17 



a mistake 8 or 10 years ago, now, and we should reevaluate this 

 new information. That is really at the other end of the spectrum 

 from where we see it as fishermen. 



We are more intimately associated with the data collection proc- 

 ess and the design of the surveys through which NMFS makes con- 

 clusions about abundance of bluefin tuna appears to be faulty in 

 that people aren't being surveyed that have a reasonable chance of 

 catching a fish, and this information seems to translate directly 

 into catch per unit effort statistics through which the abundance of 

 bluefin is derived. We have made suggestions about how this can 

 be improved repeatedly, and repeatedly have been told that we are 

 way out of line. 



So I think having access to a place like Woods Hole (whereas 80 

 percent or more of bluefin are caught in the northeast), we would 

 be able to discuss things on a more rational basis with the scien- 

 tists and we wouldn't be separated by 1,500 miles or more. 



Thank you. 



Mr. Manton. Thank you. 



Mr. Beideman, ICCAT in 1982 specifically called for no directed 

 harvest of bluefin within the spawning grounds of the Gulf of 

 Mexico. The United States, however, continues to allow harvest 

 through the incidental catch by long-liners in the Gulf. Should this 

 harvest be further restricted in order to take away any possible in- 

 centive to illegally target this highly valuable fish? 



Mr. Beideman. I agree that there has been a pretty much direct- 

 ed fishery up until National Marine Fishery Service made the reg- 

 ulations on the 2,500-pound directed catch in order to have one 

 bluefin tuna, incidentally. Since that time, there has been no di- 

 rected fisheries. That did solve that problem. 



The problem is, it did create some other problems and we feel 

 need modification of the 2,500 pounds in order to find the balanc- 

 ing point that will keep a directed fishery from the spawning stock 

 in the Gulf and not unfairly prejudice against the Gulf fishermen. 



Mr. Manton. Well, Mr. Bogan, you have criticized the science be- 

 cause the analyses have led to ICCAT recommendations which re- 

 quire U.S. fishermen to bear the brunt of conservation efforts. 

 What amendments to ATCA are necessary to provide non-NMFS 

 scientists a role in this process? 



Mr. BoGAN. Mr. Chairman, I don't even know that an actual 

 amendment is needed. I think what is needed is perhaps a tighten- 

 ing of the language contained in — again, ATCA refers over to Mag- 

 nuson with regard to best scientific information available, and in 

 that regard, there may be some tightening of the language with 

 regard to how to obtain the best scientific information available. 

 But I think that if NMFS abides by the mandate of Magnuson and 

 ATCA, I don't think that it is necessary to necessarily do that 

 through new language. 



In its most basic sense, beSt scientific information available 

 means gather all of that which can lead to a better data base, a 

 broader data base so as to reach a less faulty conclusion. In this 

 instance, every major user group has questioned that whole base 

 and have made recommendations as to how that can be implement- 

 ed. It is not necessarily something that needs to be addressed legis- 



