81 



blueflsh technical advisors having an opportunity to submit their Input. Most didn't even tviow the 

 vote would be taken. 



This demonstrated that the commission saw the technical advisory committee as being 

 Inconsequential, and that the technical advisors were appointed for no other reason than to 

 comply with the commission's charter. Neither the tech.ncal advisors nor the public were given 

 appropriate opportunity to address this extraordinarily significant reduction In bag limits which 

 would have immediate and irreparable consequences to Industry. Beyond all of that, there was 

 no economic analysis available to examine the impact of a three fish bag limit on Industry. The 

 commission obviously did not care. The economic impacts of their actions on the fishing 

 community seemed to be of no consequence to the commission. Fortunately, a huge public 

 outcry and pressure forced them to reconsider that vote. 



Another example of the commission's Intent to exclude Input from the public and technical 

 advisors can be seen in the extremely restrictive tautog management plan. A review of the public 

 comments from every public hearing showed that not one comment supported the ultimate vote 

 of the commission. Moreover, facets of the plan approved were not even addressed in the public 

 hearing documents. Technical advisors were largely Ignored. This was just another example of 

 the commission's quest for complete control over a fishery. If the commission could get more 

 fisheries under if s umbrella, it can Justify more staff, power and appropriations. Based upon if s 

 abysmal history, this would be a major mistake. The Atlantic coastal Fisheries Cooperative 

 Management Act must be revisited in the very near future to correct the significant problems 

 Inherent in the present commission system. The ASMFC charter must also be restructured to 

 allow for public Input This commission needs to be told by congress that the people and 

 constituents of this great democracy are not irrelevant and unimportant Until legislative refonn 

 has corrected the deficiencies in the commission, no fish should be under its sole or exclusive 

 jurisdiction. 



AMENDMENT ONE TO THE BLUEFISH FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN. The Mid-Atlantic 

 Council and ASMFC are presently considering the first amendment to the bluefish management 

 plan. In order to determine the best way to manage the stock for growrth, it Is essential that a 

 number of factors be incorporated Into the science. 



Initially, the amendment drafters must determine whether the base years used to assess 

 bluefish stocks are representative. For example, there have been some extraordinary decreases 

 in bluefish availability within the last 75 years which have had little to do with fishing effort For 

 example, between 1924 and 1925 U.S. commercial landings of bluefish were less than a quarter 

 of a million pounds, compared to 9 million pounds In 1931. (Biolooical and fisheries data on 

 bluefish. figure 13, please see attached) In 1940, commercial landings dropped to approximately 

 100.000 pounds. There were recreational decreases at this time also. Likewise, there was a 

 significant decrease In recreational take by recreational anglers in the late ISSO's and early 

 1 960's. (There was a decrease In the amount of commercial catch but not as significant as the 

 recreational decrease.) These decreases in catch were attributable to something other than 

 fishing effort Was it decreased availability as a result of changes in bait pattems and water 

 temperatures? We do not know any more now than we knew then regarding those factors. 

 Management however, cannot responsibly Ignore that question. Another important factor to 

 consider is that all the age groups of bluefish are well represented. Nils Stoipe, of the New 

 Jersey Seafood Harvesters, ran the marine recreational fisheries statistical survey information on 



