[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 3331, THE ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES CONSERVATION ACT; H.R.
3390, THE ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES CONSERVATION ACT; H.R.
3516, TO PROHIBIT PELAGIC LONGLINE FISHING IN THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC
ZONE IN THE ATLANTIC OCEAN
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 8, 2000, WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Serial No. 106-68
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
64-488 WASHINGTON : 2000
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
ELTON GALLEGLY, California DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California Samoa
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
KEN CALVERT, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
RICHARD W. POMBO, California OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, Idaho CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
CHRIS CANNON, Utah ADAM SMITH, Washington
KEVIN BRADY, Texas CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania DONNA MC CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
RICK HILL, Montana Islands
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado RON KIND, Wisconsin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada JAY INSLEE, Washington
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
GREG WALDEN, Oregon TOM UDALL, New Mexico
DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania MARK UDALL, Colorado
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah Samoa
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
RICHARD W. POMBO, California PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
Carolina SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho Rico
ADAM SMITH, Washington
Harry Burroughs, Staff Director
Dave Whaley, Legislative Staff
Jean Flemma, Democratic Legislative Staff
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held February 8, 2000.................................... 1
Statements of Members:
Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni F.H., a Delegate in Congress from
American Samoa............................................. 4
Goss, Hon. Porter J., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida........................................... 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Pallone, Frank, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey........................................ 4
Saxton, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New Jersey.............................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Statements of witnesses:
Caputi, Mr. Gary, Co-Chairman, Highly Migratory Species
Committee, Jersey Coast Anglers Association................ 90
Prepared statement of.................................... 92
Dalton, Penelope, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,
National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, accompanied by Dr. Rebecca
Lent, Chief, Highly Migratory Species Management Division,
National Marine Fisheries Service.......................... 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 12
Delaney, Mr. Glenn Roger, Blue Water Fishermen's Association
and U.S. Commissioner to ICCAT............................. 26
Prepared statement of.................................... 29
Hayes, Mr. Robert G., General Counsel, Coastal Conservation
Association, American Sportfishing Association, The
Billfish Foundation........................................ 54
Prepared statement of.................................... 55
Nussman, Mr. Michael, Vice President, American Sportfishing
Association................................................ 46
Prepared statement of.................................... 48
Panacek, Mr. Ernest, Manager, Viking Village Dock, Barnegat
Light, New Jersey.......................................... 59
Prepared statement of.................................... 62
Stone, Mr. Richard B., Science Advisor, Recreational Fishing
Alliance................................................... 79
Prepared statement of.................................... 81
Wilmot, Dr. David, Executive Director, Living Oceans Program,
National Audubon Society................................... 96
Prepared statement of.................................... 99
Additional material submitted:
Hinman, Ken, National Coalition for Marine Conservation,
prepared statement of...................................... 85
H.R. 3331, THE ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES CONSERVATION ACT; H.R.
3390, THE ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES CONSERVATION ACT; H.R.
3516, TO PROHIBIT PELAGIC LONGLINE FISHING IN THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC
ZONE IN THE ATLANTIC OCEAN
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2000
House of Representatives,
Committee on Resources,
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation,
Wildlife and Oceans,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11 a.m., in Room
1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Jim Saxton
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM SAXTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Saxton. The Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation,
Wildlife and Oceans will come to order. Today, the Subcommittee
is conducting its first in a series of hearings concerning
pelagic longline fishing in the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of
Mexico. The focus of this hearing will be on H.R. 3331, H.R.
3390, a proposal by Congressman Porter Goss who is with us this
morning, also co-sponsored by Mr. Tauzin, and H.R. 3516, a
measure by Congressman Mark Sanford to prohibit pelagic
longline fishing in our Atlantic Exclusive Economic Zone.
In addition, we will examine the National Marine Fisheries
Service's recommendation that time and area closures be
established to address pelagic longline bycatch without
compensation to pelagic longline fishermen. The National Marine
Fisheries Service proposed closures are similar to those
designated in two of the bills that I mentioned, but do differ
in the Western Gulf of Mexico and the area off the coast of
South Carolina known as the Charleston Bump.
We stand at an historic crossroads for the conservation of
highly migratory species. The effective management of Atlantic
highly migratory species is one of the most complex and
difficult challenges facing the National Marine Fisheries
Service and this Committee, I can tell you first-hand. These
species range widely throughout international waters and the
jurisdictions of many coastal nations with diverse political
perspectives on how to properly utilize and manage this
valuable resource.
The fishing practices and marketing strategies for these
species are equally diverse. Unlike most other domestic
fisheries, effective multilateral management is the goal of our
Nation's HMS policy. In fact, Congress placed Atlantic HMS
management authority in the hands of the Secretary of Commerce
instead of the Regional Fishery Management Councils, in theory,
to ensure that our government maintains an Atlantic-wide
perspective and vision.
It is my firm belief that this Committee and this Congress,
together with thousands of concerned fishermen and
conservationists, have a unique opportunity to work together to
aggressively protect and rebuild stocks of HMS such as
billfish, sharks and swordfish.
In August of 1999, I was approached by representatives of
the longline industry and three recreation/conservation fishing
organizations who suggested I sponsor legislation which would
do several things: (1) permanently close a vast area of U.S.
waters in the South Atlantic to pelagic longline fishing; (2)
establish two time-area closures in the Gulf of Mexico to
pelagic longlining; (3) reduce billfish bycatch and the
harvesting of juvenile swordfish; and (4) provide affected
fishermen a buyout to compensate them for the loss of fishing
grounds and fishing opportunities. I remain a strong supporter
of this concept.
I believe in this concept because the current management
system whereby NMFS publishes a regulatory rule that is
challenged by seemingly endless lawsuits is not an effective
way of promoting sound HMS fishery management. This system has
to change.
Frankly, I introduced H.R. 3331, in part, because the
National Marine Fisheries Service established the pelagic
longline fishery as a limited-entry fishery through the HMS
Fishery Management Plan. As NMFS is well aware, I have been
asking them to take this action for many years. The
establishment of a limited-access system is critical to reduce
harvesting capacity through attrition or a buyback program.
Hence, once pelagic longline permits for HMS are bought out as
proposed in H.R. 3331 and H.R. 3390, there would be no further
vessels re-entering the fishery.
In addition, last November the International Convention for
the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, ICCAT, led by the United
States, approved a 10-year rebuilding plan for North Atlantic
swordfish. Although the final approved plan did not go as far
as I would have liked in reducing the annual quota
internationally, it nevertheless set an important tone for
conservation. I commend the U.S. ICCAT Commissioners for their
tenacity in getting the rebuilding plan approved.
Before we hear from out witnesses, I would like to make the
following statement: Prior to and following the introduction of
H.R. 3331, I and Subcommittee staff met with, and spoke to, a
number of pelagic longline fishermen, recreational fishermen
and their organizations, and a number of conservation and
environmental groups. I am well aware of the strong opinions
expressed by many on the issue of pelagic longline fishing,
bycatch, and any buyback proposal. I am also very cognizant of
the daily skirmishes that occur between certain commercial and
recreational fishing organizations on the issue of pelagic
longline fishing. I wish to remind the witnesses that this is
not the proper forum for those battles. We are here to learn
and then, following this learning session and perhaps several
others, we will be prepared hopefully to take action.
I would like to ask the witnesses to keep in mind that this
Subcommittee is focused on producing a product that best
encompasses conservation of affected highly migratory species
and maintains a viable U.S. swordfish industry. This is the
beginning of what I suspect will be an arduous process, but I
am confident that with the input of many, we can provide a
conservation measure that is good for our beleaguered highly
migratory species of fish. The stakes are high and further
inaction is no longer an option.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Saxton follows:]
Statement of Hon. Jim Saxton, a Reprsentative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey
Today, the Subcommittee is conducting its first in a series
of hearings concerning pelagic longline fishing in the Atlantic
Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico. The focus of this hearing will be
my bill, H.R. 3331; H.R. 3390, a proposal by Congressmen Porter
Goss and Billy Tauzin; and H.R. 3516, a measure by Congressman
Mark Sanford to prohibit pelagic longline fishing in our
Atlantic Exclusive Economic Zone. In addition, we will examine
the National Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS) recommendation
that time and area closures be established to address pelagic
longline bycatch without compensation to pelagic longline
fishermen. The NMFS proposed closures are similar to those
designated by H.R. 3331 and H.R. 3390.
It is my firm belief that this Committee and this Congress,
together with thousands of concerned fishermen and
conservationists, have a unique opportunity to work together to
aggressively protect and rebuild stocks of HMS such as
billfish, sharks and swordfish.
In August of 1999, I was approached by representatives of
the longline industry and three recreation conservation fishing
organizations who suggested I sponsor legislation to: (1)
permanently close a vast area of U.S. waters in the South
Atlantic to pelagic longline fishing; (2) establish two time-
area closures in the Gulf of Mexico to pelagic longlining; (3)
reduce billfish bycatch and the harvesting of juvenile
swordfish; and (4) provide affected fishermen a buyout to
compensate them for the loss of fishing grounds and fishing
opportunities. I remain a strong supporter of this concept.
I believe in this concept because the current management
system whereby NMFS publishes a regulatory rule that is
challenged by seemingly endless lawsuits is not an effective
way of promoting sound HMS fishery management. This system has
to change.
Frankly, I introduced H.R. 3331 in part, because the
National Marine Fisheries Service established the pelagic
longline fishery as a limited-entry fishery through the HMS
Fishery Management Plan. As NMFS is well aware, I have been
asking them to take this action for many years. The
establishment of a limited access system is critical to reduce
harvesting capacity through attrition or a buyback program.
Hence, once pelagic longline permits for HMS are boughtout as
proposed in H.R. 3331 and H.R. 3390, there would be no further
vessels re-entering the fishery.
In addition, last November the International Convention for
the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), led by the United
States, approved a ten-year rebuilding plan for North Atlantic
swordfish. Although the final approved plan did not go as far
as I would have liked in reducing the annual quota
internationally, it nevertheless set an important tone for
conservation. I commend the U.S. ICCAT Commissioners for their
tenacity in getting the rebuilding plan approved.
Before we hear from our witnesses, I would like to make the
following statement: Prior to and following the introduction of
H.R. 3331, I and Subcommittee staff met with, and spoke to, a
number of pelagic longline fishermen, recreational fishermen
and their organizations, and a number of conservation and
environmental groups. I am well aware of the strong opinions
expressed by many on the issue of pelagic longline fishing,
bycatch, and any buyback proposal. I am also very cognizant of
the daily skirmishes that occur between certain commercial and
recreational fishing organizations on the issue of pelagic
longline fishing. I wish to remind the witnesses that this is
not the proper forum for those battles. I would ask the
witnesses to keep in mind that this Subcommittee is focused on
producinga product that best encompasses conservation of
affected highly migratory species and maintains a viable U.S.
swordfish industry. This is the beginning of what I suspect
will be an arduous process, but I am confident that with the
input of many, we can provide a conservation measure that is
good for our beleaguered highly migratory species of fish. The
stakes are high and further inaction is no longer an option!
Mr. Saxton. I would now like to recognize the Ranking
Minority Member for any statement he may have.
Mr. Faleomavaega.
STATEMENT OF HON. ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS
FROM AMERICAN SAMOA
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I certainly
would like to welcome our good friend and colleague, the
gentleman from Florida, Mr. Goss, as he will be testifying
later.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today on
these different legislative proposals to address overfishing
and bycatch concerns in the Highly Migratory Fisheries and, in
particular, the swordfish industry of the Atlantic Ocean. As
you mentioned earlier, Mr. Chairman, the Atlantic swordfish and
other highly migratory species have been managed
internationally for many years by the International Commission
for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas.
In recent years, quotas and rebuilding plans have been
adopted by ICCAT to promote the recovery of swordfish which are
currently over-fished. While U.S. fishermen have been strictly
held to those quotas, other nations unfortunately have not been
as diligent. As a result of the new bycatch reduction
requirements under the Magnuson Act, additional restrictions
will be needed by the U.S. fisheries. The National Marine
Fisheries Service, the entity charged with management of highly
migratory species, has proposed time-area closures, and these
bills lay out alternatives to the NMFS approach.
I am aware that there will likely be concerns raised about
Congress legislatively establishing management measures for
this or any fishery, as well as concerns about other provisions
to the various bills that preclude further time-area closures
and require that the buyout proposals be fully appropriated
before any closures can go into effect. I expect that some of
the witnesses today will elaborate on those points. At the same
time, Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt that your highest priority
is to ensure the long-term conservation and sustainability of
swordfish is, and has always been your goal, for all marine
resources.
So, with that in mind, I am here today to listen and to
learn from all the witnesses in hopes that these concerns can
be resolved and that we can all work together to ensure the
long-term viability of this resource and the industry that
depends on it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Saxton. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone.
STATEMENT OF FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased that
this important issue, conserving the Atlantic highly migratory
species, is now being considered by your Subcommittee. Today,
we are contemplating various proposals designed to preserve
highly migratory species of fish in the Atlantic to reduce
bycatch of over-fished and protected species, and to minimize
the economic impacts on affected commercial fishermen. These
proposals all close geographic areas for certain periods of
time to commercial pelagic longline fishing, providing a new
and ambitious management strategy to reduce incidental catch of
undersized, overfished, and protected species.
The geographic extent of the closure should correspond to
hotspots where the species to be conserved and protected are
most likely to be otherwise caught. But because it is a new
strategy, significant questions remain concerning the effect
time-area closures will have on both fishing effort and
obviously on fishing communities.
It is obviously a difficult issue, you can tell that from
what the Chairman has already said. The negotiations process
has come far in the past few weeks, but we still have a long
way to go, and I look forward to working with scientists,
recreational and commercial fishermen, and the
conservationists, to find an effective solution for all, and
basically will be listening to the testimony today and talking
again to some of the affected parties in New Jersey as well as
throughout the country. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you. Before we proceed, let me ask
unanimous consent that also Committee members be permitted to
include their opening statements in the record.
Before we move to Mr. Goss, it has been mentioned by myself
and by my two colleagues that certain areas would be closed to
longline fishing, and I would like to ask Mr. Howarth if he
would explain the differences in these lines to the Committee
members and to members of the public.
Mr. Howarth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief.
Members, in your folders, behind your background memo, are
copies of these maps. There are charts to the left for the
witnesses and charts to the right for members. On the maps are
a series of lines. The one farthest south from the Gulf that is
yellow and black represents the EEZ. That represents the EEZ as
well as Mr. Sanford's bill banning pelagic longline fishing in
the Atlantic EEZ.
The green line in the Western Gulf represents the NMFS
proposal for the Gulf of Mexico.
The blue and red line in the Gulf closer to the shore
represents Mr. Saxton's bill and Mr. Goss' bill. In the
Atlantic, the lines blue and red, going up the East Coast,
represent again Mr. Saxton and Mr. Goss' proposals. Also, you
will see in the Atlantic a green line. That represents the
Charleston Bump that you heard in the Chairman's testimony, and
that is from the NMFS proposal.
This map here on the dais and the map over there represent
the same picture. Out to the witnesses' left and the members'
right represents the Mid-Atlantic. Again, the black and the
yellow line represents the EEZ, the Exclusive Economic Zone,
and the red line represents Mr. Saxton's proposal of the Mid-
Atlantic buyout area. Thank you.
Mr. Saxton. Well, that certainly cleared that up.
I am very pleased to have our friend and colleague from the
State of Florida here with us today, Mr. Goss, who is the
sponsor of H.R. 3390.
Mr. Goss, we are pleased that you are here. You may proceed
as you see fit.
STATEMENT OF HON. PORTER J. GOSS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. Goss. Thank you. I am obviously glad to be here, too,
on this occasion, and I very much appreciate your leadership
and the interest of the members of your Subcommittee on this
subject. It is a matter clearly to say whose time has come is
well understood. I have a prepared statement which I would like
to submit for the record, and I would like to abbreviate it and
just make a few points, if that is permitted.
First of all, I am very happy that my lead co-sponsor on
H.R. 3390, which is the bill which I wish to address, is our
colleague from Louisiana, Mr. Tauzin, who is well known and has
been long involved in dealing with these fishery matters.
H.R. 3390, as we are presenting it, is a legislative
embodiment of an agreement between the commercial fishing
industry and conservation groups to close, as the map shows,
some 160,000 square miles to pelagic longlining in the South
Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico.
The bill is a compromise that came about after extensive
negotiation. It is the compromise that now exists, and I think
it represents a win for all parties, which is why the bill is
brought forward.
