72 



waters. The most equitable manner in which to distribute the 

 cost of interjurisdictional programs should be based on 

 quantitative estimates such as landings, value, or participation 

 in the fishery within each state's waters or within the EEZ. 

 While it is the responsibility of all levels of government to 

 adhere to conservation goals regardless of the status of the 

 fishery in their waters, it is understandable that states would 

 be reluctant to fund programs which have little or no benefit to 

 their commercial or recreational fishermen. 



One means of funding natural resource management programs 

 which has proven to be successful and which has generally been 

 accepted by recreational sportsmen has been the implementation of 

 license and extraction fees. Freshwater recreational anglers have 

 long been contributing to fisheries management programs through 

 fishing licenses, and a growing number of coastal states have 

 implemented saltwater licenses or special marine species stamps. 

 These programs, in which recreational anglers support fisheries 

 management programs and thereby enhance the opportunity to pursue 

 fish for noncommercial purposes, have been tremendously 

 successful and have assisted states in obtaining matching funds 

 from the Sport Fish Restoration Program. A number of ASMFC 

 member states are implementing saltwater licensing mechanisms. 

 For a license system to be successful, it must be equitable with 

 fees imposed on other users of the resources and is imperative 

 for states to establish a dedicated fund in which to deposit 

 license revenues. This fund must be earmarked for use only in 

 funding management programs of benefit to recreational fisheries, 

 thereby creating a classical user fee system. 



The commercial fishing sector must also contribute to the 

 management of fisheries which they impact through implementation 

 of an extraction fee, similar to those levied on the commercial 

 uses of other common property resources such as timber, minerals, 

 and grazing rights. These fees should also be deposited in a 

 dedicated account to be used only in managing these fisheries. 

 Additionally, a clear distinction should be drawn between 

 commercial and recreational fishermen, possibly through 

 implementation of commercial permits which inhibit or 

 economically discourage the sale of fish by anyone except those 

 deriving primary income as commercial fishermen. With increasing 

 pressure from all citizens to enjoy this common property 

 resource, the days of unlimited, free access to our fisheries 

 have long passed. We need to concentrate on modernizing our 

 outdated approach to managing the fisheries to reflect these 

 changes and better manage our limited resources for the benefit 

 of all. 



In conclusion, the Sport Fishing Institute supports the 

 concepts embodied within this draft legislation. We strongly 

 endorse the provisions which provide for a federal moratorium in 

 the case of noncompliance with ASMFC management plans and which 

 require full compliance with the Weakfish Management Plan within 

 six months. We urge the addition of provisions which require all 

 states to enact provisions of the Summer Flounder Management Plan 



