14 



only recreational angler we are concerned about are those who can 

 afford boats or who can afford passage and party charter boats. 



I don't think that we are going to achieve public acceptance of 

 what we do or necessarily good controls by eliminating what may 

 be a de minimis portion of the fishing public and yet we are headed 

 in that direction. That concludes my comments and I guess now we 

 are ready for questions. Thank you again for giving me this oppor- 

 tunity. 



[The prepared statement of Robert Dusty Rhodes may be found 

 at end of hearing.] 



Mr. Saxton. I thank each of you for sharing with us your indi- 

 vidual perspectives. Let me make a suggestion, Frank, and mem- 

 bers of the panel. Since we are not in Washington and since we 

 have the luxury of not having to face votes and bells and time lim- 

 its, why don't we make this question and answer period more infor- 

 mal and more of a discussion and therefore, if you want to jump 

 in at any point please, Frank, feel free to do so. 



Let me begin with a very basic question. It seems to me that 

 each of you perhaps with some variation have all agreed on one 

 point and that is that the bluefish stock appears to be less than 

 it was and there is apparently some evidence that it is continuing 

 to shrink. 



One set of figures, which I believe Mr. Dunnigan pointed out, 

 suggests that the bluefish stock peaked in 1982 with about 326 

 metric tons and in 1993, the last figures we have available, the 

 metric ton number shrunk all the way to 86,000. That appears to 

 me to be very significant. 



Also, the take has shrunk significantly from 23 million pounds 

 in 1980 according to Mr. Matlock to 12 million pounds in 1994, a 

 reduction of 50 percent, which seems to be very significant. Do you 

 all agree therefore that this is a problem? I got comment from some 

 individuals who heard about this hearing that this is part of a cycle 

 and that we shouldn't worry about it. 



I guess we all agree that the population is down significantly and 

 I guess that is the question. Mr. Rhodes may perhaps be taking a 

 different view and that is fine. Would you all comment on that, not 

 necessarily in order and Mr. Rhodes, why don't you start? 



Mr. Rhodes. I do believe the evidence indicates that the fish are 

 not as available. I am questioning however whether that means 

 that the biomass is really as declined as we think it is. 



We generally apply the measurement process in terms of recruit- 

 ment, in terms of catch, to the conclusion that the biomass is re- 

 duced and that may very well have been upheld in other fisheries 

 but because of the history of bluefish, I am not convinced that we 

 have enough scientific evidence to say that the reduced recreational 

 availability and notice that it is the recreational availability that 

 has been more reduced that the commercial availability. Commer- 

 cial catch has been maintained on a relatively stable basis. 



I think the fish are certainly not as available. I am not sure, 

 however, that that necessarily concludes that the biomass is as de- 

 pressed as some would have us believe and that is why I think that 

 as managers we need to proceed very cautiously to make sure that 

 fishing pressure is as important as I think it is and that is why 

 I suggest the on the water information of credible, full time rec- 



