27 



Mr. DUNNIGAN. The State of North CaroUna, the division of Ma- 

 rine Fisheries? I am not sure. 



Mr. Saxton. There was a proposal a few months ago which 

 would have opened commercial fishing in the E.E.Z. and my under- 

 standing was that it would have been most beneficial to the com- 

 mercial fishermen out of North Carolina. 



Mr. DuNNlGAN. You held this hearing in Washington, D.C., a 

 couple of months ago. 



Mr. Saxton. That's correct. 



Mr. DUNNIGAN. North Carolina commercial fishermen by in large 

 supported that proposal by the National Marine Fisheries Service 

 to lift the moratorium, that's true. 



Mr. Saxton. Right. Now my question is this. If we extrapolate 

 the proposal of NMFS to striped bass, will the State of North Caro- 

 lina have the ability to open to commercial fishing the striped bass 

 fishery in the E.E.Z. if this same type of proposal is taken to the 

 striped bass fishery? 



Mr. DUNNIGAN. Mr. Chairman, under the Commission's Fishery 

 Management Plan, the North Carolina quota for that fishery would 

 stay the same. It is just a question of where the fish would be 

 taken, whether they would be taken inside of three miles or out- 

 side. Whatever their quota was for that fishery under the plan, it 

 would stay the same. 



Mr. Saxton. But in either case, the states would have the au- 

 thority to develop their own management plan independent of the 

 Federal Government's desires to have them conserve if that may be 

 the case. 



In the first example that I used, the State of Massachusetts 

 might develop a different ratio of take between commercial and rec- 

 reational fishermen, is that right? 



Mr. DUNNIGAN. Yes, sir. 



Mr. Saxton. And there is nothing to prevent the fishermen from 

 coming into offshore New Jersey waters? 



Mr. DUNNIGAN. Presumably that would be allowed unless in this 

 case and we are really speculating here, the Commission's Fishery 

 Management Plan denied that flexibility to a state. The Commis- 

 sion could do that but it has not. 



Mr. Saxton. So there really is a significant difference between 

 a regime that manages the fish for the east coast through the Fed- 

 eral Government and the regime that manages fish on a state-by- 

 state basis? 



Mr. DUNNIGAN. I think there could be those differences, yes, and 

 I think whether or not we believe those are significant enough in 

 bluefish to justify the continuation of full participation by the Fed- 

 eral Government under the Magnuson Act is the issue that we 

 have to decide. 



Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much. We have been at this for I 

 guess a good hour and a half and we appreciate your participation 

 today. We would ask that the record remain open for written ques- 

 tions should we have any and once again, thank you for your par- 

 ticipation. We look forward to working with you in the future. 



Before we call our second panel, we are going to take a short 

 break and then we will be right back for some good input from 

 some local people. 



