79 



Highlands. She«pshead Bay, Fraeport and Captrea. Ukawlta, in 1094. wa had a massive 

 movement of fish along the New Jersey and New York coaat during the month of June. These 

 fish were feeding on large bodies of bait fish. Once the bait disappeared, so too did the bluefish. 

 The scientists who have worVed on the itock assessments of bluefish largely disregard this type 

 of information. No fonnula is presently in place which could consider this Information. This 

 should be changed. 



SHIFTS IN WATER TEMPERATURE. There have been significant shifts in water temperature 

 and current patterns within the last several years. Right at the time that bluefish availability was 

 declining, we saw significant Infusions of Spanish mackerel, dolphin and other semi-tropical game 

 fish into the mid-Atlantic region. At the same time, there were significant increases in schools of 

 bluefish encountered in the offehore fishing grounds (i.e. 30 miles and more) and In the northem 

 states. Maine fishermen, for example, witnessed significant increases In bluefish catches in the 

 early 1990's, a time in which bluefish were far less available to the fishermen In the New York 

 bight. 



INCREASED AVAILABILITY OFFSHORE. Within the last several years, there have been 

 significant increases in bluefish availability In offshore waters. Commerdal fishennen from Cape 

 May to Montauk have sometimes complained about this increased availability because It impedes 

 their normal fishing pattems. Our boats which fish offshore for codfish, pollack, ling and seabass 

 have reported that certain spots have been ovenun by bluefish to the point where they often have 

 to leave the area. Why are so many fish appearing in offshore waters? Other than a greater 

 availability of bait (e.g. squid and butterfish), we do not have the answer. However, prior to 

 coming to definitive conclusions regarding over-exploitation of bluefish, we should look at these 

 factors. 



ANECDOTAL INFORMATION. The argument for considering anecdotal information regarding 

 the status offish stocks, shifting patterns, and changes in effort has never been as strong as it 

 Is today. Three examples Illustrate this fact A scienttflc peer review of the data and conclusions 

 of NMFS scientists regarding bluefin tuna stocks was prompted by industry's insistence that 

 stocks were healthier than NMFS scientists believed. The peer review concluded that instead of 

 a continued decline in bluefin populations, there was a leveling off of any decline, and most likely 

 a slight Increase. This was an extremely significant conclusion. The anecdotal infomiation 

 provided by fishermen proved to be more reliable as to certain facets of the population analysis 

 than did the "science". Likewise, after NMFS closed the angling category for bluefin tuna 

 prematurely In 1995, Congressmen Saxton, Pailone and others persuaded NMFS to reconsider 

 their numbers. Constituents had pointed out to Congressmen Saxton and Pailone that based 

 upon the information available to them, recreational angling category could not have exceeded 

 its quota by more than two hundred tons. As a result of the legitimate questions raised by those 

 Congresspersons, NMFS performed an internal data reassessment and thereafter sent the data 

 to three university scientists for review. They concluded that NMFS catch data had exaggerated 

 the actual catch by nearly 200%. Likewise, Information provided by the recreational yellowfin 

 fishery resulted in a tenfold increase in the number of yellowfin tuna atfributable to the recreational 

 sector for the 1992 season. To be fair, anecdotal information has also proved unreliable. 

 However, NMFS scientists have the ability to sift through anecdotal 'outfler*' and Incorporate the 

 reliable information into the data base. 



In the case of bluefish, the recreational community, particularly those seasoned veterans 



