17 



merits that get done and so on, it still does not alter, I think, the 

 answer to your elemental question and that is, is the spawning 

 stock going down. 



The answer almost unequivocally is yes. The reasons for that de- 

 cline, those I think are at issue and there is not as much agree- 

 ment on those. Not having been here during the striped bass dis- 

 cussions and debates but having been aware of them from a dis- 

 tance, it seems to me that there are similar kinds of questions and 

 discussions going on with respect to bluefish as were going on with 

 striped bass. So any time there is a substantial decline, I think 

 generally there are questions and issues about the reasons for 

 those declines. 



Mr. Saxton. Let me ask one final question and then I will lateral 

 to Frank. It seems to me that at least from a common sense point 

 of view that if this problem was created to a significant degree by 

 a shrinking of the biomass, meaning less fish, there would be some- 

 what less fish on shore when, in fact, fishermen who talk to me tell 

 me there are virtually no fish on shore and it seems to me that one 

 might want to look at the onshore areas to figure out if something 

 else is going on. Would you comment? 



Dr. Matlock. I think your conclusion is a safe one to reach. If 

 there are no fish in a certain area, it is certainly wise to look at 

 that area and try to understand why they may not be there. 



One of the first explanatory outcomes of that in the face of a de- 

 clining total, there are fewer total fish to be distributed to various 

 places, is that you would expect to see fewer fish in all places ex- 

 cept where they end up getting concentrated as stocks generally de- 

 crease in size. 



So it is an expected outcome as the total goes down to see fewer 

 fish in areas where they generally have occurred when the stocks 

 were higher. Beyond that, trying to find out exactly why there are 

 fewer fish in a particular area is a worthwhile endeavor to pursue. 

 It is not wise though from a prudent management standpoint 

 where the things that you can regulate are essentially restricted to 

 fishing to not do anything in the areas where you can do something 

 because you don't know everything there is to know about why fish 

 are distributed. 



Mr. Saxton. Yes, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be 

 looking. For example, and I don't know if this is accurate or true 

 or partly true, but it seems to me that if food disappeared from the 

 onshore areas the bluefish might go someplace else to find food and 

 there are perhaps other fishing practices in other fisheries, i.e., 

 bunkers, that may hold the answer. I don't know that that is true 

 but is that something that we ought to look at? Dusty. 



Mr. Rhodes. I definitely think all those variables, Mr. Chairman, 

 and someone recently did an analysis and I got a copy of it of the 

 recreational catch over the last 12 to 13 years and I don't think 

 this has yet been entered into the scientific body. 



There was a plot of the percentage of various year classes age 

 fish in the recreational catch and the distribution of ages over the 

 12 year period was almost identical and the question remains if the 

 fish are in such decline, how could recreational people for 12 years 

 running catch the same percentage in their total catch of certain 

 year classes. That would mean that whatever is declining, the fish 



