21 



The key difference between these species lies in fisheries man- 

 agement. Both species are the subject of ASMFC management 

 plans, but only the Striped Bass Plan was implemented by all 

 coastal States. When Maryland closed its shad fisheries in 1980, 

 new commercial fisheries were developing in the ocean to take 

 their place. These fisheries, known as "intercept" fisheries because 

 they capture shad on their way to their spawning rivers, are now 

 found in most Atlantic coastal States' waters in spite of the fact 

 that they are discouraged by the ASMFC Shad Plan. The net effect 

 is that an individual State is helpless to restore its traditional in- 

 shore fisheries. 



In contrast, because of uniform compliance with its management 

 plan, the striped bass is now well on its way to recovery and even 

 under strict harvest limits is providing a much needed economic 

 shot in the arm to our commercial and recreational fisheries. This 

 success is a direct result of the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation 

 Act of 1984 which provided an incentive for States' compliance 

 with the coastal management plans. This relatively simple ap- 

 proach has proven itself, and it is time to apply it to other species. 



The legislation before you has evolved from the striped bass ex- 

 perience as well as from two years of deliberations on similar bills 

 and countless discussions among interested parties. This bill, the 

 Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act of 1993, is 

 well developed and may only need minimal refinement. It has our 

 full support in concept, and we urge swift passage. 



As you deliberate specific parts of the bill, please consider the 

 following three points which are priorities from our point of view: 

 First, the timeframe for implementation by the States of the 

 ASMFC plans should be as short as practicable. We support the 

 one-year interval in the current version. Second, added urgency for 

 implementation should be placed on summer flounder as well as 

 weakfish. Third, the Secretarial review for noncompliance should 

 be done jointly by the Secretaries of Commerce and Interior. 



This concludes my remarks. Thank you for the opportunity to 

 comment on this very important legislation. 



[The prepared statement of Mr. Goldsborough can be found at 

 the end of the hearing.] 



Mr. Lancaster. Thank you, gentlemen, for your fine testimony. 

 We have under consideration in the Committee now reauthoriza- 

 tion of the Magnuson Act. I wonder if anyone can tell us why we 

 should handle these problems separately from that reauthoriza- 

 tion? Why not simply address this problem as a part of reauthor- 

 ization of Magnuson? 



Mr. Reeff. Mr. Chairman, we would like to believe that the Com- 

 missions, having their hands on the fishery management plans at 

 hand, are probably in the best shape. And the best position to be 

 able to implement those plans is where the councils have larger 

 and longer processes so we would feel that it is closer to the actual 

 management of the fish species. That is one of the reasons we feel 

 that they have to be separately handled. 



Mr. Lancaster. Does anyone else care to comment or do you — 

 Mr. Goldsborough? 



Mr. Goldsborough. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that we 

 concur with the views of the States as we understand them and the 



