Copyright 1999 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
MARCH 10, 1999, WEDNESDAY
SECTION: IN THE NEWS
LENGTH:
1585 words
HEADLINE: PREPARED STATEMENT OF PIETRO
PARRAVANO
PRESIDENT,PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATIONS
BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
SUBJECT - THE
CONSERVATION & REINVESTMENT ACT OF 1999
AND THE
RESOURCES 2000 ACT
BODY:
Good morning Mr.
Chairman and Congressman Miller. My name is Pietro Parravano and I am a
commercial fisherman from Half Moon Bay, California and president of the Pacific
Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations (PCFFA), representing working men
and women in the west coast commercial fishing fleet. Thank you very much for
the opportunity to be here today to talk about Resources 2000 and other
legislation drained to use offshore oil and gas receipts to protect marine
resources and endangered species.
The lives of the fishing men and women my
organization represents are impacted every day by the health of our nation's
fisheries and, in particular, the many species of salmon, a number of which have
been listed or are now candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act.
Salmon, as you know, has historically been the single most important fishery for
commercial, recreational and tribal purposes along the Pacific Coast from Santa
Barbara to Southeast Alaska. It has become readily apparent to me and my
membership that a source of permanent funding is needed for the conservation and
recovery of many salmon and marine fish stocks. For those of us who are coastal
family fishermen, there are no foreign fisheries for us to buy quotas for, there
are no fish for us to import; we depend directly on the fish stocks off our
shores.
My industry-- America' s oldest industry- depends directly on the
health of our nation' s fish stocks. Healthy fish populations and their habitats
for us is not about "being green," it's about greenbacks in our wallets and our
bank accounts. And it is high time we begin looking at our fish resources as a
financial investment. It is time we begin putting money in, instead of just
taking it out of, fisheries; it is time we begin funding fish habitat
restoration, instead of destroying it. That is why my organization is vitally
interested in the legislation being addressed here today and, specifically,
Resources 2000.
Resources 2000 has two titles that are of particular
importance to the fishing industry. The first is the title that establishes a
permanent trust fund for the conservation and restoration of living marine
resources and fish habitat. Much of this money will be allocated to the states
to develop and implement conservation and management programs for living marine
resources and their habitats. This will be especially important to states
developing conservation and management plans for the myriad of non-federally
managed fisheries.
One example, is the Dungeness crab fishery, which last
year, you Mr. Chairman and you Congressman Miller co-authored successful
legislation, supported by the states of California, Oregon and Washington and
the fishing industry, to extend state jurisdiction over this fishery into
federal waters. This first title in Resources 2000 could augment state funding
for the management of this fishery. And, in the past two years, the State of
California, for example, has embarked on an ambitious program with the passage
of state legislation (SB 346 and AB 1241) to develop a research, conservation
and management program for its fisheries beginning with squid, nearshore
rockfish, white sea bass, and emerging fisheries. This fund in Resources 2000
could assist states such as California that have begin working for sustainable
fisheries.
We strongly support the way the funding for this program in
Resources 2000 is designed to get money out to the states and on the ground
where it is needed. We do not want this money to be used to fund existing
federal programs. Instead, we think it should compliment existing programs. In
California, for example, these funds could compliment programs, such as CalFed-
aimed at restoring the state's BayDelta ecosystem and fisheries (Central Valley
fall-run chinook are now the main population of salmon harvested offshore
California, Oregon and Washington) and providing the state a safe water supply,
as well as the President's proposed $100 million program for coastal salmon
stocks in Alaska, Washington, Oregon and California. These funds would also
compliment state funding programs, such as the California Commercial Salmon
Stamp program, which uses money from an industry derived- and supported- fee to
fund necessary salmon propagation and restoration efforts. It is important to
remember, too, that while salmon is finally beginning to get the funding it
needs, many other fisheries also need attention.
Mr. Chairman we appreciate
the fact that some of the money allocated to the states in your bill could also
be used for the purposes I have mentioned above, but we are concerned that there
is no guarantee that the money would be targeted directly to salmon and other
maxine fisheries and their habitats. We feel that this could once again force
fisheries to compete with numerous other state programs and get the short end of
the stick as they have for so many years. Therefore, we believe that it is
imperative that the marine resources fund found in Resources 2000, that
allocates $300 million for marine species and their habitat be part of any
legislation that is supported by this Committee. Only then, can we guarantee
these resources will get the funding they so desperately need and deserve.
The second title of Resources 2000, also of great importance to us, is the
one which establishes the endangered and threatened species recovery fund.
Listing species under the Endangered Species Act by itself does not guarantee
species protection or recovery. Species protection and recovery, as we have seen
on the west coast with a number of salmon and other anadromous fish listings,
requires political will on the part of the agencies to enforce the law and
funding to implement protection and recovery programs. As you know, Mr. Chairman
and Mr. Miller, listed species are not just snail darters and spotted owls. In
the west, species such as coho salmon, that once supported major economic
activities, are now listed in California and Oregon. It is not enough that we
merely stabilize the populations or get them to some threshold above listing
qualification, but that we fully recover these fish so they may once again
support commercial and recreational fisheries, fish processing, tourism and
coastal communities. But to do this will take political will and money.
Let
me also point out that the funding in Resources 2000 for threatened and
endangered species is not just important to the fishing industry. Many private
landowners, water districts, farmers and others are seeing the use of their land
or resources restricted in order to provide some measure of protection for
listed species. The problem is not the Endangered Species Act, but our failure
to fund recovery of listed species. The quicker we develop and fund recovery,
the sooner we can lift restrictions on other interests. Moreover, this fund will
be invaluable for assisting landowners and water districts in making changes or
taking actions, such as installing effective fish screens or fencing riparian
areas, to help protect and recover listed fish.
We appreciate the fact, Mr.
Chairman, that your bill includes a provision that addresses endangered species,
however our preference is for the current language in Resources 2000 for a
number of reasons. First, it provides an identified source and dedicated amount
($100 million) of money that will be spent annually to contribute to the
recovery of endangered species. The current language in the proposed
Conservation & Reinvestment Act, does not do this.
Second, Resources 2000 uses this money specifically for recovery of species,
a focus that has been missing all too long from existing ESA programs. If we do
not recover salmon on the west coast, they will never be removed from the
Endangered Species list and our industry itself will never recover.
Third,
Resources 2000 will only provide grants for recovery activities that are beyond
the requirements of the law. The provision in your bill, Mr. Chairman, could
potentially pay landowners to merely comply with the law. We do not think this
is fair. As fishermen, we do not get paid when we are told we cannot harvest
endangered salmon and we do not think others should be paid to merely comply
with the law. Resources 2000 provides incentives to those who want to go beyond
the law to recover our threatened and endangered species. We think this is the
right approach.
I want to express the gratitude of the working fishing men
and women I represent to you Mr. Chairman and you Congressman Miller for your
vision in introducing your two bills. Utilizing receipts from nonrenewable
resource extraction from the marine environment to reinvest in renewable marine
and fish resources, is we believe, good public policy. Fishing is America's
oldest industry. It is a wonderful calling. The members of my organization take
pleasure in deriving our livelihoods on the beauty and bounty of the ocean; we
take pride in providing the public wonderful and wild sources of healthy food.
But our fish stocks and their habitats need investment desperately to be
conserved and rebuilt. Members of my organization have dug deep in then' own
pockets to pay for fishery programs, but we cannot do it all by ourselves; we
cannot pay for damage done by others. That is why we need a permanent source of
public funding to invest in and recover our public fishery resources. Thank you.
I will be happy to answer any questions Committee members of staff may have.
END
LOAD-DATE: March 14, 1999
