34 



It was earlier stated that the Bluefish Plan is a joint plan, writ- 

 ten in 1989. I would submit that the ASMFC that participated in 

 the plan in 1989 is far different than the Atlantic States Marine 

 Fisheries Commission of today. 



Today they are armed with a new Act, the Atlantic Coastal Fish- 

 eries Cooperative Management Act. They have more resources and 

 although not perfect, they are getting better. Rather than focus on 

 turf at this hearing, whether we go with the ASMFC or the Mid- 

 Atlantic Council, let's select an agency that can efficiently manage 

 this fishery. It is predominately a territorial sea fishery, both com- 

 mercial and recreational. 



For that reason I think that the ASMFC is the proper place for 

 bluefish management. I think we need to look at a real problem 

 that this subcommittee can address. It is developing a protocol for 

 the interaction between the Magnuson Act and the Atlantic Coastal 

 Fisheries Cooperative Management Act. 



That protocol must involve all three councils on the east coast, 

 the South Atlantic, the Mid-Atlantic and New England. They have 

 to get together and develop procedures where they can straighten 

 some of these problems out and get the efficiency in fishery man- 

 agement that we need. 



The third area of concern is what needs to be done to the blue- 

 fish fishery management plan. When the plan was written in 1989 

 it was fatally flawed. It was a horrible plan. It was written and 

 highly touted by the Mid-Atlantic Council as a plan that was writ- 

 ten for a fishery that is not in trouble. Well, the fishery went down. 



It wasn't because of the Council's plan, I don't mean to imply 

 that in any form or fashion. It was the cyclic nature of the fishery 

 and over fishing. 



The plan has no conservation provisions and the allocation proce- 

 dure is wrong. The plan equates recreational catch to commercial 

 landings. It punishes recreational fishermen for releasing their 

 fish. It is a terribly flawed plan and we support going back to the 

 more historic levels of an 85/15 split between recreational/commer- 

 cial fisheries. 



Many statements here have been made about the steady level of 

 the commercial catch. There is a reason for that. It is not the abun- 

 dance of bluefish fishery that gives that the stability. It is the price 

 of bluefish. Bluefish are not highly sought after as table fish. 



In 1993, the last year that NMFS published a Fisheries of the 

 USA, the average price for bluefish landed, I think, was around 37- 

 cents per pound and that is pretty low. When you look at the rec- 

 reational fishery, since the mid-1980's the average catch of a rec- 

 reational fisherman has gone from over three pounds per trip to 

 less than a pound per trip. If you look at the cost, that pound of 

 bluefish will get you about 37 to 40 cents on the market. The aver- 

 age fisherman catching a pound spends about $76 on a fishing trip. 



We need to have programs that will lead to rebuilding of the 

 stocks and if it is more efficiently done through the ASMFC, a sin- 

 gle agency, we believe that is the way to go. I hope that this Com- 

 mittee will not get locked into a turf battle but look at efficient so- 

 lutions so we can start rebuilding stocks. 



