77 



4 

 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 

 EFFORTS 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. THEY HAVE HAD MEETINGS AT OUT-OF- 

 THE-WAY OR OUT-OF-POCKETBOOK LOCATIONS THAT FISHERMEN 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 WHICH HAS ONLY 

 3 OF 19 VOTING MEMBERS WHO REPRESENT COMMERCIAL INTERESTS, OR THE 

 SOUTH ATLANTIC COUNCIL WHICH HAS 2 OF 13! 



I REALIZE THAT I'M REFERRING NOW TO THE MAGNUSON ACT. HOWEVER, 

 BECAUSE INTERJURISDICTIONAL FISHERIES MANAGEMENT AND MAGNUSON ARE 

 THE PRIMARY COMPONENTS OF THIS BILL, YOU CANNOT DISCUSS ONE WITHOUT 

 THE OTHER. 



COOPERATION AMONG THE STATES IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL FOR 



