59 



At the time the FMP was developed the bluefish stock was considered to be fully exploited. 

 The stock had already declined from peak abundance levels observed in the 198()s. The FMP's 

 objectives were to increase understanding of the resource, maintain u-aditional uses, enhance 

 management, prevent recruitment overfishing, and reduce waste. One provision of the FMP thai 

 has proven particularly controversial was the desire of the Commission and the Council to maintain 

 the predominantly recreational nature of this fishery. At the time the FMP was adopted, the 

 commercial fishery was only 10% to 15% of the landings. Under the plan if the commercial 

 landings exceed 20%, the FMP requires action to maintain the mostly recreational character of this 

 fishery. This first happened in 1994, requiring the imposition of state-by-state quotas on 

 commercial fisheries landings. In addition, as the stock has continued to decline, attempts have 

 been made to constrain recreational fishing effort as well. However, the plan only allows the 

 adjusunent of the creel limit, which is a very blunt insuiiment for management of recreational 

 fisheries. 



The Council and the Commission have been actively working on a much-needed 

 amendment to the FMP for over two years. It is clear that a strategy to further reduce fishing 

 mortality must be developed if this species is to recover. The rate of exploitation of this resource is 

 twice what it should be if we are to achieve the FMPs target fishing mortality rates. In addition, 

 fishery managers need a broader suite of tools to address the recreational fishery. Creel limit 

 adjustments that would be necessary to meet the FMP's goals would be unrealistically draconian. 

 The recreational fishing commimity and the resource would be better served by a more 

 sophisticated approach, that would allow for example the use of size limits, gear limits, closed 

 areas and closed seasons in addition to creel limits. 



The commercial fishery too would benefit if fishery managers could consider other 

 measures in lieu of being forced to use only quota changes. In addition, the PTVIP places the 

 burden of carrying out the commercial fishery quota limitations on the states, and problems have 

 arisen in trying to rationalize quota implementation procedures among the various states. 



The Council and Commission held public hearings on the FMP last year and have been 

 working on preparation of the draft FMP. Recognizing that the Mid- Atlantic Fishery Management 

 Council staff has the lead for preparing the necessary documents, the Commission is nevertheless 

 committed to seeing this amendment approved at our 55th Annual Meeting this coming October. 

 The Commission appreciates the efforts of the Mid-Adantic Council and its staff to keep the 

 preparation of this amendment on schedule. 



DRAFT:Testimony of John H. Duonigan April 1, 1996 



Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans P*ge 3 



