22 



Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, that the manage- 

 ment of the inshore migratory stocks that are generally found 

 within the three-mile limit are most appropriately and most effec- 

 tively handled by the States. And we believe that the Atlantic 

 States Marine Fisheries Commission, through their management 

 planning process, is the most appropriate forum for State manage- 

 ment. 



Mr. Lancaster. Mr. Schill, if you were able to overcome the con- 

 stitutional problems of the Federal Government regulating fisher- 

 ies within State waters, do you think that we would be better to 

 allow the councils rather than the Commission to implement this 

 legislation and regulate or protect these interjurisdictional fisher- 

 ies? 



Mr. Schill. No. No, Mr. Chairman, I don't. Councils' jurisdiction 

 should remain where it is at — 3 to 200 miles. Keep in mind, Mr. 

 Chairman, that our criticism of this legislation is strictly based 

 upon the fact that while we have to encourage our industry to 

 abide by the laws, albeit grudgingly, no matter what the situation 

 may be, when their own government is failing to abide by those 

 laws, it makes it tough for me to do so. And certainly interjurisdic- 

 tional fisheries management and the ASMFC should be a part of 

 the process, but this particular legislation to be considered under 

 the gist that all efforts have failed is an absolute fallacy, and that 

 is where my comments are coming from. 



Mr. Lancaster. If this legislation were modified in such a way as 

 to guarantee the participation of commercial fisheries interest in 

 the Commission, would you then support the legislation? 



Mr. Schill. No, sir. The particular ASMFC compact, I think, is 

 more than adequate in fostering the cooperation of the States as 

 far as interjurisdictional fisheries. If the compact is abided by by 

 the Commission and an advisory committee is put together like 

 they had commented this morning or voted on this morning, I be- 

 lieve that that cooperation will work. And the menhaden fishery is 

 a perfect example of that. We have a plan in place, but, then again, 

 you have very few parties involved there so that they were able to 

 bring in the' industry at the get-go. I think that is the key. 



Mr. Lancaster. So are you saying then that if the advisory com- 

 mittee were mandated and, in fact, were functioning that you 

 would support this legislation? 



Mr. Schill. Yes, sir. 



Mr. Lancaster. I asked the last panel the question of the prob- 

 lems of legal catches occurring in States where illegal catches have 

 occurred and the moratorium is in place. I wonder if one or more 

 of you might care to comment on that problem. How do we address 

 the problem of those who attempt to and do successfully comply 

 with the law whereas others in that same jurisdiction may not re- 

 sulting in a moratorium being placed in effect? Mr. Loftus? 



Mr. LoFTUS. Mr. Chairman, we addressed that in a working 

 group that we had to help develop some of the draft legislation. 

 That topic did come up, and we viewed it as primarily a law en- 

 forcement problem, and I know that some of the Commission dis- 

 cussions yesterday viewed it as a law enforcement problem also. I 

 think we agree, speaking on behalf of the Sport Fishing Institute, 

 with what the Commission was talking about yesterday in that if 