As you have described, or as your staff has described, the
bill affects an area from Sanibel, roughly, on the west coast
of Florida, down around the tip of Florida, up the South
Carolina coast.
The areas selected for closure were chosen because the
scientific analysis done by NMFS and independent scientists
because they have high concentrations of small swordfish
bycatch and billfish bycatch. Closing them should allow these
stocks to rebound without unduly disrupting the swordfish
longlining industry, and that, I think, is the basis of the
compromise.
In addition, the 68 longlining vessels that use these
fisheries will be bought out by the government. In return,
these vessels are not going to go back into that fishery or
other commercial fisheries.
Payment for the buyout in our bill comes from a combination
of Treasury funds, consumers of swordfish, and a user fee in
fact imposed on recreational fishermen.
The bill does include a bycatch reduction research program.
This effort is designed to help develop measurable methods to
further reduce bycatch. This is an area I have been
particularly interested, as the Chairman well knows, and I
think follows on the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone's,
remarks as well.
I also want to point out that a lot of interested parties
have come forward on this on both sides and, frankly, I have
had a lot of time to work with the Coastal Conservation
Association, and I very much appreciate the CCA efforts and
take on this and some other matters over the years.
I know, Mr. Chairman, that you would like to expand the
closed fisheries area and that you have legislation to do that,
and I very much congratulate you on that effort. I am hopeful
that that process will move forward in a smooth way
legislatively, at the same time not losing anything that we
have achieved so far, as reflected in H.R. 3390, the base bill
compromise which we are trying to get passed.
I think that this is a unique time, that we have seen,
finally, in these wars that go on, an area where people have
come together and sat down and worked out an agreement. I think
in that case this is somewhat benchmark, and I genuinely would
like to thank all the parties involved on both sides of the
issue for rationally trying to find a solution that is based on
science and is also based on fair play and comes up with a
piece of legislation which I think our colleagues would be able
to support.
Having said that, I would also like to thank Mr.
Faleomavaega for his kind reception and hospitality here, and
to tell him also that he was well represented by M/Sgt. Totela
Alefonga [phonetic] in American Samoa at the occasion of my
recent visit there, where I learned something about the
problems of the fisheries in that area first-hand. And I wish
he would give my best wishes to M/Sgt. Totela Alefonga, and be
assured, Mr. Faleomavaega, that you were well represented.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, that is all I have to offer at this
time. I would be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Goss follows:]
Statement of Hon. Porter Goss, a Representative in congress from the
state of Florida
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here this morning to
discuss H.R. 3390, the Atlantic Highly Migratory Species
Conservation Act. For me, this bill is an excellent model for
how conservation issues should be addressed. Unfortunately, as
my colleagues well know, most environmental debates are often
politicized for partisan gain and have little to do with
substance or solutions. It is not often that combatants in
conservation issues can put aside their differences long enough
to come to a consensus agreement that will benefit both parties
and ensure meaningful protection for our resources. So, I am
delighted to be here today with what I hope is a constructive
solution to a very real problem. The consensus reflected in
H.R. 3390 will greatly enhance the conservation of billfishes
and facilitate rebuilding of the swordfish stocks.
In the fall of 1998, representatives of four groups began a
discussion that has resulted in the bill I introduced. The
Coastal Conservation Association, the American Sportfishing
Association, The Billfish Foundation and the Blue Water
Fisherman's Association have come together to address the
decline of Atlantic billfishes and the increase in catches of
juvenile swordfish.
H.R. 3390 will close some 160,000 square miles to pelagic
longlining in the South Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico. These
closures, developed from scientific analysis done by
independent scientists and the National Marine Fisheries
Service, cover a broad spectrum of conservation benefits
without unduly disrupting the swordfish longlining industry.
The areas were selected because of the high concentration of
small swordfish catch and billfish by-catch.
The Atlantic closed area extends from my Southwest Florida
district at Sanibel Island south to Key West, then north all
the way to the South Carolina North Carolina boarder. This area
will produce the lion's share of the conservation and economic
benefit from this bill. The closure is permanent and will
significantly reduce the catch of small swordfish and sailfish
byeatch. Portions of the Gulf will see a three-month closure
that accomplishes similar objectives.
Although no one has computed the exact economic benefit of
the legislation, there is no question that it will be a huge
boost for the economy of my home state of Florida and,
ultimately, the nation. Florida is the number one marine
recreational fishing state in the country. That activity cannot
be sustained without healthy populations of fish. The benefits
from the Atlantic closure will make the East Coast of Florida
one of the premier sailfish fisheries in the world.
These benefits do not come without a cost, however. In
order to get this level of economic and conservation benefit,
the legislation makes 68 longline vessels eligible for buy-out
of the vessel's fishing permits. In return for the buy-out, the
longlining vessels are forever foreclosed from returning to
this fishery or any other commercial fishing worldwide. Payment
for the buyout comes from a combination off Treasury funds,
consumers of swordfish and a fee imposed on recreational
fishermen.
The legislation also includes a bycatch reduction research
program. The three-year program will direct scientists,
sponsored by both the commercial industry and recreational
groups, to develop measurable methods to further reduce bycatch
in the longline fishery. There is a special emphasis in the
mid-Atlantic to monitor displacement of vessels and propose
ways to remedy it.
I said earlier that the bill is not perfect. Indeed, I have
yet to see a perfect piece of legislation. No group is going to
get all they want in this legislation but, taken as a whole,
this is a good piece of legislation that addresses a real
conservation problem. We should not pass up this opportunity.
I commend the groups that have signed the agreement and I
am particularly proud to sponsor this legislation because of my
respect for the work of the Coastal Conservation Association.
In my state of Florida, CCA has always led the charge in the
fight to protect our marine resources and I am pleased to see
that commendable record of accomplishment continue.
Mr. Chairman, I know that you have legislation that would
expand the buyout area envisioned in H.R. 3390. I commend you
for that effort. I remain hopeful that throughout the
legislative process as we move this bill toward passage, we
will maintain the delicately balanced compromise that produced
the agreement to close these fisheries.
Once again, I want to thank the Chairman and the other
members of the Committee for the opportunity to appear before
you this morning. Thank you.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much for your statement and for
your brevity, it is appreciated. I would just like to get one
issue out on the table while you are here, and that is this:
The area that you and I close are identical in our bills. The
uppermost concern in the mind of many is that we have no way of
knowing how many longline fishermen or fisherboats which are
currently ported, docked, in or adjacent to the closed area,
would opt to be bought out under the proposal, and how many
would opt to go fish somewhere else.
As a Representative of the middle Atlantic States, New
Jersey in particular, we have some concern that without some
provisions added to your bill, as is currently represented by
some provisions in my bill, to address the issue referred to as
``displacement of fishermen'', that many of the boats might,
could, or would, move north, simply moving the fishing effort
from the closed area to the area that would remain open,
commonly referred to in these discussions as the mid-Atlantic
Bight.
I am just interested in your thoughts on this issue because
somehow, if we are going to be successful in getting a bill, we
need to find a solution to this problem, and I am just
interested in your comments.
Mr. Goss. Mr. Chairman, as I said, I congratulate you on
your efforts to do that because I think fair play is a critical
factor in any piece of legislation, and I don't think we really
entirely understand all the consequences of any legislation we
pass.
What I seek to do is to bring forward a slice of this
problem that I am pretty sure would be noncontroversial as it
stands by itself because that is what the parties have agreed
to.
Do I think this is final solution, the only solution, the
best solution? No, it is not. It is what we have got so far.
And if it can be improved and made fairer, specifically
referring to the displacement issue, that is certainly fine by
me. It is not my view that we want to in any way be unfair, but
it is certainly my view that we have to have agreement among
the parties in order to pass workable legislation, and that is
why I brought forward H.R. 3390 in its present form. If you
could improve upon it, you will certainly have my support in
any way I can.
Displacement of fishermen is a huge problem. The industry
has obviously undergone some very serious readjustment. I know,
with Mr. Faleomavaega, we have talked a lot about porpoises and
tuna and so forth, and dealing with environmental approaches.
And I find that rational people sitting down and negotiating
these things out on the basis of good science and fair play is
the best way to come to a reasonable solution. I think that
this first step today legislatively opens the door for more of
the same, and so I have nothing but encouragement for people
who are going to try and make a better bill, a fairer bill, if
it is possible to do, with the consent of all parties.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much. Mr.Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again I want
to assure the gentleman that certainly this Member will
definitely be seeking his advice and his wisdom and
understanding of the complications involved here. This is just
with the Atlantic. It is just as much similar problems that
we're faced with in the Pacific, and probably to the uniqueness
of our Nation, the fact is not only as an Atlantic nation but
as a Pacific nation. But I do want to thank the gentleman for
coming up with his initiative so that the members of this
Subcommittee will certainly be aware of the concerns that have
been addressed by the provisions of H.R. 3390. I want to assure
the gentleman that I will be closely working with him to see
what we can do to improve this legislation. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Saxton. Mr. Goss, thank you very much, we appreciate
your being with us this morning. At this time, we have no
further questions.
Mr. Goss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have always been
hospitably welcomed here, and I appreciate it. It is a pleasure
to do business with your Subcommittee and its members.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much.
I would now like to move on to our next panel. I would now
like to introduce Ms. Penny Dalton, Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries at the National Marine Fisheries Service. I would
like to remind the witness that we operate here under the five-
minute rule, which is sometimes flexible. Your written
testimony certainly will be included in its entirety in the
record and, Penny, you can begin when you are comfortable.
STATEMENT OF PENELOPE DALTON, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR
FISHERIES, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC
AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, ACCOMPANIED BY DR. REBECCA
LENT, CHIEF, HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES MANAGEMENT DIVISION,
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Ms. Dalton. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee. I am Penny Dalton, NOAA Assistant Administrator
for Fisheries. Accompanying me today is Dr. Rebecca Lent. She
is the Chief for our Highly Migratory Species Management
Division.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on three
legislative proposals before the Subcommittee: H.R. 3331 and
H.R. 3390, both titled the Atlantic Highly Migratory Species
Conservation Act; and H.R. 3516, legislation to prohibit
pelagic longline fishing in the Exclusive Economic Zone in the
Atlantic Ocean. I also will discuss our December 15 Rule
proposing establishment of time and area closures for the
longline fleet to reduce bycatch.
Mr. Chairman, my written testimony provides a detailed
review of the proposed Rule and the three bills. In the
interest of time, I will briefly compare the Rule and the
legislation and then discuss our analysis and conclusions.
The proposed Rule includes as a preferred alternative a
year-round closure of the Southeast Atlantic Coast and a seven-
month closure, from March 1 to September 30th, in the Western
Gulf of Mexico. In selecting this preferred alternative, NOAA
Fisheries examined several options and balanced the need to (1)
reduce bycatch of small swordfish, also billfish, bluefin tuna
and sharks, and (2) minimize reductions in target catches.
NOAA Fisheries has published a Proposed Rule and a 75-day
comment period currently is underway, which will end on March
1, 2000. Once the comments have been compiled and considered,
NOAA Fisheries will complete action on the Final Rule. Similar
areas are proposed for closure in the Rule, H.R. 3331 and H.R.
3390, albeit with some important differences. The South
Atlantic Bight closure in the Proposed Rule is larger on the
northern end to account for the variable location of the
oceanographic feature known as the Charleston Bump. In
addition, the Proposed Rule would close the Western end of the
Gulf which is different from the legislative proposals to close
an area all along the Northern Gulf Coast.
NOAA Fisheries has only recently begun to use time and area
closures as a management tool for this fishery. Analyzing the
impacts and effectiveness that time and area closures on the
Atlantic pelagic longline fleet has proven to be challenging
because it is difficult to predict changes in fishing patterns
when the areas are closed.
To examine a range of possibilities, NOAA Fisheries
conducted analyses under two different assumptions regarding
the fishermen's behavior. The first assumption is that there
would be zero-effort redistribution. In other words, sets
currently made in the proposed closed areas would not be made
elsewhere.
The second assumption is that there would be a total effort
redistribution. That is, all of the sets currently made by
fishermen in the proposed closed areas would be made in other
open areas.
The benefits from the time and area closures under the two
effort redistribution models have been evaluated for the
Proposed Rule and for both bills. A comparison of the
effectiveness of all the proposals is shown in the attached
table at the end of my written testimony.
In the South Atlantic, the impact of time and area closures
under the Proposed Rule is similar to that for the bills under
both models. In the Gulf of Mexico, the time and area closures
in the Proposed Rule may be more effective at reducing billfish
bycatch than the proposals in the bill, again, under both
effort and redistribution scenarios. For both the Proposed Rule
and the legislative proposals, the net effects will likely be
somewhere between zero and total displacement, although the
buyback program proposed in the bills would be likely to reduce
displaced effort.
Our analyses shows that there are benefits from time and
area closures even if effort is displaced at the same time our
analyses indicated that the extent of the socio-economic
impacts associated with the Proposed Rule and the need to
consider mitigating measures such as the buyout. The economic
and community effects of the Proposed Rule may be substantial.
Losses in gross revenues to fishing vessels could be as high as
$14 million per year. And an examination of individual vessel
records indicate that up to 20 percent of the vessels could
lose half of their gross income.
In addition, swordfish dealers could face substantial
reductions in the total weight of fishes they handle. Comments
at public hearings indicate that the effects would not be
confined to the pelagic longline fishery. Processors and small
businesses supplying the fleet with bait, ice and other
provisions would also be affected.
Finally, for those vessel operators remaining in the
fishery, fishing cost could increase if vessels must go further
offshore or relocate as a result of closures.
Overall, NOAA Fisheries supports the intent of H.R. 3331
and H.R. 3390 to address bycatch concerns in the pelagic
longline fishery and to reduce overcapacity and economic
disruptions that result.
We would like to work with you to deal with certain
provisions of the legislation that we cannot support as they
currently are drafted.
While we are still completing our legislative analyses, we
would like to point out two specific areas of concern. As we
mentioned before, the impact of a time and area closure is
difficult to predict. However, we do believe that there will be
some redistribution of effort, possibly into areas with higher
turtle or mammal bycatch. As introduced, the bills currently do
not provide NOAA Fisheries to address increased turtle or
marine mammal bycatch or other potential conversation issues in
the remaining open areas.
We would be supportive of an industry-funded buyout,
however, the cost associated with the implementation of the
buyout must be considered. We have limited administrative
resources to collect fees from wholesalers and recreational
fishermen. NOAA Fisheries also lacks funds to pay for the BMS
units and this would set an adverse precedent for other
fisheries.
In addition, we would like to see increased flexibility
with respect to implementing the buyout program and other
provisions of the legislation if only partial funding is
available.
We recognize the enormous effort and unprecedented
collaboration between commercial fishermen and marine anglers
in developing these legislative proposals. We applaud the
efforts of the sponsors to meet the conservation requirements
and minimize adverse impacts on displaced fishermen. I look
forward to working with you to address our concerns and to
enacting legislation that we can fully support.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Dalton follows:]
Statement of Penelope D. Dalton, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,
National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee.
I am Penny Dalton, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Thank you for
the opportunity to testify today on three legislative proposals
before the Subcommittee: H.R. 3331 and H.R. 3390, both titled
the Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Conservation Act; and
H.R. 3516, legislation to prohibit pelagic longline fishing in
the Exclusive Economic Zone in the Atlantic Ocean.
DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT OF ATLANTIC HIGHLY
MIGRATORY SPECIES
Atlantic highly migratory species (HMS), such as swordfish,
tunas, billfish, and sharks, range throughout tropical and
temperate oceans and include some of the world's largest and
most valuable fish. They are sought after by commercial
fishermen and prized by sport anglers. In addition, HMS
conservation and management has attracted considerable interest
by the environmental community and the general public. Total
commercial landings of Atlantic HMS in 1998 were over 15
thousand metric tons (mt), and the ex-vessel value was over $70
million. Expenditures in recreational fisheries for highly
migratory species are in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
Since the early 1990s, Atlantic HMS have been managed
directly by the Secretary of Commerce, primarily because the
range of these species extends over five regional fishery
management council areas. Secretarial management also eases
U.S. participation in international HMS conservation programs
and establishment and negotiation of U.S. positions at meetings
of the International Commission for the Conservation of
Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), the 28-member organization charged with
overseeing the science and management of tunas and tuna-like
species.
