18 



would have to do it evenly over all year classes. I would think that 

 is an almost impossible scientific happening. 



Therefore, the question of movement because of physical condi- 

 tions, food, temperature, et cetera, I think is a valid one and I 

 think that needs to be answered and investigated and purified and 

 in effect, vetted through the system and I don't think it has yet. 



So yes, I agree with you and that is another reason why this on 

 the water information is so important. We don't look at interactions 

 of species when we manage fish. That is a very complicated proc- 

 ess. 



It is also a very frustrating one because we know the fish in the 

 real world do interact and yet we look at them individually. This 

 may be an excellent time to start to examine some of those inter- 

 actions. 



Mr. Saxton. Frank. 



Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to get into the 

 issue of the joint management but before I do that if I could just 

 follow up on what Mr. Saxton said. The problem it seems to me is 

 that unless we have scientific basis for knowing whether these 

 management plans are really going to help, there are always going 

 to be unacceptable to the average fisherman because they are going 

 to be suspect not having been scientifically based so I think the 

 need to get a scientific basis as to why the decline is occurring is 

 crucial. Otherwise, the fishing public is never going to believe that 

 there is any need for management. 



I guess my problem is, two things, first of all, one of you men- 

 tioned this Stoney Brook study, I guess that was Mr. Matlock, are 

 dealing with the currents and you said, I think, that basically and 

 I don't know if it is not completed or it is not definitive, what is 

 the status of that? 



Dr. Matlock. I don't know the exact status of it. I will have to 

 get back to you and tell you what that is so that I am correct in 

 answering it but my understanding to date is that the results have 

 just simply not been determined or convincing that there is a par- 

 ticular conclusion that can be reached but rather than go much fur- 

 ther than that, if you don't mind I will be happy to give you a writ- 

 ten response. 



Mr. Pallone. All right. Then the other thing is I gather that the 

 Commission if you will has dropped this proposal that we were 

 hearing a few months ago about reducing the bag limit from ten 

 to three and having some sort of minimum size. For the time being 

 that has been dropped and yet you haven't put forward and many 

 would have said that we can't continue with the current scheme 

 and we are going to come up with a new one but so far we don't 

 have the new one, I guess. 



My question, I guess, first of all is what was the reason why you 

 proposed that original one and now it has been dropped? Is it just 

 the public outcry against it? That is a legitimate reason to drop it 

 but I just don't understand how we go from ten to three and we 

 don't have a scientific basis. How are you going to come up with 

 a management plan that is different from the current one without 

 any more scientific data which we don't seem to have? 



