48 



do that if it meant that the public input was less unless you or 

 somebody could really show that it has really been a problem with 

 the bluefish management. 



In fact, if anything when Ray mentioned before, he talked about 

 how this Atlantic States Commission or Committee made the rec- 

 ommendation to reduce the bag limit from ten to three and come 

 up with a minimum size and how there really wasn't any public 

 input into it because it was a committee that did it and that made 

 me, I mean, since they have now rejected that and thrown that out, 

 it makes me think that there is some credence to what Ray was 

 saying. 



Mr. Radonski. There probably is credence to it but I think that 

 is one of the things that would be corrected in developing a protocol 

 between these two Acts. So we have to take that into consideration. 



If you look at the bluefish plan specifically, I went on the Mid- 

 Atlantic Council in 1992 and left in 1995, when I went on they 

 were talking about we need to do Amendment One. We need to do 

 an Amendment One. They are still talking about we need to do an 

 Amendment One. 



Constantly when it was brought up as something that we should 

 do, the Council staff said, "No, we don't have sufficient staff to do 

 it" and they haven't added any people. They have added an econo- 

 mist in the last five years, I think is their only addition to their 

 staff, but they don't have the resources to do it. 



The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission is going to be 

 doing it and then we are going to hand it over to the Federal Gov- 

 ernment and then the Federal Government is going to tell the 

 states how to do it. I think we could eliminate one step in that 

 process. 



Mr. Pallone. Ray, could you tell me, this committee of the com- 

 mission that made that decision to lower the bag limit and all that, 

 there was no public input? Just expand on what you said again, 

 please. 



Mr. BoGAN. There was one technical advisor at that meeting. 

 The technical advisors were never incorporated into that process. 

 Dusty Rhodes was the only person there and when the vote came 

 up for an actual limit, rather than an advisory vote, which would 

 allow it to go to public comment and discussion. It turned into a 

 substantive vote of that ASMFC board. It was a joint board with 

 the Mid-Atlantic Council. 



However, the commission aspect of it is dominated primarily by 

 head directors of the various states. This board did not allow the 

 public process to be adequately aired with regard to such a signifi- 

 cant restriction. 



Going from ten fish to three is a monstrous change. It eliminates 

 John Larson's boat from the industry, from that part of the blue- 

 fish fishery. We can't survive it, not any three-quarter or all day 

 boats. There is no question about that whatsoever. 



As I say in my written testimony, which I request be incor- 

 porated into this, you can't resuscitate a dead industry, a dead 

 business. You can't bring it back. Once it is gone, it is gone. 



What they did effectively with that three fish limit vote is make 

 a substantive vote which was binding upon the states. If it is bind- 

 ing upon the states, it didn't matter what the council voted. 