Atlantic swordfish are harvested by a number of nations and
currently are designated by ICCAT as overfished. The annual
U.S. share of landings from the North Atlantic swordfish stock
is only about 25 percent of the total harvest. Consequently, we
must work with other nations to eliminate overfishing and
rebuild the swordfish stock. Through ICCAT, we have worked to
achieve international cooperation and adequate monitoring and
compliance. The United States plays a key role in encouraging
multilateral management measures for swordfish as well as other
ICCAT species. At the recent ICCAT meeting in Rio de Janeiro,
the Commission adopted a number of actions to strengthen
international conservation efforts. Most notably, ICCAT nations
committed to a 10-year rebuilding program for swordfish. While
the rebuilding program requires only slight reductions in total
quotas over the next three years (approximately 15 percent),
the agreement counts all the harvest, including discards of
dead swordfish, against the total allowable catch for the first
time. Counting dead discards against the total quota could be
an important additional incentive for fishermen to avoid
catching undersized swordfish.
Our progress on the international front would not have been
possible without the strong support of U.S. commercial and
recreational fishermen, environmental groups and others.
Pelagic longline fishermen were very supportive of the
rebuilding program, despite the reductions in their landings
that the program would entail. Responding to concern over the
catch and harvest of undersized swordfish, the United States
also was successful in sponsoring a resolution that called for
ICCAT to analyze and consider the use of time and area closures
throughout the Atlantic. Finally, I would like to note that
ICCAT adopted a binding recommendation that countries ban the
imports of Atlantic swordfish from Belize and Honduras.
Consistent with our ICCAT responsibilities, the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-
Stevens Act) requires that NOAA Fisheries take action to manage
the fishery within U.S. waters. Two years ago, NOAA Fisheries
established advisory panels under new provisions of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. With the assistance of these panels, in
April 1999 NOAA Fisheries completed a new HMS fishery
management plan (HMS Plan) and amended an existing fishery
management plan for billfish. These new plans were among the
first to be implemented under the new requirements of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act and included management measures to
identify and rebuild overfished HMS stocks, minimize bycatch,
limit access to the pelagic longline fishery for HMS, and
address socioeconomic impacts on fishermen and their
communities.
Pelagic longlines are the primary commercial gear type in
the HMS fisheries of the Atlantic, including the Gulf of Mexico
and Caribbean. The longline fishery thus provides an important
source of seafood for the American consumer. However, like most
types of fishing gear, it unintentionally catches species and
sizes of fish that, for reason of regulation or economic
choice, are thrown back into the sea. Some of this bycatch can
be released alive, but significant amounts are discarded dead.
While dead discards in the pelagic longline fishery have
declined over the past decade, concerns remain about bycatch
levels, particularly of juvenile swordfish, billfish, bluefin
tuna, and sharks. In addition, NOAA Fisheries must address the
incidental catch of endangered species such as sea turtles.
Over the past three years an average of 487 mt of Atlantic
swordfish (about 13 percent of the total catch) and an average
of 58 mt of bluefin tuna (just over 4 percent of the total of
the bluefin fishery) were discarded dead.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that bycatch be minimized
or avoided to the extent practicable. The draft HMS Plan
released in October 1998 addressed this requirement by
proposing a number of measures, including time and area
closures for pelagic longline gear designed to reduce bycatch
of bluefin tuna, juvenile swordfish, and billfish. Initial
analyses focused on areas with high discards of juvenile
swordfish and bluefin tuna based on logbook data submitted by
fishermen. They led to a proposal for a June closure off the
mid-Atlantic Bight to protect bluefin tuna and a closure in the
Florida Straits to protect small swordfish. During the public
review process, NOAA Fisheries received comments from
recreational and environmental constituents, as well as some
commercial constituents, that the proposed Florida Straits area
was too small to be effective. Consequently, the final HMS Plan
included a mid-Atlantic Bight closure but did not include the
proposed closure for the Florida Straits. When the HMS Plan was
published, NOAA Fisheries made a commitment to develop a new
proposal to reduce swordfish bycatch, including time and area
closures, before the end of 1999.
To fulfill this commitnent, NOAA initiated additional--and
more extensive--analyses of logbook data in May 1999. The
results of these analyses were shared with HMS Advisory Panel
members at a joint meeting in June 1999. At the same meeting, a
coalition of recreational and commercial fishing interests
discussed their efforts to develop a legislative package that
would include both time and area closures and a program to buy
back Federal permits of longline fishermen affected by the
closures.
Shortly after the June meeting of the HMS advisory panel,
NOAA Fisheries was sued by a number of environmental groups on
the grounds that the HMS Plan failed to adequately reduce
bycatch. However, the parties agreed to a stay until May 1,
2000 of further proceedings in the litigation pending continued
progress in developing a new regulation to address bycatch.
NOAA Fisheries completed its additional analyses and
released a draft technical memorandum in October 1999. This
technical memorandum was sent to advisory panel members and the
five regional fishery management councils and to the general
public upon request. On November 2, 1999, NOAA Fisheries
published a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact
statement, and announced the availability of the technical
memorandum. In this same Federal Register notice, the agency
indicated that a proposed-rule on time and area closures would
be published by December 15, 1999, and a final rule by May 1,
2000.
NOAA Fisheries has published the proposed rule, and a 75-
day comment period is currently underway which will end on
March 1, 2000. During the comment period, NOAA Fisheries will
conduct 15 public hearings throughout the HMS management
region, including coastal communities within and outside of the
proposed closed areas. Once the comments have been compiled and
considered, NOAA Fisheries will consider management options for
the final rule.
The proposed rule includes as a preferred alternative a
year-round closure off the southeast Atlantic coast and a 7-
month closure (March 1-September 30) in the western Gulf of
Mexico. In selecting this preferred alternative, NOAA Fisheries
examined several options, balancing the need to: (1) reduce
bycatch of undersized swordfish, billfish, bluefin tuna, and
sharks; (2) minimize reductions in target catches; and (3)
minimize the effect on other fisheries.
LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS
Three bills currently are pending in the House of
Representatives that address pelagic longlining: H.R. 3331,
introduced by Rep. Saxton; H.R. 3390, introduced by Rep. Goss
and Rep. Tauzin; and H.R. 3516, introduced by Rep. Sanford.
H.R. 3331 and H.R. 3390 are very similar to each other.
There are some differences, however, primarily related to
longlining in the mid-Atlantic Bight. Both bills would
establish: (1) a year-round closure to pelagic longline fishing
in the South Atlantic seaward of the coast from the northern
South Carolina boundary to Key West, Florida; (2) two seasonal
closures in the Gulf of Mexico (an area in the northeastern
Gulf of Mexico from January 1st to Memorial Day each year and a
closure seaward of the coast from Mexico to the Florida
Panhandle that will be closed from Memorial Day to Labor Day of
each year for five years); and (3) a voluntary program to buy
out the longline permits of 68 named longline commercial
vessels ``through a partnership of the recreational and
commercial fishing industries and Federal funds.'' All vessels
that participate in the buyout program would be required to
surrender all commercial fishing permits. The two bills also
direct NOAA Fisheries to conduct a research program,
identifying and testing the most effective fishto reduce the
billfish bycatch in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. In
addition to the measures above, H.R. 3331 also amends the
Atlantic Tunas Convention Act to allow the Secretary of
Commerce to reduce swordfish quotas below ICCAT
recommendations, restricts effort increases on longliners
fishing in the Mid-Atlantic Bight, and creates a second
voluntary vessel buyout category for mid-Atlantic Bight
commercial longline fishermen.
H.R. 3516 would amend the Magnuson-Stevens Act to prohibit
``pelagic longline fishing in the exclusive economic zone in
the Atlantic Ocean.'' It does not include a buyout as contained
in H.R. 3331 or H.R. 3390. In the past, NOAA Fisheries has not
supported unilateral bans on specific gear types, other than
destructive fishing practices such as large-scale pelagic
driftnets.
Similar areas are proposed for closure in the rule and the
two bills, albeit with some important differences. The South
Atlantic Bight closure in the proposed rule is larger on the
northern end to account for the variable location of the
oceanographic feature of the Charleston Bump. In addition, the
proposed rule would close the western end of the Gulf, which is
different from the legislative proposals to close an area along
the northern Gulf coast.
ANALYSES OF PROPOSED CLOSED AREAS
NOAA Fisheries has only recently begun to use time and area
closures as a management tool for this fishery (i.e., the June
closure in the mid-Atlantic Bight to protect bluefin tuna).
Analyzing the impacts and effectiveness of time and area
closures on the Atlantic pelagic longline fleet has proven to
be challenging because it is difficult to predict changes in
fishing patterns when the areas are closed. To examine a range
of possibilities, NOAA Fisheries conducted analyses under two
different assumptions regarding the fishermen's behavior. The
biological and socioeconomic effects of the various
alternatives then were compared using these different
assumptions.
The first assumption is that there would be zero effort
redistribution, i.e., the sets currently made in the proposed
closed areas would not be made elsewhere. This assumption
provides estimates of the maximum reduction in bycatch and
landings of target species, as well as the maximum social and
economic effects of the proposed time and area closures.
The second assumption is that there would be a total effort
redistribution, i.e., the sets currently made in the proposed
closed areas would be made in other, open areas (distributed
proportionately to historic effort in the remaining open
areas). This assumption provides an estimate of the minimum
expected reduction in bycatch, because fishing effort would
reoccur somewhere else. This scenario also provides a minimal
estimate of the possible social and economic impacts of the
proposed time and area closure.
The benefits from the time and area closures under the two
effort redistribution models have been evaluated for the
proposed rule and for both H.R. 3331 and H.R. 3390. Because the
areas proposed in the proposed rule and the legislation are
similar, bycatch reduction benefits are likely to be similar. A
comparison of the effectiveness of all of the proposals is
shown in the attached table. These estimates may differ from
those provided by proponents of the legislation because the
analyses on which the legislative proposals are based were
conducted independently and assume zero effort redistribution.
In the South Atlantic, the impact of time and area closures
is similar to that for the bills under both no effort
redistribution and total effort redistribution. In the Gulf of
Mexico, the time and area closures in the proposed rule may be
more effective at reducing billfish bycatch than the proposals
in the bill, again under both effort redistribution scenarios.
For both the proposed rule and the legislative proposals,
the net effects will likely be somewhere between the zero
displacement and the total displacement, although the buyback
program proposed in the bills would be likely to reduce
displaced effort. On the other hand, vessels remaining in the
fishery could become more active and make more sets in the open
fishing areas. Although limited access is in place in the HMS
pelagic longline fishery, there is no limit on effort in the
form of days fished, number of sets, length of the line, or
number of hooks. However, reduced ICCAT quotas for swordfish,
and the further reductions engendered by the dead discards
provisions, should limit the expansion of effort by the vessels
remaining in the fleet.
These analyses provide an estimate of the range of
potential benefits and costs of time and area closures. The
biological and economic analyses conducted for the rulemaking
will be very useful for assessing legislative options for a
buyout. Our analyses show that there are benefits from time and
area closures even if effort is displaced. At the same time,
our analyses demonstrate the extent of socioeconomic effects
associated with the proposed rule, and the need to consider
mitigating measures, such as a buyout.
The economic and community effects of the proposed rule may
be substantial. Losses in gross revenues to fishing vessels
could be as high as $14 million per year, and examination of
individual vessel records indicates that up to 20 percent of
the vessels could lose half their gross income. In addition,
swordfish dealers could face substantial reductions in the
total weight of fish they handle. Comments at public hearings
indicate that the effects would not be confined to the pelagic
longline fishery; processors and small businesses supplying the
fleet with bait, ice, and other provisions also would be
affected. Finally, for those vessel operators remaining in the
fishery, fishing costs could increase if vessels must go
farther offshore or relocate as a result of closures.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, NOAA Fisheries supports the intent of H.R. 3331
and H.R. 3390, which is to address bycatch concerns in the
pelagic longline fishery and to reduce overcapacity and
economic disruptions that result.
We would like to work with you to deal with certain
provisions of the legislation that we cannot support as they
are currently drafted. While we are still completing our
legislative analysis, we would like to point out two specific
areas of concern. As has been mentioned before, the impact of a
time and area closure is difficult to predict. However, we do
believe that there will be some redistribution of effort,
possibly into areas with higher turtle or mammal bycatch. As
introduced, the bills currently do not provide NOAA Fisheries
with the flexibility to address increased turtle or marine
mammal bycatch or other potential conservation issues in the
remaining open areas. We currently are reviewing possible
mitigating measures in the event that turtle or marine mammal
bycatch increases as a result of closed areas.
We are supportive of an industry-funded buyout. However,
the costs associated with the implementation of the buyout must
be considered. The collection of fees from wholesalers and
recreational fishery participants is labor intensive and
requires administrative funds. Current fishery management
responsibilities are already curtailed due to limited personnel
and financial resources. It would be particularly difficult for
NOAA Fisheries to fund vessel monitoring systems, and this
would set a precedent that we would be unable to meet in other
fisheries. In addition, we would like to see increased
flexibility with respect to implementing the buyout program and
other provisions of the legislation if only partial funding is
available.
We recognize the enormous effort and unprecedented
collaboration between commercial fishermen and marine anglers
in developing these legislative proposals. We applaud the
efforts of the sponsors to meet conservation requirements and
minimize adverse impacts on displaced fishermen. I look forward
to working with you to address our concerns and to enacting
legislation that we can fully support.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.002
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much. Let me just suggest to my
two colleagues, as we move through this, if you have a question
during the time that either myself of Mr. Faleomavaega have
time, please just jump in.
Let me begin by asking you, what were the driving or
determining factors in helping you to reach a decision where
your proposed area boundaries would be located?
Ms. Dalton. In the Proposed Rule that we did to implement
the HMS plan, we had a small area that we proposed for closure
off the Florida Straits. During the public comment period on
that Rule, we got a number of comments that the area was not
adequate, that it was not large enough, that it actually could
exacerbate bycatch problems.
So, when we did the Final Rule to implement the plan, we
made a commitment that we would do some additional analyses and
develop a new Proposed Rule. This Proposed Rule that we put out
on December 15th was as a result of those additional analyses.
Mr. Saxton. I have heard the term ``nursery areas'' used, I
have heard the discussions about where juvenile swordfish are
found. Can you discuss those issues with us at this time?
Ms. Dalton. Basically, what we did is we used the logbook
information from the fleet--and Rebecca will correct me if I
make a mistake here--but to look at what we were essentially
hotspots for bycatch of the species of concern. And, generally,
for swordfish, that is along the South Atlantic Bight and for
billfish you have higher concentrations of bycatch in the Gulf.
And using that logbook information then we tried different
scenarios of closing different areas to see where we could
maximize the reduction of bycatch and also minimize the
reductions in directed swordfish harvest.
Mr. Saxton. And, therefore, you believe that the areas that
you have outlined would be the most beneficial from a
conservation point of view?
Ms. Dalton. It is actually very hard--if you look at the
table that is at the end of the testimony, you will see that
there is a pretty significant range of potential reductions.
Part of the problem is that it is difficult to deal with the
issue of displacement, and depending on what you assume happens
with displacement, you change what your potential conservation
benefits are.
Mr. Saxton. Mr. Goss and I have both introduced bills with
areas that are substantially different than the areas that you
propose to close, is that right?
Ms. Dalton. Yes, for the Gulf--it is actually fairly small
for the South Atlantic.
Mr. Saxton. Okay, let us talk about the Gulf. I am trying
to figure out the rationale that you used that is different
than the rationale that the people who negotiated this area to
be closed. What is the difference in our approach. Why don't
you like our approach in the Gulf?
Ms. Dalton. In the Eastern Gulf, at least based on the data
that we have, there is less bycatch of billfish species than
there is in the area further south that we closed. The good
thing about the proposal that you came up with legislatively is
that there obviously is going to be a problem with displacement
in the Gulf.
Mr. Saxton. The displacement would be greater with your
approach?
Ms. Dalton. Well, it is going to be probably greater in the
Eastern Gulf. You have closed the Eastern Gulf for that period
of time in your bill. We haven't closed the Eastern Gulf, so
what you are probably going to end up have happening is you are
going to have the displacement right to the Eastern part of the
closed area.
Mr. Saxton. You were somewhat uncertain in your statement
about the degree to which displacement might be a problem, is
that correct?
Ms. Dalton. Yes.
Mr. Saxton. Is that because we don't know which fishermen
might choose to just go out of business--forgetting about the
bill for a minute--there is no compensation, obviously, in your
closure plan, so you would assume that some fishermen would
choose to no longer fish and that some might choose to fish
elsewhere, perhaps in the Eastern Gulf, is that right?
