68 



2. There was no immediate urgency for management at the time. 



3. The measures in the plan did not prevent overfishing since they applied only to 

 commercial fishing in federal waters. 



4. The allocation system of the plan was too rigidly fixed and complex and did not 

 allow for changes in various areas over time. 



5. There was a question of fairness in the plan with regard to treatment of different 

 areas and between traditional and non- traditional fishing gear. 



Although this Plan was rejected, bluefish remained a major value to the nation and public 

 concerns about bluefish overexploitation were not abated. Subsequently, the Fishery 

 Management Councils and the ASMFC agreed to proceed jointly on the development of a 

 new Bluefish Management Plan containing compatible management measures that could 

 be enacted in both State and Federal waters. This cooperative venture represented a new 

 approach for managing interjurisdictional fisheries. The Bluefish FMP was adopted by the 

 ASMFC at its annual meeting 2 - 5 October 1989 and by the Council 26 October 1989. 



The management unit of the Bluefish Plan is all bluefish in U.S. waters in the Atlantic 

 Ocean. This area includes all of the States from Maine through the east coast of Florida 

 and the three east coast Fishery Management Councils. Historically, bluefish landings 

 have been almost equally divided between State and Federal waters. 



Will placing sole responsibility for bluefish management with the Atlantic States Marine 

 Fisheries Commission help the resource? 



I believe that the Commission is as concerned as the Council about the condition of the 

 resource. It would be speculative to comment on how a joint Council-Commission Plan 

 might differ from a Commission Plan. 



We are working on Amendment 1 to the Bluefish FMP. The Amendment is intended to 

 provide a fishing mortality rate reduction strategy (if the updated stock assessment 

 indicates the resource is overfished) and add other management measures in addition to 

 the recreational possession limit and commercial quota. Council staff with bluefish 

 management experience and a plan writer on loan from the Fish and Wildlife Service are 

 working on that project. If Secretarial approval is withdrawn, Council staff will be 

 assigned to other fishery management plans and Commission and State staffs will need 

 to be brought up to speed. As such, management of this important resource could be 

 delayed. 



Will this proposal affect public input? 



Based on the above, it is clear that the Council has a long history in bluefish 

 management. Employees still on the Council staff worked on both the original and 

 current versions of the Bluefish FMP. More important is the Council's tradition of 

 working with the fishermen through its advisory committee process. 



