theirs. My main purpose in showing you this graph here today, however, is to call attention to the cut that was made in the Alaska appropriation in 1933. Similar cuts were imposed on Bureau activities in the States. You will see that it was not until 1942, 10 years later, that the funds were back up to the 1932 level. In the meantime, with reduced management and research personnel which had never been adequate, the fishery resources, the fisheries themselves, and the people engaged in them all suffered. In fact, it was due to the inadequacy of these programs and the complaints raised that President Roosevelt, by Executive order, in 1940 took the Bureau of Fisheries from the Department of Commerce and consolidated it with the Bureau of Biological Survey to form the Fish and Wildlife Service, which was then placed in the Department of Interior. It was not until 16 years later with the passage of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 that the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries again received its identity and the potential for serving the commercial fishing industry in relation to its needs and importance. The Bureau still has a long way to go if it is to serve all segments of the domestic fishing industry. I cannot emphasize too strongly how much it (the Bureau) and most segments of the domestic fishing industry need your support and that of the members of your committee and your colleagues in Congress in seeing to it that our fishing industry does not suffer any further reverses such as I have described that commenced with a cut in the budget of the Bureau in 1933. If we do, we may never recover. Specific recommendations of the National Fish Meal & Oil Association are attached. Thank you. (Additional information follows:) RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE NATIONAL FISH MEAL & OIL ASSOCIATION TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS In the past 20 to 25 years, our segment of the fishing industry, which is engaged in fishing for species for use in the manufacture of fish meal and oil, has depended almost entirely upon menhaden as the source of raw material for this purpose. The menhaden resource and fishery extends from the southern New England States to Texas and, on a volume basis, has accounted for 35 to 43 percent of the total U.S. catch and landings. It has provided employment for almost 3,000 fishermen aboard the 200 large and 400 small fishing vessels it operates. It has provided direct employment ashore for approximately half this number. The menhaden resource and fishery in the gulf, which last year produced over 1.1 billion pounds, is in a healthy state, while the Atlantic menhaden fishery is in a serious state of cyclic decline. Prior to 1965 the Atlantic fishery had an annual production of approximately a billion pounds, but in recent years has declined to about one-fourth this amount, and most likely will not improve for the next several years. In the meantime, unless some of the unutilized species can be developed and harvested, this large fishery as we have known it for years will not be able to survive. Under such conditions I am not sure what would happen to the small fishing communities which have been largely dependent upon this fishery. Preliminary surveys have indicated large populations of other species that could be utilized for this purpose, including sea herring which the Russian fleets have been harvesting in large volume the past 2 years. Recommendations In order to assist the menhaden industry in locating these alternate species and in the development of efficient gear and fishing techniques, including the charter and conversion of vessels, we recommend that a minimum of $500,000 be made available for this purpose. We consider this an emergency situation, and we were most anxious that the budget for 1971 would include an increase of funds for this purpose. It did not. The seriousness of this situation is well known by most members of the Fisheries Subcommittee of the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. Chairman Garmatz of the full committee, Chairman Dingell of the subcommittee, and Congressmen Downing and Lennon, committee members, have shown their concern by joining together in introducing H.R. 16603 to authorize a $3 million exploratory fishing program for these industrial species, to be carried out over a 3-year period. Copy of the bill is attached. FISHING VESSEL IMPROVEMENT ACT The Fishing Vessel Improvement Act has expired, and only a very small amount of funds remains. In the first session of the 91st Congress, the House passed H.R. 4813 to amend and extend this act and to authorize the appropriation of $20 million per year for a period of 2 years. Also included in the House-passed bill was an amendment to extend the subsidy provision of the act to include the remodeling and conversion of exist ing vessels, which we suggested. We are still hopeful the Senate will act favorably on this legislation this session. Recommendation That your committee appropriate the $20 million called for by this program in the event it becomes law. Respectfully submitted, NATIONAL FISH MEAL & OIL ASSOCIATION. Mrs. HANSEN. Thank you very much. BUREAU OF COMMERCIAL FISHERIES WITNESS WALT YOUNKER, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT Mrs. HANSEN. Mr. Walt Younker, Executive Vice President, Association of Pacific Fisheries, Seattle, Wash. Mr. YOUNKER. I would like to present a prepared statement later if the record is open. I represent the Association of Pacific Fisheries, which is a trade association of the salmon industry that represents packers that produce about 85 percent of the American canned salmon production. We are very appreciative of this opportunity to appear before you and your committee this morning and express our concern really in three areas that seem vital to us in assuring a successful American salmon fishery that we are at present very concerned with. The first and most obvious is the approximately 14-percent cut that has been made in the budget of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. Our fishery is tremendously vulnerable to any decrease in the moneys available for biological research with the resulting loss of continous and comparative data. We have a product, as you know, which is an inshore protected and a managed fishery by fishermen and processors and now subject to high seas fisheries by foreign nationals. If we do not understand and quantify the effects of this fishery completely, and with this data strive for high seas conservation, the alternative of course is the loss of our entire production. I could point out the economic seriousness of this in terms to the State of Alaska where the fishing industry is the largest employer and taxpayer in Alaska. So anything that affects this fishery affects all of Alaska as well as fishermen of other States. We had a good demonstration of this last week when the Koreans apparently were going to enter the fishery which would have jeopardized our international agreements with Japan and Canada and would be most destructive to our conservation efforts. We think the full funding of the Bureau is absolutely vital. We have no research organization that will take its place in terms of knowledge that we need to carry out properly managed fisheries. We also feel that a cut in budget such as the Bureau has had is a very demoralizing thing to a very fine professional organization. Dedicated and experienced fishery scientists and their findings are going to be lost to the detriment of the resource. We also need these research programs of the Federal Government so that the State governments have the proper knowledge to manage the fisheries in the State areas. This I think is absolutely vital. Another area that bothers us considerably is the difficulty we have in understanding the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries budgets prior to their implementation. We feel that the industry has a very small input into these budgets and programs before they become a matter of fact. We understand the budgeting procedures and that figures cannot be available to the industry prior to the President's announcement 43-793 0-70-pt. 5-13 |