Ms. Dalton. Yes.
Mr. Saxton. Have you done any research whatsoever--I am not
asking this in a critical way, I am just asking for information
purposes for the record--is there any way of having a
guesstimate that without compensation so many boats would stop
fishing and other boats would fish elsewhere?
Ms. Dalton. No. Basically, what we did with the two
assumptions you are assuming that you are at either end of the
spectrum. If you have zero-displacement, that is assuming that
no one is going to make any sets at all to make up for the sets
that they would have made in the closed area, so that would be
the maximum reduction in their harvest and the maximum bycatch
reduction.
The other end of it is if you assume that all of the sets
are displaced and then you end up with the minimum reductions
in bycatch, but also the minimum reductions in the total
harvest.
Mr. Saxton. And under your plan, displacement would not
only likely take place in the Gulf, it would also take place in
the Atlantic?
Ms. Dalton. Yes.
Mr. Saxton. And the logical place for the displaced
fishermen to go in the Atlantic would be in the mid-Atlantic
Bight, would it not, and further offshore?
Ms. Dalton. Yes, actually they could go to the mid-Atlantic
Bight. They could go to the Gulf. They could go to the
Caribbean and Grand Banks.
Mr. Saxton. Would it be fair to say that you might expect
less displacement if there were a viable buyout in place?
Ms. Dalton. That would be our expectation.
Mr. Saxton. And because you have difficulty measuring the
amount of displacement or the number of displaced boats without
a buyout, it would become somewhat more difficult to measure if
you did have a buyout?
Ms. Dalton. Yes. The other thing that the buyout does is it
reduces--what you find is that you have localized impacts on
the industry and on coastal communities in these areas where
you have the closures. So, a buyout would help mitigate those
localized impacts as well, at least on the fleet. It wouldn't
deal with some of the problems you have with the distributors
and the suppliers.
Mr. Saxton. If you stay for the balance of the testimony--
and I am not sure whether you plan to or not--but if you do,
you will hear testimony later today that the closed area ought
to be extended into the mid-Atlantic Bight. Would you comment
on that thought?
Ms. Dalton. Let me turn it over to Rebecca.
Ms. Lent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have tried to lay out
a number of alternatives in our analyses that support the
Proposed Rule package, and again we tried to strike a balance
between reducing that discard and minimizing the impact on the
target species. We selected what we think is a good balance. We
are in the process right now of public comment period, and we
are hearing from folks that maybe we haven't got that balance
just right. Indeed, there is some concern that as you displace
the effort, either the boats move, the boats that remain in the
fishery make more sets than the areas that remain open, we
might have an impact, and that is why we would be interested in
being able to follow this year to year. Any time-area closure
may need adjustment in the future, and there is some concern
about bycatch rates in the Caribbean and in the mid-Atlantic
area.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much. Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Dalton, I do
have several questions that, just for the sake of time, I will
submit to your office, if you could respond to them
accordingly, if it is all right. I do have some conceptual
questions I would like to discuss with you this morning.
These bills are in place, and we have got the Magnuson Act,
we have ICCAT. What is your administration's position basically
on the provisions of these proposals. Do they seem to work
hand-in-hand with the current aspects of the law under the
Magnuson Act as well as with ICCAT's function, or do you think
they go beyond what we are trying to do here? In other words,
does the administration feel that there are sufficient laws
that can handle the concerns that have been expressed by the
provisions of these bills?
Ms. Dalton. I think our position is that we could
probably--we certainly support the intent of the legislation to
deal with the bycatch problem and also to mitigate the impacts
of the displacement, potential displacement.
The question of whether we can move forward with this
administratively, yes, we have a Proposed Rule. We probably can
do a buyout proposal as well. There is about $10 million in our
budget proposal for 2001, for fisheries assistants programs. A
portion of that money could probably be allocated to a buyout,
if it is appropriated.
One of the values, though, in the things the administration
has watched is this whole collaborative process and having the
recreational industry and the commercial industry work together
to try to solve the problem, and there is a value in that that
is very difficult to quantify, but we certainly would like to
support and encourage.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Has the administration had an opportunity
to quantify what the actual costs will be on the buyouts if
this does become viable? I mean, you mentioned $10 million, but
I was wondering, this might be a lot more than what we are
expecting.
Ms. Dalton. Yes. If you assume that you are going to need
to have the funding that is authorized to be appropriated, it
is probably, what, upwards of about $25-30 million.
Mr. Faleomavaega. When you say ``buyout'', does this mean
that the fishermen can go to another destination and continue
fishing, or is he just going to scrap his vessel?
Ms. Dalton. Well, I think the bills would basically call
for all of their permits to be removed, and they wouldn't be
able to participate in any commercial fishing. The boats could
be used for some other purpose. I don't think there is a
restriction on their use in a recreational fishery. Or they
could be used for some other--I don't know--whatever other
purpose, research or something like that.
Mr. Faleomavaega. What if you come and fish in the Pacific?
Ms. Dalton. No, they wouldn't be able--because they would
lose their fishery endorsements and their documents and their
permits.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I was just noticing, the Pacific Ocean is
a lot bigger than the Atlantic Ocean. I was just curious----
Mr. Saxton. If I could just state for the record, not only
would we buy the boats under our proposal, and I believe both
proposals--I am sorry--we wouldn't buy the vessel, we would buy
the permits. So, under both proposals, once the buyout
occurred, the permits would be removed and commercial fishing
on that vessel would cease.
Mr. Faleomavaega. But that will not prevent them from
fishing outside U.S. waters, right?
Ms. Dalton. There is actually a restriction on their use
and fishing in foreign fisheries, too, in the legislation.
Mr. Faleomavaega. There has been a little concern
expressed, or criticism, about ICCAT's capability of
maintaining the swordfish. What is the administration's
position, is ICCAT doing its job, or are they just kind of
wriding along and not really doing what they are supposed to be
doing?
Ms. Dalton. I think that there has been pretty substantial
progress that was made. At the last meeting, there was
agreement on a 10-year rebuilding program for swordfish that
calls for overall reductions in the quota, and also would have
the dead discards counted against the quota.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I notice that we have some charts here
that have been submitted on it, and let me say the National
Marine Fisheries is a lot more colorful description of the
latitude, longitude and--in fact, it is quite a difference also
with both the Breaux and Chairman Saxton's proposals.
Are you suggesting that in your proposal you are a lot more
scientific in understanding the nature of the migratory fish as
to why this whole area between Louisiana and Florida has been
zeroed-out?
Ms. Dalton. No. I am told that it was just a printing
error. It just happened to be printed on our documents but not
on the other ones.
Mr. Faleomavaega. That is a big printing error. So this is
not really the true description of the----
Ms. Dalton. No, it is a true description. There are
coordinates that--we could put the same coordinates on the
other two charts as well.
Mr. Faleomavaega. You got me on that one. It says here on
the 90-degree longitude--here, again, I am not a fisherman--but
between that 90-degree longitude and the whole West Coast of
Florida is zero. I mean, there is no restriction----
Ms. Dalton. Oh, okay. I thought you meant just the fact
that the labels were on here. Yes. The area in the Gulf is
quite different. And, again, we did it by analysis of the
logbook data. There is a fairly high level of bycatch in the
southern area that we closed, so we got a significant bycatch
reduction by including that area that is further to the south
of what is in the legislative proposal. There is less of a
conservation benefit tied to the logbook data that we have in
the Eastern Gulf.
Part of what--the other thing that has been interesting in
the public hearing process is we have gotten a lot of
commentary on the use of live bait that is tied to the Gulf,
and the suggestion that you have higher incidence of bycatch
for billfish whenever you use live bait. So this is one of the
things that we are going to be looking at as we go back and
relook at our Proposed Rule.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Let us talk about bycatch. This is a very
sensitive issue to me and those of us in the Pacific, and I
suspect that you have purse seiners also in the Atlantic Ocean
catching fish in a very unique way, and the fact that there is
a tremendous amount of bycatch, not necessarily skipjack, but
you end up with swordfish, sharks, all other varieties of fish,
which basically in my understanding is just simply discarded
and not even used at all for any purposes.
Has the National Fisheries Service made any estimates of
the value of this bycatch that is caught also in the Pacific as
well as in the Atlantic? I am told it is in the billions of
dollars.
Ms. Lent. I would just mention that in the Atlantic we only
have five purse seiners, and that we have had observers onboard
with logbooks, and there is very little bycatch in this
fishery. They send planes out, they find schools of bluefin,
they set their net, and there has been very little bycatch
problem.
Mr. Faleomavaega. You only have five purse seiners in the
whole Atlantic Ocean? None from the French? None from the
Norwegian countries? None from other foreign countries? I can't
believe that.
Ms. Lent. I am talking about the U.S. Fleet in the
Atlantic.
Ms. Dalton. For highly migratory species. We also have
purse seiners for menhaden as well.
Mr. Faleomavaega. What is the estimate of purse seiners
that we have fishing internationally in the whole Atlantic?
Ms. Dalton. We can get you the information, but I don't
have it now.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I know we have about 35 purse seiners,
U.S. parceners, that do fishing in the Pacific, and I also know
that the Korean government recently allocated over $4 billion
to improve its fishing fleets which now totals about 780
vessels. And a very serious concern that I have is that these
governments literally provide funding to subsidize their
fishing fleet. We don't do that. We are not doing that. And I
am very, very concerned at the fact of how can it be possible
for our commercial fishing industry to compete when countries
like Korea just simply put out $4 billion to upgrade and to get
a whole new fleet of the most modern technologically purse
seiners, longliners, they have got it. What do you suggest on
how we should compete?
Ms. Dalton. We have been working in various different
international fora to--we agree with you completely that
harmful subsidies are a problem in world fishing fleets, and we
have been working at FAO and also in other international groups
to try to get international agreement to reduce those
subsidies.
Mr. Faleomavaega. This is my concern, Mr. Chairman, and I
am sure Penny has been made aware of this--we are putting a lot
of requirements and restrictions on our own fishing industry to
comply with ICCAT requirements, even what we impose on
ourselves, but how do we control those foreign fishing vessels
that have just come right in and taken, and they don't even
care about complying with the kind of concerns that we have
about conservation and this type of thing.
Ms. Dalton. I think it is a problem. There is very little
that we can do unilaterally. That is the reason we have been
working within groups like the Food and Agricultural
Organization to come to agreement on the need to eliminate
harmful subsidies. As you know, we are also working on an
agreement in Western Pacific, the multilateral high level
conference right now that is going on, that will hopefully come
up with a long-term agreement that will strengthen conservation
and management in the Western Pacific.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I can tell you right now, Ms. Dalton,
that the Japanese do not want any observers on their vessels,
period. They have been fighting that for years, and they will
probably continue doing so even in the Atlantic. I am positive
that the Japanese have a fleet also in the Atlantic and,
unfortunately, when they get in international waters we don't
have much to say about that, but it doesn't help our own fleet.
And I just wanted to express that concern, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you. I know I have taken too much time.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you. Mr. Pallone.
Mr. Pallone. I just wanted to ask Ms. Dalton--and this is
without prejudice to any of my colleagues because certainly on
the Republican side of the aisle, Mr. Saxton and Mr. Goss are
people that I respect and work with, but are you concerned--I
just wanted to ask you if you are concerned that basically we
have proposals here--you know, Congress is legislating on the
matter of the time-area closures for the swordfish. Is your
position that--do you think that specific management measures
should be done this way through legislation, or would you
rather that NMFS and the councils deal with this?
I guess one of the concerns I would have is the precedent
that is set. Of course, I love to legislate, too, so I am
probably not the person that should be asking this, but are you
concerned about the precedent, or do you feel that you can work
with this legislation? I mean, it is a little unusual to have
legislation that comes out at the same time in terms of you
have a specific proposal and now you have two other members of
Congress proposing things that are somewhat different and
somewhat the same, and I just wanted your opinion on that.
Ms. Dalton. I think it is always preferable to deal with
things administratively. In terms of the precedent, I think the
precedent has already been set. We had the American Fisheries
Act about two years ago that did something that is fairly
similar to the provisions that are contained in this
legislation.
While it may have been congressional management of the
fisheries that raised people's concerns, it also appears to
have been fairly successful in addressing overcapitalization in
the North Pacific, and helping to rationalize that fishery.
So, I guess while we certainly are worried about
micromanagement, we are willing to work with you on it and try
to make sure that whatever you decide to do is the best thing
both from a conservation perspective and also to benefit the
fishery itself.
Mr. Pallone. I will just keep a note, Mr. Chairman, so that
the next time when I propose some legislation and NMFS doesn't
like it, I will just remind them of what Ms. Dalton said. Thank
you.
Ms. Dalton. We are happy to work with you.
Mr. Saxton. Penny, before you go, may I just follow up on
Mr. Pallone's questions. I know that you are not creating a
buyout program with the regulations, as proposed. Can you
create a buyout program through regulations?
Ms. Dalton. We have a Proposed Rule that is winding its way
very slowly through the administrative process--actually, it is
the Final Rule--that would provide the guidelines for doing
buyout programs generally under Section 312 of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act.
We probably could do that. Our primary limitation is at the
present time we don't have any funding to do it, and there are
two ways of doing that. If you do a direct Federal payment on
it, it obviously requires a substantially higher appropriation.
You also could do an industry-funded program that you could do
by allowing the industry to take out a loan. What you are doing
in your legislation is a combination of both of those things.
We could probably do it administratively.
Mr. Saxton. You could probably do it administratively with
the tools you have?
Ms. Dalton. If we had the funding, but we don't have the
funding either.
Mr. Saxton. I am sorry, but we have to get the funding for
our proposal, too. I mean, if Congress has the will to
appropriate for a new statute, then why wouldn't Congress have
the will to appropriate for a regulation? What is the
difference?
Ms. Dalton. I think control of the conditions that the
buyout is made under.
Mr. Saxton. Why did you decide not to propose a rule for a
buyout?
Ms. Dalton. I don't think that we made a decision not to
propose a rule for the buyout. The Proposed Rule, as it
currently is stated, does not have mitigation for the socio-
economic impacts. One of the things that we are going to have
to do in receiving public comment on that rule is go back and
balance. I don't know what we will finally come out with on it.
At this point, the administration budget that just came out
doesn't contain funding for doing a buyout for this fishery,
other than that general financial assistance program that is
intended to be used on a national basis.
Mr. Saxton. When will this Proposed Rule be final?
Ms. Dalton. May 1.
Mr. Saxton. And on May 1 then, you would anticipate that
these areas proposed by this rule will be closed, is that
right?
Ms. Dalton. Well, we will finalize the Rule. What we do in
terms of the implementation is another issue. There will be at
least a 30-day cooling off period.
Mr. Saxton. That is a good term. What do you anticipate
will happen at the end of the 30-day cooling off period that
you just mentioned?
Ms. Dalton. Some sort of closure would go into effect
unless the Rule is somehow modified to phase it in. One of the
things that we have looked at, I don't think there has been any
decision on. What we have done in some areas where we know that
there is going to be a substantial economic impact is we have
phased in closures or phased in the regulations. We have done
that in some of the New England fisheries to help mitigate
those impacts. But the Rule would go into effect then under
whatever conditions we impose.
Mr. Saxton. Just to change thoughts for a moment, have you
done any kind of an analysis to determine localized socio-
economic impacts?
Ms. Dalton. Excuse me?
Mr. Saxton. Have you done any kind of analysis to determine
localized socio-economic impacts?
Ms. Dalton. Let me turn that over to Rebecca.
Ms. Lent. We have made an attempt, based on the addresses
of permit holders, to localize the community and identify the
communities that would be most affected. We have, of course,
looked at every single boat and every single fish they catch
and tried to say what if they lost all those sets and what is
the economic impact. We have the home address. One of the
challenges of looking at the socio-economic effect is that the
boats move around to follow the fish. You might have a boat
that is in New England part of the year, and it comes down to
Florida part of the year. It has been a challenge, but we have
made an attempt to do that, and we are trying to get more
information through our public comment process.
Mr. Saxton. Just back to the displacement issue for a
moment, would it surprise you to learn that some New Jersey
marina owners have been contacted by longline fishermen from
the southern part of the Atlantic for dockage?
Ms. Dalton. No.
Mr. Saxton. It wouldn't surprise you?
Ms. Dalton. No.
Mr. Saxton. I guess I have no further questions at this
time. Mr. Faleomavaega, do you have any follow ups?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Just one short one. Ms. Dalton, has your
office found any provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act that
runs contradictory to the proposed legislations, or any
provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act that is contrary to any
provision that has been proposed here?
