19 



gress. The language is written to assure that the interests of each 

 State are part of the process. The text of at least two examples in 

 my submitted testimony include the word "shall." However, for 

 whatever reason, the ASMFC has ignored them for years. 



Second, interjurisdictional legislation is based upon the premise 

 that various States have not willingly participated in certain ef- 

 forts to protect fisheries resources. Again, how can that assumption 

 be made when the actual users, both commercial and recreational, 

 have not been a part of this process? For years, the ASMFC has 

 been a stealth organization totally out of touch with real fishermen 

 especially from the perspective of North Carolina. They have had 

 meetings at out-of-the-way or out-of-pocketbook locations that fish- 

 ermen simply cannot attend. 



Other language in the discussion draft cites the consultation 

 with appropriate councils. In our case, that would mean the Mid- 

 Atlantic or South Atlantic Council. The Mid-Atlantic Council, of 

 course, has only three of nineteen voting members who represent 

 commercial interests and the South Atlantic Council which has 

 only two of thirteen. I realize that I am now referring to the Mag- 

 nuson Act. However, because interjurisdictional fisheries nianage- 

 ment and Magnuson are the primary components of this bill, you 

 cannot discuss one without the other. 



Cooperation among the States is absolutely essential for interjur- 

 isdictional fisheries, but to reward the ASMFC because of their 

 shortcomings is ludicrous at best. Yes, the dialog between the At- 

 lantic States Commission and user groups has improved niany 

 times over since Jack Dunnigan has arrived as its Executive Direc- 

 tor. But unless and until the ASMFC is abiding by its own compact 

 which was passed by the United States Congress, this attempt at 

 fostering cooperation will fail miserably. 



In closing, Mr. Chairman, I ask you, how fair is it to demand 

 that fishermen abide by the laws and regulations of the land when 

 their very government thumbs their noses at those same laws? 

 Knowing that the Magnuson Act calls for the Secretary to make 

 council appointments to ensure a fair apportionment of the active 

 participants but flagrantly violating the law when making those 

 appointments, or the ASMFC knowing full well that it is violating 

 its own compact that calls for active participation by all user 

 groups, then uses its own failing in that regard to try to convince 

 you that those same parties are not cooperating? 



Mr. Chairman, my folks make their living on these resources, as 

 you well know, as have their ancestors for generations. Their sole 

 purpose in wanting fisheries management to work may be prag- 

 matic, but it is workable if they are allowed to participate in the 

 process. Let us not waste precious time and money building bu- 

 reaucratic empires that will do nothing to help fisheries manage- 

 ment. I appeal to you to force these agencies to abide by the laws 

 that you've already passed so that the actual users can participate 

 specifically through council representation and through a working 

 advisory Committee of the ASMFC that has been given the oppor- 

 tunity to work. 



After they fulfill congressional mandates, further interjurisdic- 

 tional legislation should be considered, but I doubt very much that 

 stronger measures will be needed if all groups are brought into the 



