19 



Mr. DuNNiGAN. Well, Mr. Pallone, we do have more scientific in- 

 formation than we had when we adopted this management struc- 

 ture in 1989. Most recently, we have the 1993 stock assessment. 



Mr. Pallone. But again, this is just based on stock as a whole 

 as opposed to the actual cause for the decline is what you are say- 

 ing? 



Mr. DuNNiGAN. Yes, that's true. 



Mr. Pallone. So you may just go ahead based on the fact that 

 the stock is declining and say, OK, we will put in some more severe 

 restrictions or whatever just because the stocks have declined with- 

 out knowing if the management plan is actually going to help. 



Mr. DuNNiGAN. There are a couple of interesting things about 

 this. First of all, if you have a stock that is let's say at 200,000 

 metric tons and you are taking perhaps ten million pounds out of 

 that and that stock declines to 100,000 metric tons, you can't con- 

 tinue to take ten million pounds of fish out of that without having 

 a dramatic increase in fishing mortality. 



So if the stock declines whether or not it was fishing that caused 

 it, the management structure has to respond somehow to that 

 change in the stock size so there would be some need for regulation 

 at that point. 



If you are going to reasonably and prudently deal with that re- 

 source so that it will have an opportunity even if it is just natural 

 cycle so that it will have an opportunity to respond when those cy- 

 cles are set up to a point where the resource is ready to come back. 



Mr. Pallone. I guess my problem is and I guess we will have 

 to hear from the next panel but I get the impression from some of 

 the testimony from the next panel that they just don't agree with 

 the underpinnings of what you said and they don't believe that just 

 because the stocks have declined that means that we should ap- 

 prove this kind of management plan. 



I don't know. Let me get into this second thing because this is 

 very important to me and this whole thing of eliminating the joint 

 management between the Commission and the Councils. 



It seems to me that this is totally absurd and it seems like it is 

 coming out of the Administration in some fashion through their 

 reinventing government routine which we, of course, have been 

 hearing about for some time and which generally, the idea of 

 reinventing government and cutting back on red tape, paperwork, 

 number of employees, all that makes sense. 



But where in the world did this thing come from? Obviously, it 

 is not coming from Fisheries personnel. Is it coming from 0MB? If 

 it is coming from 0MB or directly from somebody in the White 

 House, who did they consult with? 



Mr. DUNNIGAN. I think Mr. Matlock is actually volunteering to 

 handle this one. 



Mr. Pallone. All right. 



Dr. Matlock. Actually I am because I would like to make sure 

 that you know it did not come from 0MB. It did not come from 

 anywhere but the National Marine Fisheries Service. 



Mr. Pallone. OK. 



Dr. Matlock. We recommended it on the basis that this Fishery 

 is a state fishery primarily. The passage of the Atlantic Coastal 

 Fisheries Cooperative Management Act in 1994, I believe, set the 