Ms. Dalton. I am trying to think if there is any. I don't
think there is any direct contradiction that I can think of.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Leave it to the National Marine
Fisheries, they will find something.
Ms. Dalton. One of the things in Mr. Saxton's bill, he
amends the underlying statute. So, that obviously is a change
from what is in the law right now.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much, Ms. Dalton, for being with
us this morning. We always enjoy having you here, and I hope we
weren't too tough on you today. We didn't try to be, anyway.
Mr. Saxton. Moving on to the next panel, we have Mr. Glenn
Roger Delaney, who represents the Blue Water Fishermen's
Association and who is also a Commissioner to ICCAT; Mr.
Michael Nussman, who is Vice President of the American
Sportfishing Association; Mr. Robert G. Hayes, who is General
Counsel of the Coastal Conservation Association; Mr. Ernest
Panacek, who is Manager of Viking Village in Barnegat Light,
New Jersey, a town and an organization which I am very familiar
with; Mr. Richard Stone, Science Advisor to the Recreational
Fishing Alliance, RFA; Mr. Gary Caputi, who is Co-Chairman of
the Highly Migratory Species Committee and is a member of the
Jersey Coast Anglers Association; and Dr. David Wilmot,
Executive Director, Living Oceans Program of the National
Audubon Society.
Obviously, there are a lot of members on this panel, so I
would like to just remind you that we try to observe a five-
minute rule for your testimony, and that your written testimony
will certainly be included in the record in its entirety.
Mr. Delaney, you may begin at your leisure.
STATEMENT OF MR. GLENN ROGER DELANEY, BLUE WATER FISHERMEN'S
ASSOCIATION AND U.S. COMMISSIONER TO ICCAT
Mr. Delaney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I may be your first
violator of the five-minute rule, but I will do my very best.
Members of the Subcommittee, for the record, I am Glenn
Delaney, Consultant to the Blue Water Fishermen's Association.
I also serve as the U.S. Commissioner to ICCAT, representing
the commercial fishing industry.
Mr. Chairman, our industries have certainly brought many
problems to you over the years, but it is rare that we bring to
you a solution, real solution, that has been hammered out in
advance by the mainstream of the core constituencies, a
solution that respects U.S. fishery policy, is based on sound
science, and achieves major conservation objectives while
addressing the social, economic and political realities of
fisheries management. That is what I think we have done here,
Mr. Chairman.
Our proposal, which is fully reflected in H.R. 3390 and
which is at the core of your bill, is first and foremost about
conservation. Our proposal used the best available science to
identify true hotspot concentrations of bycatch in order to
design vast time-area closures where 52 percent of the small
swordfish and 31 percent of the billfish bycatches occur in
U.S. waters.
Our proposal includes a buyout designed with the help of
NMFS' economists that both minimizes displacement and provides
a reasonable opportunity for those fishermen put out of
business to restructure their lives, but that is not all. The
buyout also substantially increases the bycatch conservations
of this bill. The 68 vessels eligible for the buyout account
for at least 65 percent of the total small swordfish bycatch,
56 percent of the blue marlin bycatch, 37 percent of the white
marlin bycatch, and 47 percent of the sailfish bycatch in the
U.S. EEZ. The conservation potential of this buyout is
enormous. Finally, our proposal invests in future gains in
bycatch conservation by establishing an important research
program in the Gulf and Atlantic.
As well conceived as we think this proposal is, it is, as
you can imagine, based on a very delicate agreement. Many
months of negotiations and compromise have produced what is
perhaps the only balance that could be struck between these
groups. We are very apprehensive about changes that might have
the effect of causing this unusual, perhaps once in a lifetime,
opportunity to slip away.
As you explained before introducing your bill, Mr.
Chairman, you chose to include for the purpose of discussion
certain provisions that are in addition to those that we
recommended. I hope you will receive my comments in that spirit
and understand that they are given with the sincere purpose of
providing our best possible advice.
There are three issues that I would like to cover. I think
I will probably run out of time, but I will start with buyouts.
In theory, policy supporting the use of buyouts to achieve
special resource and economic objectives is well established in
the Magnuson-Stevens Act, particularly in section 312(b) of
National Standard 8.
I would just interject here that our analysis of section
312(b) does not provide NMFS with the authority to establish a
buyback for highly migratory species which, as you know, are
treated differently under the Act than council managed species,
and I would just note that difference.
In practice, it has been Congress that has developed
buyouts with extensive industry input to address several unique
circumstances that have developed in fisheries in recent years.
I believe our proposal is entirely consistent with this policy
and with this precedent. The bottom line is that the
conservation benefits of our proposal could not be achieved
without this particular buyout program, period. It remains one
of the fundamental reasons why we believe this proposal can
succeed.
In contrast, Blue Water has expressed serious difficulty
with the second mid-Atlantic buyout proposed in Section 7(k)(1)
of the Chairman's bill. Buyouts represent an extraordinary
solution to an extraordinary resource and economic problem.
Buyouts need to have a very compelling purpose. Buyouts need to
be widely supported from within the affected industry.
While we feel that the purpose of the first buyout related
to the impacts of the time-area closures is compelling, it is
not as clear to Blue Water what the purpose is of the mid-
Atlantic buyback.
First, it is not associated with the impacts of a time-area
closure.
Second, the U.S. longline industry is not overcapitalized,
so the purpose cannot be to mitigate the economic impacts of
overcapitalization, as Congress did in the Bering Sea pollock
fishery through the American Fisheries Act.
Third, the pelagic longline fishery has not experienced a
resource collapse or conservation crisis, as was the case
underlying the New England groundfish buyout.
Blue Water respectfully, but strongly, recommends against
the establishment of the second mid-Atlantic buyout.
The second issue I would like to cover is unilateral
action. Mr. Chairman, I included on page 10 of my written
submission a statement you made on the House Floor in October
of 1990, when you helped champion the addition of section
6(c)(3)(K) to the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act. This provision
restricts U.S. unilateral action when implementing ICCAT
conservation measures.
Mr. Chairman, your statement may be the most coherent
explanation that I have ever read of why this provision is now
a cornerstone of U.S. policy regarding the international
management of highly migratory species. Your statement and this
provision reflect the core of U.S. policy and the fundamental
truth that no nation can effectively conserve and manage these
unique fish through a unilateral strategy. Instead,
international cooperation throughout the range of these
fisheries is essential to both successful resource conservation
and to the fair treatment of U.S. fishermen.
Mr. Chairman, since you made that statement on the House
floor, absolutely nothing has changed that would justify a
change in U.S. policy or an amendment to that provision. So, we
strongly urge you to drop section 7(k)(3) of your bill. I would
make the same recommendation to you regarding the closely
related provisions set forth in section 7(k)(2) of your bill,
which would require the Secretary to make unilateral reduction
in the U.S. quota of swordfish.
I think my time has expired. I did want to address the
issue of displacement, and I would be happy to outline some of
the reasons why we feel displacement will not be a problem
under a proposal, and perhaps in response to a question, Mr.
Chairman, or I can simply continue at this time, whatever your
preference is.
Mr. Saxton. In light of the fact that we have a number of
witnesses, let us move on and we will try to get to those
issues during the question-and-answer period.
Mr. Delaney. Very good, sir. I would just like to wrap up
and thank you for your tireless attention to the unusually
complex challenges that we face in the management of Atlantic
highly migratory species and, in particular, I appreciate
making your staff consistently available to contribute to our
efforts at ICCAT. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Delaney follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.019
Mr. Saxton. Thank you.
Mr. Nussman.
STATEMENT OF MR. MICHAEL NUSSMAN, VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN
SPORTFISHING ASSOCIATION
Mr. Nussman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to be here today and to testify on behalf of the
American Sportfishing Association. ASA is a non-profit trade
association that represents 500 members of the sportfishing
industry. Besides working for that group, I also serve as the
U.S. Recreational Commissioner to ICCAT.
Today, I am going to comment on the entire variety of bills
that have been laid out before you, as well as the NMFS
proposal that has been discussed previously.
Billfish--and by that I mean blue marlin, white marlin and
sailfish--as well as swordfish are important recreational and
commercial species. Unfortunately, in the Atlantic, each of
these species is overfished. Billfish are at about 25 percent
of the level necessary to provide and sustainable yield, while
swordfish are at around 65 percent of that level.
Having said that, the outlook for one of these stocks,
swordfish, is improving. The last stock assessment completed in
the fall shows the stock has stabilized--and, in fact, may be
recovering--due in large part to international and domestic
quota cuts taken over the last five years.
Even more promising, late last year ICCAT agreed to a 10-
year rebuilding plan for swordfish. As a part of that plan,
U.S. swordfish quotas will be cut by 7 percent this year, and
that will increase to 12 percent by the year 2002.
Now, with this background, I think it is important to
understand why ASA, along with the Coastal Conservation
Association and the Billfish Foundation agreed to work together
with Blue Water on a concept that has become H.R. 3390, and in
large measure your bill, H.R. 3331.
From a recreational perspective--and I mean that both from
the industry perspective as well as the angler perspective--our
goal is a very simple one. We want to improve recreational
fishing.
So, despite the fact that we have swordfish on a reasonable
path to recovery, we all know that billfish are still in
significant trouble. Further, we recognize that the single
largest source of billfish mortality in U.S. waters is longline
bycatch. So, collectively, our groups came together. We took
the best scientific data and identified areas that had the
highest bycatch-to-targeted catch ratio and we proposed to
close them.
Next, the groups agreed to cooperate in a buyout of
longline vessels that spent a significant amount of time
fishing in these areas. From our perspective, there are two
good reasons to do this. First, we are taking these fishermen's
livelihoods from them, and equity dictates that they be
compensated.
Second, despite the quota reductions I spoke of earlier, if
these vessels are not retired, their effort could be displaced
elsewhere, and this displacement could, in fact, have
unintended consequences which we can't predict.
Each of the groups involved realize that this effort, while
an important and critical first step, will not be the final
answer in restoring our fish populations to healthy levels. So,
we have included a research program to improve data on bycatch
associated with longline fishing. This three-year effort,
signed off on by all parties, will yield important information
upon which to base future management decisions.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, despite the ICCAT quota reduction
and the buyout contemplated by the legislation, some have
raised concerns that longline vessels will be displaced to
other areas. To address this issue, both your bill and H.R.
3390 require aggressive monitoring in the mid-Atlantic, an area
where any possible displacement could, in fact, occur.
This monitoring will be accomplished by increasing the
level of observer coverage and by mandating use of vessel
monitoring system. Further, the bills require NMFS to take
action if displacement is found to be affecting recreational
fishing.
With regard to the rule proposed by the National Marine
Fisheries Service, we compliment the agency for its hard work
and note that the proposed areas, while different in some ways,
are, in fact, fairly similar to the areas that we propose.
Unfortunately, the agency does not at this time have all
the tools needed to complete its work. NMFS' proposal, because
it lacks a buyout, actually encourages displacement of longline
effort outside the closed area because it leaves the displaced
boats in business. NMFS acknowledges that this displacement is
likely to occur and, in fact, will result in increased bycatch
of blue and white marlin, both species that are significantly
depressed. We believe that would be a disappointing outcome for
such a significant proposal as we have on the table today.
In concluding, Mr. Chairman, I believe that of the bills
being considered here, H.R. 3390 has the broadest support. I
would say that it is not a perfect bill but, in fact, few bills
are. With that understanding, I would urge you to move it
forward. I appreciate the opportunity to testify, and look
forward to answering any questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nussman follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.025
Mr. Saxton. Thank you.
Mr. Hayes.
MR. ROBERT G. HAYES, GENERAL COUNSEL, COASTAL CONSERVATION
ASSOCIATION, AMERICAN SPORTFISHING ASSOCIATION, THE BILLFISH
FOUNDATION
Mr. Hayes. I am here today as the General Counsel for the
American Sportfishing Association, the Coastal Conservation
Association and the Billfish Foundation. I want to address
three issues that have been raised here this morning, and three
issues that I think are important to the passage of this bill.
The first one is, why legislate? Why do we need to do this
in Congress? There are three very fundamental reasons, in my
view. The first, Glenn has already indicated, there is a
question whether there is authority under the Magnuson Act to
do a buyout through the National Marine Fisheries Service. That
is an obvious question.
The second thing is that the buyout that is envisioned in
the Magnuson-Stevens Act doesn't allow recreational fishermen,
who clearly could be the beneficiaries of a buyout, to
participate.
And the third reason is that there are a number of
decisions that have been made here, because this is a
compromise, which might not be the most perfectly
scientifically supported compromise that could be used here.
Let me give you the best example.
The question was raised about the Gulf of Mexico. The
administrative proposal essentially is to close the entire EEZ
off the State of Texas. That will essentially displace 35 to 40
longliners who now reside in the State of Texas and would have
to go to the upper Gulf.
Our purpose in designing the line the way in which we
designed it was to ensure that there would not be any
displacement of longline vessels from the Gulf of Mexico
because, if we were going to displace them, that would increase
the cost and increase the buyout.
Our concept here is to minimize displacement, but provide
the greatest, broadest lateral benefit to recreational
fishermen in the Gulf. That was the basis of the negotiation.
Frankly, the proposal by the National Marine Fisheries Service
would have to be essentially to close the entire Gulf, if it
was going to benefit recreational fishermen. If you close the
entire Gulf, it is obvious at that point that you are going to
displace 100 vessels out of the Gulf of Mexico, clearly
something that we were trying to avoid.
The second thing I want to talk about is the question of
why legislate. What we are trying to avoid here was litigation.
There has been a lot of discussion about the possibility of
proceeding administratively with the closure and then having
the buyout.
Frankly, it is our belief that if you do not couple the two
together, that you are going to put yourself into Federal
District Court someplace and we are going to be involved in
litigation for years over whether these are the right areas,
whether the science supports them, whether the displacement is
accurate, whether the buyout plan ultimately developed by the
National Marine Fisheries Service is fair.
What that leads us to believe is that we were talking about
a five-year process under the administrative approach. We think
all of that can be avoided by the bills that we have agreed on
and have brought to you.
The second thing I want to talk about very briefly is this
research program. The research program here is, to the
recreational community, one of the jewels of this legislation.
What we are asking Congress to do is fund a research program
not for the National Marine Fisheries Service, but to fund a
program that allows scientists from the environmental
community, from the recreational community, and from the
commercial community, to come together and design a system in
which we can prove to each other whether there are available
bycatch reduction mechanisms that can be put in place here in
the United States. That research program should lead us to a
practical, logical, scientifically supported form of management
free for five years down the line.
The last thing I want to talk about, and I am going to do
it very briefly, is I want to talk about this issue of what do
we do internationally. I was intrigued by the comments that
there was more than one longline fleet and parcener fleet out
floating around in the Atlantic Ocean. This program that we
have put forward--closed areas, reducing fleet size, looking at
research, looking at alternative ways of reducing bycatch--we
want to take this concept internationally. I think we could
even take it to the Pacific Ocean because, if it works, it
works on every vessel.
And then the question becomes, do we have the domestic
willpower and the presence to go to international organizations
and get them to buy these kinds of closed areas and
scientifically proven bycatch reduction systems? I think we do,
and I think for all of those reasons it is important to support
these bills and move them forward. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hayes follows:]
Mr. Saxton. I am glad you said ``support these bills''.
That is very good.
Ernie Panacek.
Statement of Mr. Robert G. Hayes, General Counsel, Coastal Conservation
Association, American Sportfishing Association, The Billfish Foundation
Good morning Mr. Chairman:
My name is Bob Hayes, and I am the General Counsel for the
Coastal Conservation Association (``CCA''), The Billfish
Foundation (``TBF'') and the American Sportfishing Association
(``ASA''). This morning I'd like to focus my testimony on three
areas. First, I would like to tell you a little about CCA and
TBF. Second, I would like to tell you about how some of the
policy decisions in H.R. 3390 were made, and third, I would
like to address the particulars of the bill itself.
The Coastal Conservation Association is the leading marine
recreational fishing group in the United States. Formed by a
small group of sportfishermen in Houston in 1978, CCA has grown
to a fifteen-state operation with over 70,000 members. Each of
our states operates somewhat independently, focusing on issues
in the state that are important to marine recreational
fishermen. However, like so much in fisheries management,
conservation issues encompass a regional and national
perspective; therefore, CCA learned long ago that Federal and
international fisheries management were just as important to
the local marine recreational fishermen as the conservation of
the most local fish population.
