39 



have to look at is a necessary spawning stock biomass that will re- 

 produce. 



The question you asked before, where do we need to keep that 

 stock, really you haven't come up with that figure. Do we need 

 1,000 fish to reproduce 100,000 if the conditions are right or do we 

 2,000 fish and when we establish that then we can establish what 

 the spawning stock biomass is necessary. 



Mr. Pallone. Ray, when you gave us that chart that showed the 

 declines, I guess in the 1940's and also in the 1920's, has there 

 ever been any analysis of these stocks declined significantly then? 



Mr. BOGAN. None whatsoever. As a matter of fact this study was 

 a 1977 NMFS study that included information up to 1974 or 1975. 

 They frankly didn't even address the fact that there were those 

 massive declines. It certainly wasn't because of the fishing effi- 

 ciency of the commercial sector, for example, because if that were 

 the case then you wouldn't have had nine million pounds in the 

 1930's. It was an instance in which the fish disappeared. 



Mr. Pallone. There was a dramatic increase. 



Mr. BoGAN. Extraordinary. We have never seen anjrthing like it, 

 and certainly no one would ever argue that this is anything near 

 what that was. Nobody could, even the most rabid proponent of re- 

 strictions on bluefish. 



Mr. Pallone. It would seem to me that that data would basically 

 go along with the theory that declines or increases are not based 

 on overfishing just because it is so dramatic. There is no reason to 

 believe that there was any overfishing. 



Mr. BOGAN. I think Gil raises a very good question. If we are all 

 conceding, and this was not easy but is as a result of this hearing, 

 we are now conceding that, OK, the decline in availability really 

 is cyclical. Three months ago you would not have that concession 

 on the part of certain of the people who I have heard today. 



Now that that is being conceded, the next question is OK, it is 

 cyclical, however is it fishing effort which is driving it down? Well, 

 there is decreased fishing effort. You have a ten fish limit which 

 results, it is acknowledged, in number one, a decrease in the ability 

 to catch more fish than ten but number two, it also results in de- 

 creased effort. 



Thirdly, there are developing offshore fisheries which, although 

 they go up and down, they certainly have increased during that 

 time. Theoretically, right now we are in a significant down cycle in 

 terms of fishing effort for bluefish. Stocks aren't coming up. Does 

 that not tell us that a three fish limit will have very little positive 

 impact. The only impact it will definitely have is to destroy a sector 

 of the industry which is extraordinarily important. 



Mr. Saxton. Excuse me, if I may break in Frank, what are you 

 saying about cycles? You mentioned the word cycle earlier in your 

 comment just previously. 



Mr. BoGAN. I think it is pretty much acknowledged now that this 

 is a cyclical situation that we are dealing with and Gil raises a 

 question which I think we all have to ask and that is, what is the 

 impact of our effort upon the cycles? If we look at history it would 

 suggest that we better be very careful before we make very, very 

 significant restrictions. This is what has been tried to be put 



