67 



developed by the Mid-Atlantic Council under the Magnuson Act with the cooperation of 

 the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Connnnission (ASMFC) and the New England and 

 South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils, would be unfortunate and unwise. The 

 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) proposal is that ASMFC would be given 

 responsibility for the Plan and that regulations in Federal waters would be prepared by 

 NMFS under the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act. 



In the late 1970's, potential markets for bluefish in Africa and South America stimulated 

 tuna purse seiners to consider harvesting bluefish. This interest prompted concerned 

 fishermen to petition the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) to develop 

 a Fishery Management Plan for this species. Seven fact finding meetings were held by 

 the Council in early 1979 to give fishermen from Virginia through New England an 

 opportunity to present information on the bluefish fishery. Public attendance at most of 

 these meetings was exceptional. At every meeting the desire for the development of a 

 Plan was strongly expressed by the recreational community. As a result, in May, 1979 

 the Council held a scoping meeting to develop a work plan for the Plan. The work plan 

 was adopted by the Council in July, 1979 and approved by the National Marine Fisheries 

 Service in March, 1980. Additional impetus to FMP development was provided by the 

 1982 harvest of bluefish by Florida fishermen using runaround gill nets in Chesapeake 

 Bay. 



The MAFMC in cooperation with the NMFS, New England and South Atlantic Fishery 

 Maoegement Councils, and the ASMFC completed a Bluefish FMP in 1984. Basically, the 

 plan was based on an allocation system with recreational fishermen receiving 80% of the 

 total projected bluefish catch each year and the commercial fishery the remaining 20%. 

 Commercial catch was to be further allocated at the rates of 10%, 50%, and 40% to the 

 North Atlantic, the Mid-Atlantic, and South Atlantic subregions, respectively. The 

 difference between the total projected catch for each subregion and the commercial 

 catch in state waters was to be allocated to the commercial fishery in the Exclusive 

 Economic Zone (EEZ). 



To serve as the basis of management decisions, the MAFMC, in consultation with the 

 NMFS, planned to submit catch projections each year to NMFS. If catch projections for 

 any user group/area equaled or exceeded 90% of the user group/area allocation, the 

 Regional Director of NMFS could have instituted control measures such as trip limits, 

 individual vessel quotas, time limits, and/or gear limitations. Also, the Regional Director 

 could have closed the commercial fishery in any area of the EEZ to vessels using 

 non-traditional gear (that is, gear other than hook and line, conventional gill nets, and 

 otter trawls) when 80% of the allowable commercial harvest in the EEZ of that area had 

 been caught by such vessels. Furthermore, the plan established a data collection system, 

 based on permits and logbooks, to facilitate operation of the management system. 



However, the MAFMC bluefish plan was rejected by the Secretary of Commerce for the 

 following reasons: 



1. The regulatory actions in the FMP were not based upon adequate information 

 concerning the need for and the consequences of proposed action. As such, the 

 regulatory impacts were not quantified as to benefits compared to cost. 