CCA pursues conservation policies set by our state and
national Boards of Directors. These boards are made up of
active volunteers concerned about the health of the nation's
fisheries. CCA has been active in a number of conservation
issues in the last twenty years, including: all of the east and
Gulf coast net bans; gamefish status for redfish, speckled
trout, tarpon, striped bass, river shad, marlins, spearfish and
sailfish; and the reduction of bycatch through the use of
closed areas and technology. We have also pushed for the
improvement of the management system through the restructuring
of state and Federal management systems, the elimination of
conflicts of interests by decision-makers, and the active
involvement of our membership in the management process.
TBF began as a result of a concern by a group of offshore
fisherman that scientific emphasis on billfish was inadequate
to develop meaningful conservation measures. From its inception
TBF has taken the leadership role nationally and
internationally in the development of science to recover
billfishes. As that science has developed, TBF has expanded its
advocacy role to include both domestic and international
management of billfishes.
Today, TBF has members from all over the world and works
cooperatively with tournaments and other groups interested in
the conservation of billfishes. Like CCA, it is a board driven
policymaking body that hires professional staff to implement
the policy.
The four guiding principles.
Legislation like the kind being proposed can't be developed
without some guiding principles. Four have been used by the
parties to the MOU that lead to the Saxton and Goss bills under
consideration today.
Sound science, not emotion, should be the basis of fishery
management decisions.
The National Marine Fisheries Service and The Billfish
Foundation developed the underlying science for all of the
bills dealing with HMS. Dr. Phil Goodyear, in his published
report, found that there were areas of the Gulf of Mexico and
the Southeast coast that if closed to longlining would reduce
the bycatch of billfishes and small swordfish. The data and
conclusions in that study form the basis for the NMFS proposal.
It is not suprising that they are very similar, especially on
the East Coast. The bill's unified approach to closing these
areas demonstrates the value of sound science.
Longline bycatch is not one of those areas where the
science is abundant. Therefore, the bills establish a
scientific research program to determine ways to further reduce
bycatch in the longline fishery. That scientific analysis will
give Congress, fishery managers and the public a better
understanding on which to base future decisions.
There has to be a benefit to all parties to make this work.
Not every group will get what it wants when this
legislation goes into effect. Deals like this one are extremely
complicated because of the diversity of the fishery and the
lack of legislative authority to do what needs to be done. The
recreational fishing community got into this because we wanted
to improve billfishing. To do that, we had to address the
single largest source of mortality in U.S. waters--longline
bycatch. The longline fishery is extremely complicated. It is
managed by the states, the Federal Government and by an
international body. It is not monolithic. There are tuna and
swordfish fleets and mixes of the both. They fish year round
all over the Atlantic Ocean. Universally, they have said to us
that they want to address the same problem we do, but they
don't want to go out of business doing it.
The Goss bill tries to balance the interests of the fleet
with the interests of the fish that recreational fisherman want
to catch, and for the most part, release. The buyout program
will clearly benefit the fleet by reducing competition and
making the remaining fleet more viable. The closed areas will
also benefit the fleet by reducing small swordfish catches and
helping them accommodate the new ICCAT rebuilding plan. The
closed areas will be a tremendous benefit for recreational
anglers. Not only will they improve billfish catches, but also
it will improve the catch of mahi mahi and wahoo. In addition
it will reduce the conflicts between these gears, which has
lead to many of the emotional confrontations with the longline
fleet.
The beneficiaries of the bill have to contribute to the cost.
One of the earliest votes taken by CCA, TBF and ASA on the
negotiation was whether we as recreational fishermen were
willing to pay for some of the buyout of the longline fleet.
The vote was unanimous. These groups operate on a principle
that we are willing to put our money where our conservation
mouths are. There are number of instances in which recreational
fisherman have participated in the buy-out of gear and licenses
through the contribution of funds. As an example in Louisiana,
we supported legislation that placed a surcharge on
recreational fishing licenses to provide funds for commercial
fishermen impacted by the net ban. In Texas CCA made direct
contributions to the state to buy-out bay shrimp licenses. The
tackle industry has been making contributions to improve
fishing for years through Wallop-Breaux. Putting money up to
improve fishing is not new for the recreational sector. We look
at resource issues to determine what gains can be made and how
those gains will improve recreational fishing. We are not
willing to stand back and avoid achieving improvements because
someone else is responsible for the damage. We are willing to
pay because we are getting a benefit.
The commercial industry is also willing to pay because of
the benefit they are getting.
Minimize displacement of the remaining fleet.
Displacement of the remaining longlining fleet--the
unintended moving of the fleet from one place to another--has
been a concern of all four groups from the beginning of our
discussions. We have tried to minimize the impact on other
areas of the country. As a result, we decided early on that
none of the bought out vessels could be used in any other
commercial fishery. We concluded in the Gulf that the closed
area had to be designed to allow the existing fleet to remain
in place albeit further offshore. We concluded that the buy
down of the fleet had to be large enough to ensure that a
minimum amount of displacement in the mid-Atlantic would occur.
We think the provisions of the Goss bill do that and protect
other fisheries and regions from any displacement.
H.R. 3390
CCA, TBF and ASA got involved in this issue through the
BlueWater Fishermen's Association (``BWFA''). BWFA wanted to
explore reducing the bycatch of billfish through closed areas
if there were support for a buyout of the smaller vessels in
the fleet. We were very interested in this concept. Our Boards
met three times on this issue and concluded that the approach
taken in the Goss bill was not only the right approach for the
resource, it was the only way we could accomplish our basic
conservation goals. As a result, they instructed me to enter
into negotiations with BWFA and to build a coalition of other
like-minded conservation groups. These negotiations led to a
Memorandum of Understanding among CCA, BWFA, the American
Sportfishing Association and The Billfish Foundation, which was
signed in August. The MOU contained many of the principles
found in your legislation and formed the basis for the working
relationship the participating groups have today. Each of the
parties to the MOU still support it, because each of the
parties knows this is the only way to get a bill like this one
passed.
The bill we support, H.R. 3390, does the following:
1. Permanently closes an area from the North Carolina/South
Carolina border to Key West, Florida, to all pelagic
longlining.
2. Permanently closes an area off the Gulf coast from
Panama City, Florida, to Mobile, Alabama to longlining from
January through Labor Day.
3. For five years after enactment, it closes an area in the
Gulf from Cape San Blas, Florida to Brownsville, Texas, from
Memorial Day to Labor Day from the beach out to at least 500
fathoms.
4. Provides for a three-year research program with the
longline fleet to determine ways to further reduce bycatch by
longliners. This research will provide the basis for a
permanent solution for longline bycatch, not only in the U.S.,
but in all Atlantic waters. These measures can be implemented
at any time by either NMFS or the Congress.
5. Offers to buy all fishing permits from 68 eligible
vessels on a willing buyer/willing seller basis. To be
eligible, a vessel must receive at least 35 percent of its
income from the permanently closed area.
6. Vessel owners will be compensated by payment for all
fishing licenses (Federal and state) and for forfeiture by the
vessel of its fisheries endorsement. Vessels not documented
will be prevented from being sold into any other commercial
fishery.
7. Total cost could approach $25,000,000. Funding will be
through the National Marine Fisheries Service $15,000,000 if
appropriated funds and $10,000,000 provided by the Federal
Financing Bank. Funds will be provided only to vessel owners
who can document landings and their Value. Owners will be paid
$125,000 for their permit packages and an additional payment
equal to one year's gross landings value not to exceed a total
of $450,000.
8. The Federal Financing Bank will be repaid with
$10,000,000 split 50/50 between the recreational community and
the longline industry.
9. The longline industry will repay its obligation through
a surcharge collected at the dealer level. The recreational
community will repay its obligation through the issuance of a
Federal license to vessels fishing for highly migratory species
in the closed areas. The bill establishes a system for states
to voluntarily elect to pay the debt for their fishermen.
10. The bill will provide that the permits can be obtained
at any post office, retail outlet, on the Internet or through a
1-800 number system. The permits will issue to the boat and
will not be transferable.
11. Longline vessels will be prevented from reflagging or
fishing in any other commercial fishery including state water
fisheries.
12. The bill includes requirements for vessel monitoring
devices and enhanced observer coverage.
13. The research program will include a special emphasis
off the mid-Atlantic in the event of displacement there of
existing vessels as a result of the closed area.
The areas chosen for closure are a result of research done
by The Billfish Foundation, which identified hot spots for
bycatch, and by the swordfish industry which identified areas
where small swordfish catches are found. The data used to
identify these areas shows that the closures will have a number
of positive impacts on bycatch. The preliminary estimates are
that the closures will reduce U.S. longline bycatch in the EEZ
by 47 percent for sails, 32 percent for blue marlin and 13
percent for whites. In addition, they will have a positive
impact on the bycatch of sharks, tunas, small swordfish, mahi
mahi, wahoo and other species. The legislation will reduce the
U.S. swordfish fleet by about one-third. Since these vessels
also fish in other domestic fisheries from which they will be
precluded, the buyout will have some positive impact on the red
snapper, shark, grouper and mahi mahi fisheries.
Internationally, it will set a precedent allowing the U.S.
to negotiate the international closing of open-ocean bycatch
hotspots and small swordfish areas. These closures will further
assist in reducing the international fleet exploitation of
billfishes.
ASA, TBF and CCA have been praised and maligned for their
efforts. Most of the criticism has been from groups that do not
understand the legislation or are looking for solutions that
are not attainable. I would like to address some of those
criticisms.
``There is no conservation benefit.'' Approximately 52
percent of the total small swordfish bycatch reported by U.S.
pelagic longline fishermen in the U.S. EEZ occurs in the three
proposed closed areas. Similarly, approximately 31 percent of
the total billfish bycatch reported by U.S. pelagic longline
fishermen in the U.S. EEZ occurs in these three areas combined.
In addition, these closed areas will reduce the longline catch
of other species, including mahi mahi.
``The vessels have already left the areas being closed.''
Prior to entering into the MOU, The Billfish Foundation
commissioned a study by Dr. Phil Goodyear to look at the
biological effects of time and area closures on the reduction
of bycatch in the tuna and swordfish longline fleets. Dr.
Goodyear looked at thousands of data sets from longline vessels
in the south Atlantic and the Gulf to determine where and when
the greatest reductions could be achieved if areas were closed.
That data was used to determine which areas should be closed.
In addition, in the Gulf the objective was to address the area
of the greatest billfish bycatch and the recreational and
longline fleet interaction without displacing the longline
fleet to new areas of the Gulf or the Caribbean.
``There will be displacement of the fleet to the mid-
Atlantic bight.'' There are two issues here. The first is the
impact of the vessels being bought out and the second is the
potential for more effort in the mid-Atlantic as a result of
the closed areas.
A substantial portion of the negotiation over the MOU was
spent discussing how to avoid the displacement of the eligible
vessels to any fishery. The provisions in the bill that
restrict the vessels accepting the buyout from participating in
any commercial fishery were a result of those discussions.
Vessels will be required to forfeit all of their state and
Federal commercial fishery permits. In addition, the vessels
will be required to permanently forfeit their fishery's
endorsement, which will restrict any subsequent owner from
placing the vessel in a commercial fishery. The vessels are
also prevented from reflagging. Since these vessels are in
limited entry systems, this will reduce the number of licenses
in the swordfish, tuna, shark and red snapper fisheries. None
of these vessels will ever again carry a longline or fish
commercially.
The remaining fleet is not likely to increase its activity
in the mid Atlantic. Vessels not eligible for the buy out will
be precluded from fishing in the East Coast closed area, but
that does not mean they will be able to fish in the mid-
Atlantic. Most of the remaining fleet fish in the closed areas
during the winter when there is little activity in the mid-
Atlantic. Closing some of the fleet out of the south isn't
going to start a mid winter fishery.
This won't help get a rebuilding plan for swordfish.'' This
bill is not intended as the exclusive measure to achieve a
rebuilding plan for swordfish. The bill's aim is to reduce the
harvest of small swordfish and billfish. However, it will
greatly assist in the achievement of an Atlanticwide recovery
that was just negotiated at the recent ICCAT meeting in Rio.
ICCAT agreed with the United States that it would adopt a ten-
year rebuilding program for swordfish. That agreement came at
some substantial cost to the domestic swordfish industry. In
addition to taking a quota reduction, the domestic industry
agreed to phase down its allowable discard of small swordfish.
Without this concession by the industry, no deal approaching a
ten-year rebuilding plan was possible.
Taken as a whole, the U.S. industry will take a quota reduction
approaching 15 percent over the next three years, while other
fishing fleets from the EU and Japan will take considerably
less of a cut. I believe that the existence and the potential
for eventual passage of this legislation gave the industry the
will to make this sacrifice.
``Why not let NMFS close areas?'' CCA strongly endorses the
principle that the Councils and not the Congress ought to
manage fisheries. Given that, you might ask why we are
supporting a legislative approach to address longline bycatch
when the National Marine Fisheries Service is in the process of
proposing rules to do just that. The reason is that NMFS does
not have the authority under the Magnuson-Stevens Act to
accomplish what can be accomplished through these bills. As
Penny Dalton will tell you, these bills go well beyond what
NMFS can accomplish through a rulemaking.
NMFS can clearly close areas to longlining; however, in
doing so it must take several factors into consideration,
including the economic impact on the longline fishery and the
biological impact on other fisheries if the closed areas result
in the displacement of vessels. It has no authority to buyout
displaced vessels and, therefore, would have to adjust the area
it is proposing to mitigate the impact on the industry and
other fisheries. This mix of considerations is best described
by comparing the NMFS proposal for the Gulf of Mexico and the
H.R. 3390/3331 Gulf closure. NMFS proposed to close an area in
the Western Gulf from about Port Eads westward to the Mexican
border for six months. This will have a significant biological
benefit for billfish in the western Gulf and could have a
positive impact on the spawning populations of bluefin tuna. It
will, however, displace the entire western Gulf longline fleet
to the eastern Gulf during that period. CCA members and anglers
in Texas will enjoy substantially improved recreational
billfishing and will be effectively free of any longline
interaction. However, our members in Louisiana, Mississippi,
Alabama and Florida will get to enjoy an even greater
interaction with the longline fleet as longliners shift their
effort to the east. Both of these bills are designed to prevent
the lateral displacement of the fleet in the Gulf. By pushing
the longline effort further offshore, it creates separation of
the two activities and produces a positive conservation effect.
On the East Coast this is even more dramatic. These bills
propose a permanent closure on the East Coast from Key West to
North Carolina. It assumes that there will be a number of
vessels displaced as a result and offers to buy them out of all
commercial fishing rather than allow them to shift their
effort. NMFS can close the same area or an even one larger, but
when it does, it will simply send the effort elsewhere, either
to the Gulf or the mid-Atlantic. The alternative would be to
reduce the size of the closure, thereby reducing the potential
for displacement but also reducing the conservation benefit.
Neither of these two results is going to make recreational
fishermen happy.
Mr. Chairman as you can tell from this testimony that the
groups I represent support the Goss bill. We would be remiss
however in not thanking you for your leadership and your
efforts to balance the concerns of the multiple constituencies.
We have tried our best to address those concerns in the Goss
bill and think that approach has the best chance of ultimate
passage. You help in continuing this legislation will be
invaluable and we look forward to working with you.
STATEMENT OF MR. ERNEST PANACEK, MANAGER, VIKING VILLAGE DOCK,
BARNEGAT LIGHT, NEW JERSEY
Mr. Panacek. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Subcommittee. I am Ernie Panacek, Manager of Viking Village
commercial fishing dock in Barnegat Light, New Jersey. I am
also proud to be Blue Water Fishermen's Association's Regional
Director for the New Jersey area and a Director of Garden State
Seafood Association.
I hope everyone recognizes this unprecedented step by our
commercial fisheries substantially reduce unwanted regulatory
discarding of undersize swordfish, billfish, and other highly
migratory species.
All along we have stated that once we had a defined
universe of participants under limited access, we would develop
a progressive plan to further reduce the catches of unwanted
fish. We initiated this intense effort by surveying fishermen,
dealers, and related businesses to determine the most effective
and supportable approach for this task. Fortunately, principal
mainstream sportfishing and conservation organizations shared
our vision of the benefits of working cooperatively to solve
major domestic problems so we can then turn as united Americans
to approach the international arena with a more practical
method to effectively achieve the conservation needed for the
future of all our fisheries.
Other groups, including the Recreational Fishing Alliance,
attended initial negotiations, however, they insisted that only
a total ban of U.S. pelagic longlining would satisfy their
extremist view.
