In June, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) holds a public hearing in Kodiak to address Gulf Rationalization. Fishermen and other public members should seize this opportunity and think carefully about the best use of their five allotted minutes to influence the State of Alaska and the NPFMC.

Understandably, many Kodiak residents will want to tell the NPFMC about the negative impacts of crab rationalization — loss of jobs, delivery schedules established by processors and the effect on safety, recently revealed high-grading problems, etc. But please keep in mind that the subject at hand is Gulf rationalization, and that the clearer your recommendations relative to the Gulf program, the more likely you are to influence the future of Gulf fisheries and your access to those resources. Highlight problems with past plans, but save yourself time to focus on Gulf rationalization.

The critical aspects can be summarized in three principles: maintain commercial fishing jobs for processing workers, skippers and crew; maintain future access opportunities for independent, community-based fishermen; and maintain open, competitive markets.

Regarding commercial fishing jobs, limiting consolidation in the harvesting and processing sectors benefits both industry and coastal communities.

Remind the NPFMC and the state that rationalization will likely provide a lengthened season. This may allow the resource to support the processors and the current fleet, or a moderately downsized fleet profitably.

Maintaining future access opportunities means access privileges must remain in the hands of working fishermen — those engaged in harvesting or those owning a substantial share of a vessel from which shares are harvested. Without such a provision, fishing will become an absentee investment controlled by non-fishermen instead of a way of life. Absentee ownership will raise the cost of entry beyond the reach of independent, community-based fishermen and the children growing up in our coastal communities.

Harvesters should insist on open, competitive markets, but this does not translate to ignoring the contribution and concerns of processors. Managers should consider compensating processors for stranded capital and including delivery links to communities or regions. Gulf rationalization should not include links to specific processors.

Processors are not synonymous with communities; processors can consolidate, close down plants and completely leave a community or region.

Each of the three principles above is included in proposed standards for future Limited Access Privilege Programs (LAPP) in draft Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) reauthorization language currently before Congress.

The State of Alaska has expressed concern that the new standards would require the council to start all over with Gulf rationalization, and has suggested exempting Gulf rationalization from the revised law. That is unnecessary. The new national standards for LAPPs are intended to protect the future access of independent, community-based fishermen and to maintain the health of coastal fishing communities.

Why would the NPFMC and the State of Alaska do anything less for the Gulf of Alaska? If Gulf rationalization is inconsistent with these principles, then the council should start all over — that message should be loud and clear.