497 



Mr. Ayers. If they make more money doing it. They are going to 

 go 



Mr. D'Amours. Exactly. Is it not true there is more money in 

 food fish than junk fish? 



Mr. Ayers. Yes. But I guess they get more pounds of the junk 

 fish. I am getting a Kttle bit out of my area. 



Mr. D'Amours. But if you are getting out of your area, it is not I 

 that took you there. You got out of your area when you said there 

 were no impacts on the fisheries. If you want to qualify that state- 

 ment now by saying you really don't know, I withdraw the line of 

 questions. 



Mr. Ayers. I won't withdraw that. I say nobody has shown any 

 impact on fisheries. I think I would know about it if they had. 



Mr. D'Amours. You cannot now say, then, you are out of your 

 area. 



Mr. Ayers. You are asking me why the menhaden catch has in- 

 creased. I think it is because of an economic factor. I think you 

 might ask one of the fishery guys. I think people usually do things 

 for economic reasons. If they make more money catching menha- 

 den than shrimp, that is what they will do. I am not saying the 

 shrimp catch has gone down, either. I think it has increased. 



Mr. D'Amours. The shrimp catch has in fact gone down. And 

 people do things for noneconomic reasons sometimes, not frequent- 

 ly enough perhaps. 



Mr. Ayers. Well, tell me, has the shrimp catch gone down? 



Mr. D'Amours. 'That is correct. 



I am advised by staff that the National Marine Fisheries Service 

 has reported that it has gone up in New England, but down in the 

 gulf. 



Mr. Ayers. One year, two years, five, consistent? 



Mr. D'Amours. Over a 2-year period, I am advised. 



Are you familiar with any baseline studies conducted in the gulf 

 against which such impacts could be measured? 



Mr. Ayers. Just historical evidence is what I am talking about 

 now. 



Mr. D'Amours. Let me go on to — do you have something to say? 



Mr. Ayers. No. 



Mr. D'Amours. I will ask this question of our other two wit- 

 nesses, either one or both of you may choose to answer. What are 

 your thoughts about the Interior Department's argument that 

 when you reduce resource estimates for a lease sale, as they did in 

 sale 52, that the risks of an oilspill are commensurately or propor- 

 tionately reduced? Do you know of any reason, any facts from 

 which that conclusion could be drawn? 



Ms. RiGG. The problem is that if you are drilling in an area 

 where there is a vague resource potential estimate, you don't really 

 know how much is out there. At the same time, the impact state- 

 ment says there might be three spills over 1,000 gallons. Well, how 

 much is "over 1,000 gallons?" 



We have an elusive amount of gallons being spilled. No matter 

 how many gallons of oil are out there, if there is one major oilspill, 

 it could be catastrophic for the fisheries and for endangered marine 

 mammals. As far as balancing goes, it is not a matter of less oil 