The cooperative parties recognized this as a
counterproductive direction and continued to develop perhaps
the most progressive and positive proposal that has ever been
developed between competing fishery sectors.
Today, faced with NMFS' flawed competing regulatory
proposal, it is tremendously important for Congress to pass S.
1911 and H.R. 3390 before the agency is forced to finalize its
proposed rule.
Mr. Chairman, even though I appreciate that at its core
your bill includes the cooperating parties' proposal, I am,
however, concerned and will discuss the following differences
in H.R. 3331 that I think undermine the intent and
effectiveness of the courageous proposal embodied in
Congressman Goss' H.R. 3390.
(1) I support the inclusion of the additional purpose in
H.R. 3331 that reinforces the value and the future of the U.S.
pelagic longline fishery. Thank you for your dedication to
keeping this fishery alive.
I recommend Atlantic closed area coordinates that will
correct the errors made by Senate Legislative Counsel that
would cause unnecessary displacement and would ensure easier
compliance and enforcement.
I strongly oppose any second buyout. Our fishery will need
time to settle out and evaluate the results of this dramatic
conservation measure already incorporated into H.R. 3390. We
are confident that any additional bycatch reduction can be
cooperatively investigated through the research program.
The mid-Atlantic buyout is not based on bycatch hotspots
nor the importance of minimizing target catch disruption, thus,
could needlessly and negatively impact this fishery. This
buyout has not been developed by, and cannot be supported by,
this fishery.
I oppose any unilateral quota reductions. Experience shows
unilateral cuts result in taking fish away from the compliant
American fishermen, leaving this fish available to less
conservation-oriented foreign fleets.
I oppose the additional $5 million financial burden of an
unnecessary second buyout. These are hard economic times for
the U.S. pelagic longline fishery which suffered from reduced
prices due to over three times more swordfish imports in 1998
than in 1996. If additional government revenues are available,
it should go towards minimizing the socio-economic impacts on
related seafood businesses dependent on the vessels that are
eligible for the voluntary buyout.
I oppose an observer fee placed on a single Atlantic highly
migratory species sector. The pelagic longline fishery already
has copious amounts of accurate data while comparable
information from other commercial and recreational sectors
remain unknown.
H.R. 3390 also already addresses additional observers for
its research program. The mid-Atlantic effort limit may be
supportable if revised to specifically focus on hooks displaced
from the closed areas as a monitoring guideline, but not as an
additional restriction. Operational variables in this fishery
should remain flexible for potential bycatch reduction methods
that should be studied by the research program in H.R. 3390.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I strongly and personally recommend
the additional conservation measure of prohibiting ICCAT quota
overages from being imported into the U.S. market as a
tremendous advance for international highly migratory species
conservation, and to level the playing field for the American
fisherman.
In conclusion, I hope that this Subcommittee will find the
courage and wisdom to move forward H.R. 3390 as soon as
possible, to send a strong message to all global nations that
the United States is fully committed to conserve these valuable
resources for future generations and stands behind their
American fishermen who lead the world in this effort. Thank you
very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Panacek follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.042
Mr. Saxton. Ernie, thank you very much.
Mr. Stone.
STATEMENT OF MR. RICHARD B. STONE, SCIENCE ADVISOR,
RECREATIONAL FISHING ALLIANCE
Mr. Stone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Richard Stone,
Science Advisor for the Recreational Fishing Alliance. I am
here to present statements for the RFA and the National
Coalition for Marine Conservation on the issues of time and
area closures that are now being proposed by both the National
Marine Fisheries Service and members of Congress.
The organizations that I am representing have been
advocating extensive longline area closures to protect
undersize swordfish, billfish and oceanic sharks since 1996,
and are pleased and encouraged that such measures are being
seriously considered and are likely to be implemented in the
near future. Unfortunately, differing approaches to instituting
the closures are dividing the attention of the fishing and
environmental communities.
Congressional intervention carries with it two
controversial changes in the management of large pelagic fish:
it effectively transfers authority for managing the Atlantic
pelagic longline fishery, now and in the future, from NMFS to
Congress; and it links implementation of conservation measures
in this fishery to financial compensation on the industry's
terms. We do not think it is appropriate or necessary to
completely change the interactive, highly migratory species
management process that most of the organizations involved here
and Congress helped put into place.
With the HMS Advisory Panels and the cooperation with the
U.S. ICCAT Commissioners and Advisory Committee, we believe the
process is improving. The NMFS proposal for time/area closures
is a good example. Congress should not step in and derail this
process now.
We appreciate the Committee taking the time to hold this
hearing and getting input into this process because failure to
resolve critical differences between the two approaches and
unite the fishing and conservation communities in common
purpose could undermine the conservation benefits that would
ultimately derive from either proposal. This would short-change
the resource and the fishermen who look forward to the benefits
of recovered stocks.
I will highlight some of the comments from the
organizations that I represent, and also submit additional
comments from the RFA and a position paper from the NCMC. They
do not object per se to a buyout program, but are concerned
that it is putting the cart before the horse in this case. The
attachment of a buyout to the closures is touted as a
preferable approach to the NMFS proposal because (a) it would
remove effort from the fishery, thus decreasing the likelihood
of increased bycatch rates in the areas left open to
longlining, and (b) it has the support of the longline
industry, which makes it more likely to be adopted.
As with the NMFS proposal, the size and duration of the
closures alone have the potential to reduce overall longline
effort. Any added reduction in effort due to the buyout offer
is uncertain mainly because its purpose is not effort reduction
per se, but economic relief.
It is possible that only those boats too small or too
attached to their home port to move to other regions, or those
that are struggling financially, will take the buyout offer and
that the more mobile and financially solvent vessels that do
threaten continued bycatch through redirected effort will
remain active.
More importantly, there is nothing in the bill that would
prevent the boats remaining active in the fishery from
increasing fishing effort and thus replacing the bought-out
effort. While assumptions about the effects of displaced effort
are uncertain under any scenario, an increase in effort is
likely since the remaining vessels would end up with a larger
share of the available landings.
The conservation benefits of the proposed closed areas
appear similar, but we would support the NMFS proposal for the
South Atlantic which is slightly larger and beginning the
closures in the Gulf of Mexico at least on May 1 rather than
Memorial Day. The NMFS Technical Report dated October 1 clearly
shows that discards of billfish increase dramatically in May in
the Gulf. Larger closures appear to be needed in the Gulf of
Mexico and we understand that the Gulf of Mexico Fishery
Management Council has recommended closing the entire Gulf for
part of the year.
We support additional research and monitoring as proposed
in the bills and suggest that it should not be limited to
billfish, but include all species of concern. Under the
proposed bills, however, NMFS is to report the results after
four years to Congress with recommendations for legislation.
The effect of this provision and the intent of the legislation
is to take management authority for the U.S. pelagic longline
fleet away from NMFS and give it to Congress.
Research and monitoring will be critical to the success of
any bycatch reduction plan based on time and area closures.
Since these longline area closures are experimental in nature,
and monitoring, evaluation and adjustment may be necessary, it
is important that the information be available on a real time
basis and that NMFS have the flexibility to make needed
adjustments quickly. The proposed legislation would preclude
any follow-up action to make adjustments, except under
emergency conditions, until at least 2004, and then only by an
Act of Congress. We think that is not in the best interest of
conservation.
We do agree with the concept of amending the Atlantic Tunas
Convention Act to allow the Secretary the option of reducing
the amount that the United States may harvest of its allocation
or quota by the amount of capacity affected by the buyout and
keeping it in a conservation reserve until the stock recovers.
Any share allocated to the United States by ICCAT would not be
changed by this action. This way the U.S. fishermen will not be
disadvantaged in the long run.
In summary, legislation is not necessary to implement the
time and area closures and achieve the conservation benefits
that would derive from them. That can and should be done
through the regulatory process established by Congress under
the Magnuson Act, and with which NMFS is complying. If Congress
deems it necessary, it could follow implementation of the
regulations with legislation to provide relief to those vessels
that can demonstrate substantial adverse economic impacts as a
direct result of the regulations.
If the legislative route is pursued, then we suggest
modifying Congressman Saxton's bill, and would insist that all
language restricting future regulation of the U.S. longline
fishery by NMFS be removed. Additional comments pertaining to
this approach were submitted. We stand ready to work with
Congress, NMFS, and others on trying to resolve the different
approaches being considered.
Mr. Chairman, thank you and your Committee for its help on
these issues.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stone follows:]
Statement of Richard Stone, Science Advisor, Recreational Fishing
Alliance
Mr. Chairman, I am Richard Stone, Science Advisor for the
Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA). I am here today to present
statements for the RFA and the National Coalition for Marine
Conservation (NCMC) on the issues of time and area closures
that are now being proposed by both the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) and Members of Congress.
The organizations that I am representing have been
advocating extensive longline area closures to protect
undersize swordfish, billfish and oceanic sharks since 1996,
and are pleased and encouraged that such measures are being
seriously considered and are likely to be implemented in the
near future. Unfortunately, differing approaches to instituting
the closures are dividing the attention of the fishing and
environmental communities. Congressional intervention carries
with it two controversial changes in the management of large
pelagic fish: it effectively transfers authority for managing
the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery--now and in the future--
from NMFS to Congress; and it links implementation of
conservation measures in this fishery to financial compensation
on the industry's terms. We do not think it is appropriate or
necessary to completely change the interactive, highly
migratory species (HMS) management process that most of the
organizations involved here and Congress helped put into place.
With the HMS Advisory Panels and the cooperation with the U. S.
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas
Commissioners and Advisory Committee, we believe the process is
improving. The NMFS proposal for time/area closures is a good
example. Congress should not step in and derail this process
now.
We appreciate the Committee taking the time to hold this
Hearing and getting input into this process, because failure to
resolve critical differences between the two approaches and
unite the fishing and conservation communities in common
purpose could undermine the conservation benefits that would
ultimately derive from either proposal. This would short-change
the resource and the fishermen who look forward to the benefits
of recovered stocks.
I will, highlight some of the comments from the
organizations that I represent, and also submit additional
comments from the RFA and a position paper from the NCMC. They
do not object, per se, to a buyout program, but are concerned
that it is putting the cart before the horse in this case. The
attachment of a buy-out to the closures is touted as a
preferable approach to the NMFS proposal because (a) it would
remove effort from the fishery, thus decreasing the likelihood
of increased bycatch rates in the areas left open to
longlining, and (b) it has the support of the longline
industry, which makes it more likely to be adopted. As with the
NMFS proposal, the size and duration of the closures alone have
the potential to reduce overall longline effort. Any added
reduction in effort due to the buy-out offer is uncertain,
mainly because its purpose is not effort reduction per se but
economic relief. It is possible that only those boats too small
or too attached to their home port to move to other regions, or
those that are struggling financially, will take the buy-out
offer and that the more mobile and financially solvent vessels
(that do threaten continued bycatch through redirected effort)
will remain active. More importantly, there is nothing in the
bill that would prevent the boats remaining active in the
fishery from increasing fishing effort and thus replacing the
bought-out effort. While assumptions about the effects of
displaced effort are uncertain under any scenario, an increase
in effort is likely since the remaining vessels would end up
with a larger share of the available landings for swordfish,
tunas and sharks.
The conservation benefits of the proposed closed areas
appear similar but we would support the NMFS proposal for the
South Atlantic which is slightly larger and beginning the
closures in the Gulf of Mexico at least on May 1st rather than
Memorial Day. The NMFS Technical Report dated October 1, 1999
clearly shows that discards of billfish increase dramatically
in May in the Gulf. Larger closures appear to be needed in the
Gulf of Mexico and we understand that the Gulf of Mexico
Fishery Management Council has recommended closing the entire
Gulf for part of the year.
We support additional research and monitoring as proposed
in the Bills and suggest that it should not be limited to
billfish, but include all species of concern. Under the
proposed bills, however, NMFS is to report the results, after 4
years, to Congress with recommendations for ``legislation.''
The effect of this provision, and the intent of the
legislation, is to take management authority for the U.S.
pelagic longline fleet away from NMFS and give it to Congress.
Research and monitoring will be critical to the success of any
bycatch reduction plan based on time and area closures. Since
these longline area closures are experimental in nature, and
monitoring, evaluation and adjustment may be necessary, it is
important that the information be available on a real time
basis and that NMFS have the flexibility to make needed
adjustments quickly. The proposed legislation would preclude
any follow-up action to make adjustments, except under
emergency conditions, until at least 2004, and then only by an
Act of Congress. We think that is not in the best interest of
conservation.
We do agree with the concept of amending the Atlantic Tunas
Convention Act to allow the Secretary the option of reducing
the amount that the United States may harvest of its allocation
or quota by the amount of capacity affected by the buyout and
keeping it in a ``conservation reserve'' until the stock
recovers. Any share allocated to the United States by ICCAT
would not be changed by this action. This way the U.S.
fishermen will not be disadvantaged in the long run.
In summary, legislation is not necessary to implement the
time and area closures and achieve the conservation benefits
that would derive from them. That can and should be done
through the regulatory process established by Congress under
the Magnuson Act, and with which NMFS is complying. If Congress
deems it necessary, it could follow implementation of the
regulations with legislation to provide relief to those vessels
that can demonstrate substantial adverse economic impacts as a
direct result of the regulations. If the Legislative route is
pursued, then we suggest modifying Congressman Saxton's Bill
(H.R. 3331) and would insist that all language restricting
future regulation of the U.S. longline fishery by the NMFS be
removed. Additional comments pertaining to this approach were
submitted as an attachment. We stand ready to work with
Congress, NMFS, and others on trying to resolve the different
approaches being considered. Thank you.
------
Aditional Comments by the RFA if the Legislative Approach is Used
Like the NCMC, we are skeptical that changes in the
legislative approach can be made through alterations to the
bills currently before Congress, if for no other reason than
that the likelihood of the longline industry supporting a bill
modified to satisfy our concerns may be slim to none. As we
stated in our testimony, legislation is not necessary to
implement the time and area closures and achieve the
conservation benefits that would derive from them. That can and
should be done through the regulatory process established by
Congress under the Magnuson Act, and with which NMFS is
complying.
If the Legislative route is pursued, then we suggest
modifying Congressman Saxton's Bill (H.R. 3331) and would
request that all language restricting future regulation of the
U.S. longline fishery by the NMFS be removed. Responsible NMFS
fishery managers, with the help of the APs, ICCAT Commissioners
and ICCAT Advisors, and the interactive, public input process,
must retain the discretion to evaluate the effectiveness of
time and area closures in reducing longline bycatch and to take
additional domestic actions in the future, including
alternative closures and gear modifications, as part of the
regulatory framework established under the FMPs for billfish,
tunas, swordfish and sharks.
In SEC. 5, the term ``AFFECTED STATE'' should be eliminated
since all States will be ``affected'' to some extent and should
be part of the repayment process of any buyout proposal.
In SEC. 7, language should be added, that makes it clear
that any action by the Secretary to reduce the amount that the
U.S. may harvest of its allocation or quota by the amount of
capacity reduction affected by the buyout should be kept in a
``conservation reserve'' and that any share allocated to the
U.S. by ICCAT would not be changed by this action. This gives
the Secretary the same flexibility as Chairman Saxton's Bill.
Further, it broadens the scope to include all areas and
establishes a conservation reserve. It does not give up the
conservation savings to any other ICCAT contracting party.
As we stated in our testimony, we support additional
research and suggest that it should not be limited to billfish,
but include all species of concern. Also, it should not be
limited to closed areas. The Secretary should be allowed to
make any changes in the management regime shown necessary by
the research results and report to Congress on progress but not
have to wait for Congress to determine what management actions
are necessary.
We would have more specific, detailed comments if the
legislative approach is used.
------
Curriculum Vitae
Richard B. Stone
Sector--Marine Fisheries Consultant
Professional Experience
1996-present-- Sole proprietorship consulting company
specializing in highly migratory species (HMS) management and
research, fishery data collection, interactive management,
dispute resolution, recreational fishery development, fishery
management plan development, review and comment on fishery
regulatory actions, research and management planning for
artificial reef development (domestic and international),
artificial reef plan development, and international aspects of
HMS research and management. Technical Advisor for U. S.
Advisory Committee for the International Commission for the
Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), Advisory Committee
member for the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program,
and member of the steering committee to revise,, the U.S.
National Artificial Reef Plan.
U.S. Government-Marine Fisheries Research and Management (32
years)
1992-1996: Chief, Highly Migratory Species Management Division,
Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management, National
Marine Fisheries Service (Department of Commerce)-Headquarters.
