21 



Likewise, I believe there are other nations, and I have looked at 

 the list before. I just don't want to make the mistake of saying a 

 particular country which is not signatory — or saying a particular 

 country isn't when it might be, but there are certain nations, for 

 example, off the Mediterranean or certain nations very near to us, 

 to our south, for example, that might not be signatories and where 

 a lot of the violations, if you will, come from. That is why the issue 

 of sanctions has come about. 



As to whether or not we can effectively regulate them and 

 whether the Atlantic Tuna Convention Act is even relevant any- 

 more — I think it is for the following reason: Those nations which 

 have the greatest opportunity or the greatest potential impact on a 

 resource are, to a large extent, those that are involved in ICCAT. 



Those nations are also the lead nations with regard to technology 

 and that kind of thing, and the way that we can best address the 

 nations that are not signatories are not complying, is by, in fact, to 

 go out and push for that. If we dropped out of ICCAT, if we disre- 

 garded the Convention Act because ICCAT isn't there, then I think 

 we are going to have more problems. 



Mr. Lancaster. One last question before my time expires. Are 

 there conflicts between Magnuson and the ATCA which undermine 

 the effectiveness of conservation of these species? And, if so, do we 

 need to address those conflicts when we reauthorize Magnuson? 



Dr. Foster. We don't see particular conflicts between the two 

 laws. We think they work very well together. There is different 

 language in each of the laws regarding this provision, restraining 

 the Secretary from setting quotas that are less than what ICCAT 

 sets, but both provisions are attempting to at least get at the same 

 thing, so we don't have any specific conflicts that we would speak 

 to. 



Mr. Lancaster. If there is anyone else who wishes to speak to 

 that. 



Mr. BoGAN. Mr. Lancaster, that was to a great extent — I think 

 Magnuson is well addressed in ATCA insofar as it specifically ref- 

 erences Magnuson, and indeed the national standards set forth in 

 Magnuson are very well thought out, well drafted standards. 



I think with regard to domestic implementation, in an ideal 

 world, if we can, in fact, follow the mandates of Magnuson, we are 

 going to have very good tuna regulations. I think part of the lack 

 of confidence in the present tuna regulations and I don't suggest, 

 by the way, that they are some easy thing to regulate. 



These fish move, there are a lot of things to change that, so 

 simply being objective, if there is a way to plug in the fishery to 

 Magnuson standards, you are going to have a very, very well-run, 

 well-regulated fishery on the domestic side, I want to emphasize, 

 but for right now, that has not yet been effective. 



Mr. Lancaster. Thank you very much. 



Mr. Manton. Mr. Coble, of North Carolina, do you have any 

 questions? 



Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



I will be very brief. I am sorry I missed a good part of this meet- 

 ing because of another conflict. Let me ask a couple general ques- 

 tions. Many observers, or some observers have noted that the 

 United States should take a lead role with conservation efforts. 