Directed Atlantic HMS management and coordinated research and
management budgets for Atlantic HMS. Developed and instituted
an interactive research and management policy for HMS bringing
outside fishery interests more into the HMS management process.
Supervised and participated in the development of fishery
management actions for HMS including fishery regulations,
fishery management plans, amendments to plans, and fishery
closures. Prepared draft National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration/National Marine Fisheries Service (Agency)
policy positions on FIMS, Congressional briefing documents and
gave briefings on EMS at all levels of the Agency. Participated
in international management of HMS as member of U.S. Delegation
to Japan, Canada, and Mexico and to ICCAT meetings (since
1978). Agency expert on artificial reef research and management
issues.
1976-1991: Recreational Fisheries Officer/Fisheries Management
Specialist Headquarters. Coordinated Agency artificial reef
activities, developed artificial reef policy, provided
technical assistance to states and other countries on
artificial reef development. Drafted marine recreational
fisheries policy documents and coordinated or helped to
coordinate marine recreational fisheries activities within the
Agency. Served as key Agency contact with recreational fishing
organizations and individuals. Set up task force to address
recreational fishery data needs. Specifically developed Agency
policy on artificial reefs through coordinating development of
the National Artificial Reef Plan that involved bringing top
artificial reef experts in the U.S. together to draft report.
Worked with Sea Grant, The Sport Fishing Institute, and the
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission to develop an
easily accessible data base for state and Federal artificial
reef activities. Worked on HMS fishery management plans and
drafted policy guidance for foreign fishing on HMS in the U.S.
fishery conservation zone. Drafted, with the General Counsel
for Fisheries, the Agency policy on managing billfish as a
recreational fishery. Coordinated Headquarters ICCAT research
and management activities. Served on steering committees for
five international artificial reef conferences and chaired one.
1964-1976: Biological Oceanographer/Fishery Biologist--Sandy
Hook Laboratory (NJ) and Beaufort Laboratory (NC). Directed
artificial reef research for the Agency. Planned, conducted,
and supervised scientific evaluation of artificial reefs to
determine how and why fishes use reefs, comparative reef
material efficiency, life histories of fishes using artificial
reefs, and the effect of artificial reefs on recreational
fishing. Collected and analyzed quantitative data on the
increase in standing crop of fishes in the area of a natural,
patch reef after adding an artificial reef of similar size
nearby in the Biscayne National Monument, Florida. Completed a
study of population dynamics of fishes on artificial reefs off
Murrells Inlet, SC and directed a study to compare sport
fishing catch and effort data from man-made and natural
habitats off Murrells Inlet, SC and New York/New Jersey.
Supervised tagging studies on mackerels to determine seasonal
distribution and developed a format for recording tag release
and recovery data. Supervised and conducted aerial temperature
surveys with infrared sensors to study the distribution and
abundance of surface schooling fishes in relation to
temperature patterns. Participated as technical/scientific
advisor to state and local artificial reef committees. Prepared
the Environmental Impact Statement for the use of Liberty Ships
as artificial reef material off the Virginia Capes.
Selected Publications (from over 45)
Stone, R.B., H.L. Pratt, R.O. Parker, Jr., and G.E. Davis.
1979. A comparison of fish populations on an artificial and
natural reef in the Florida Keys. Marine Fisheries Review, 41:
1-11.
Stone, R.B., compiler. 1985b. National artificial reef
plan. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS OF-6. U.S. National Marine
Fisheries Service, Washington, DC.
Stone, R.B., J.M. McGurrin, L.M. Spreague, and W. Seaman;
Jr. 1991. Artificial habitats of the world: synopsis and major
trends. Pp. 31-60 in William Seaman, Jr. and Lucian M.
Spreague, eds. Artificial habitats for marine and freshwater
fisheries. Academic Press, Inc. San Diego, CA.
Stone, Richard B., C. Michael Bailey, Sarah A. McLaughlin,
Pamela M. Mace. and Margo B. Schultz. 1998. Federal Management
of the Atlantic Shark Fisheries. Elsevier, Fisheries Research
808, 1-7.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.047
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much, Mr. Stone.
We are going to take about a five- or ten-minute recess. I
apologize to the final two witnesses. We will be back in five
or ten minutes.
[Recess.]
Mr. Saxton. Thank you for your patience, both members and
witnesses and interested parties. We are going to proceed now
to hear from Mr. Caputi. You may proceed, Gary.
STATEMENT OF MR. GARY CAPUTI, CO-CHAIRMAN, HIGHLY MIGRATORY
SPECIES COMMITTEE, JERSEY COAST ANGLERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Caputi. First, let me thank Congressman Saxton and
members of the Subcommittee for inviting the Jersey Coast
Anglers Association and the New Jersey Federation of
Sportsmen's Clubs, with the combined membership of over 120,000
members, to comment at these proceedings. The comments are
submitted on their behalf.
H.R. 3390 contains the measures negotiated by groups that
represent a portion of the recreational community. The groups I
represent today have a membership that exceeds CCA and TBF, yet
their positions and concerns were not considered. Any claim
that the process was representative of the majority of
recreational fishermen, their opinions and concerns is
inaccurate.
Time and area closures in the Gulf, while appearing
extensive, fall inside the 500-fathom curve where pelagic
longlining in recent years has been almost non-existent while
leaving open other areas further offshore where longlining is
still prevalent.
Satellite temperature charts of the region clearly show
that the Gulf Stream and its currents fall outside the closed
area, yet they are the very places experiencing the most
longline pressure. They also attract the greatest concentration
of endangered billfish.
Similar problems arise in the South Atlantic closed area.
We have been advised that longline effort for swordfish,
especially tuna, takes place along the eastern boundaries of
the Gulf Stream. Satellite temperature charts reveal that the
eastern edge of the Stream falls well outside the proposed
close area in much of this region.
One of our major concerns with H.R. 3390 and H.R. 3331 is
that if southern closed areas are effective, there will be a
significant effort shift to the mid-Atlantic states, and the
bill ignores those implications.
The mid-Atlantic is home to the largest fleet of private
recreational and charter boats on the East Coast. Many fish
offshore waters for tuna and billfish, and the economic
importance of these fisheries is significant. More longliners
in these waters will greatly increase ground conflicts between
recreational and commercial fishermen. And the possibility of
millions of additional longline hooks in the water each year
will create huge increases in longline bycatch mortality of
white marlin, the most overfished of the billfish species.
It will put increased pressure on yellowfin, bigeye and
longfin tuna stocks determined to be fully utilized by ICCAT.
In fact, NMFS was so concerned about yellowfin stocks in the
Western Atlantic that they placed a three-fish bag limit on
recreational and charter fishermen recently.
The northward shift has been alluded to no the record by
longline representatives at the public hearings and, as the
Congressman stated, marinas in New Jersey have already been
contacted by numerous southern based longliners inquiring about
dockage.
H.R. 3390 contains no reduction in quota to match the
number of boats bought in a buyout and, therefore, no real
reduction in overall quota. If the quotas remain the same,
every last pound of that quota will be landed by the smaller
fleet, much of it from northern waters, we fear.
The remaining 75 percent of the boats, if 60 are removed,
will be the beneficiaries of reduced competition and increased
quota shares. Unfortunately, this makes the bill appear to be
more of a relief package for the longline industry and a
conservation bill for the resource, and it forces taxpayers and
recreational fishermen to foot the bill.
The cost of the buyout is to be shouldered not by the
remaining longliners, but by the taxpayers and recreational
fishermen in the form of another new fishing permit. Just two
years ago, recreational fishermen were burdened with a Federal
tuna permit which originally cost $18, but this year will rise
to $25. This bill imposes a second permit for fishing in the
closed areas. Both permits are in addition to saltwater fishing
licenses imposed by many states. We feel that both permits are
unacceptable, and that issuance of recreational fishing permits
and licenses should remain the domain of the states.
One of the most troubling aspects of H.R. 3390 is a four-
year moratorium on future regulation. If the reductions in the
landings of juvenile swordfish and the mortality of billfish,
marine mammals and sea turtles are not realized through this
legislation--and there are serious reasons to believe they will
not be--the bill guarantees the longline fleet a four-year
moratorium on further regulatory and legislative measures. We
feel this is a recipe for disaster.
H.R. 3331 begins to recognize the concerns of
conservationists and recreational fishermen that were ignored
in H.R. 3390. In its present form, it does not provide the
level of effort reduction desired, but it is a step in the
right direction. It marginally addresses the northward effort
shift, but in the long run, at present, falls short of being a
conservation tool to reduce the mortality of juvenile swordfish
and billfish.
H.R. 3516, introduced by Congressman Sanford, calls for the
complete session of longlining and offers the greatest
conservation benefit, and embodies a concept that more than 100
recreational fishing and conservation organizations already
signed on to in support of just last year.
Concerning the NMFS time and area closures, we feel that
they are the proper venue for doing so, and have the regulatory
power under the Magnuson Act. In fact, time and area closures
were the highlight of the Highly Migratory Species FMP
developed after extensive participation. It was supported by a
large number of recreational fishing and conservation
organizations involved in the process, and could be in place
for the 2001 fishing year.
NMFS regulation is the proper venue for such measures, and
they include no buyout burden on the general public and no new
permits for recreational fishermen.
If fleet reductions prove necessary, provisions in the
Magnuson-Stevens Act allow for longline industry to buyout
boats using special low-interest government loan programs that
would be repaid by the sale of fish products caught by the
remaining boats. The positive conservation benefit of boat
buyout schemes to date is highly questionable. Look at the
programs to aid New England groundfish fleet. The government
has spent over $23 million to purchase 79 trawlers, $7 million
in disaster relief for fishermen who still can't fish, and an
additional $15 million on programs involving idle commercial
fishing vessels. With over $45 million in taxpayer dollars
spent already, the fisheries off New England are still in
terrible shape and little, if any, reduction in fishing effort
has been realized as a result of the buyout.
In summary, H.R. 3390 and H.R. 3331 appear to be focused on
creating a compensation package for longliners and conservation
is taking a back seat.
In our opinion, it is time to step back, look at the
benefits and downsides of each approach being put forward. We
should establish a forum where we can all put our heads
together and do what is best for the resource, without taking
punitive action against any group, especially recreational
fishermen who we feel are being used as pawns in the process,
pitting us against each other.
The proper venue for time and area closures is through
NMFS, the mechanism already exists in the law. Further
conservation efforts, if legislation proves necessary, must be
hammered out between the longline industry and a far more
widely representative majority of the recreational and
conservation communities.
The members of the New Jersey Coast Anglers Association and
the New Jersey Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs thank the
Members of the Committee for the opportunity to voice our
concerns. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Caputi follows:]
Statement of Gary Caputi on behalf of the Jersey Coast Anglers
Association and New Jersey State Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs
The Jersey Coast Anglers Association and the New Jersey
Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs have a combined membership of
one hundred fifty thousand concerned sportspersons.
The rush to post bills aimed at curbing longlining has
reached a fever pitch with a total of three bills submitted in
the House in recent weeks. They vary dramatically in their
ability to reduce longline fishing effort; to reduce the
horrendous problem of longline bycatch of white marlin, blue
marlin, sailfish, marine mammals and endangered sea turtles;
and to provide genuine conservation benefits by reducing the
bycatch and harvest of juvenile swordfish.
Two bills, H.R. 3390 and H.R. 3331, include a proposed
buyout of a portion of the longline fleet which burdens those
not responsible for the damage done by this indiscriminate gear
type with paying the bill to bail out those who participated in
the fishery. The very individuals and companies that benefited
financially for years from using these damaging fishing
practices will be relieved of responsibility and economic loss.
The bills will provide select longliners with an escape hatch
paid for by the U.S. taxpayer and, amazingly, by recreational
fishermen who have been paying the price of longline
indiscretions for over two decades already. Recreational
fishermen, and the wide-reaching industries supported by their
activities, have suffered the loss of fishing opportunities and
reductions in participation. This is due to the decimation of
stocks of recreationally important billfish killed as bycatch
by longline fishing activities and the total loss of a once
vibrant recreational fishery for swordfish, as that species has
been overfished to record low levels. Even commercial harpoon
fishermen have suffered a similar loss in their ability to
participate in the swordfish fishery they once dominated for
over one hundred years and which was still thriving until the
introduction of industrial longlining. It took just two decades
of longlining to put them out of business and forced the
remaining boats to transfer effort to the beleaguered bluefin
tuna stocks.
H.R. 3390
This bill was originally sponsored in the Senate by
Senators John Breaux (LA) and Olympia Snow (ME) both recognized
champions of commercial fishing. The house version, H.R. 3390,
was then introduced by Congressmen Billy Tauzin (LA) and Porter
Goth (FL). It contains the measures negotiated between the
Coastal Conservation Association (CCA), the Billfish Foundation
(TBF), the American Sportfishing Association (ASA) with the
longline industries Blue Water Fisherman's Association (BWFA).
H.R. 3390 includes provisions for time and area closures in
the Gulf of Mexicoland the south Atlantic and the controversial
buyout of longline vessels previously mentioned in addition to
a provision that defers any further conservation action for
four years after adoption of the bill, even if the bill does
not prove effective. The area closures, especially those in the
Gulf, while appearing extensive, mostly fall inside the 500-
fathom curve where pelagic longlining activities in recent
years have been almost non-existent, while failing to close
areas further offshore where longlining is prevalent. Similar
problems arise in a portion of the South Atlantic closed area
off South Carolina, Georgia and northern Florida. We have been
advised that most longline effort for swordfish, tunas and
dolphin, which accounts for a greatest percentage of billfish
bycatch, takes place along the eastern boundaries of the Gulf
Stream. This area falls well outside the proposed closure area.
If the proposed closure areas in H.R. 3390 do have a
significant effect on the longlining effort in the Gulf and
south Atlantic, there will be a significant effort shift to the
north and the bill provides absolutely no protection for the
mid-Atlantic region. These areas are home to the largest fleets
of recreational fishing boats and charter boats on the East
Coast and a shift in longline fishing effort there will cause
extensive conflicts between the two user groups. Such an effort
shift will put greatly expanded longline efforts and possibly
millions of additional hooks in the water each year that will,
potentially, create a huge increase in the bycatch mortality of
white marlin, the most overfished and precariously balanced
stock of all the billfish species. It will put increased
pressure on the yellowfin, bigeye and longfin albacore tuna
that are all, at present, determined to be fully utilized by
ICCAT. In fact, NMFS was so concerned with maintaining the
health of the yellowfin stocks, that they unilaterally placed a
three fish bag limit on recreational and charter fishermen.
Such an effort shift will increase the harvest of these fish by
longliners. Further, NMFS own data indicates that any reduction
realized in the harvest and bycatch mortality of juvenile
swordfish through the closed areas will become insignificant if
longline effort increases in the mid-Atlantic canyons, where
juvenile swordfish are also present.
The cost of the buyout in H.R. 3390, estimated to cost $25
million or more, is to be shouldered by taxpayers; seafood
consumers in the form of a tariff on all swordfish sold; and
recreational fishermen in the form of a new fishing permit to
be required for sportfishing boats venturing into the closed
areas. No portion of the cost is to be paid by the remaining
longliners who will benefit from the reduction in fleet size
the buyout will attempt to make. Keep in mind that just two
years ago recreational fishermen were stunned by the imposition
of a Federal ``tuna permit'' unilaterally regulated into
existence by the National Marine Fishery Service. It originally
cost $18, but this year will rise to $25. A commercial
fisherman can purchase a permit to longline from NMFS for only
$50. This bill will impose a second permit for the privilege of
being able to fish in the closed areas, on top of the one
already in existence. These permits are in addition to
saltwater fishing licenses that are imposed by growing number
of states. How many times can the government ``tax'' people to
fish for public resources? With the imposition of another
permit, recreational fishermen will be paying more money for
licenses and permits than the longliners, but no one is
offering to buy their boats as the fisheries decline. This new
permit is totally unacceptable.
The criteria for longline boats to participate in the
buyout are extremely loose. It will allow owners of boats that
have not participated in the fishery in recent years to get in
on the big payoff. At the same time, H.R. 3390 contains no
reduction in quota, and therefore no real reduction in overall
fishing effort on the longliners that remain in the fishery. If
the quotas remain the same, every last pound of the quota will
be landed by the remaining boats in the fleet.
The remaining boats, which comprise about 75 percent of the
existing fleet if the buyout indeed removes 60 boats, will be
the beneficiaries of greatly reduced competition and increased
quota share as a result. It's a great deal for the longliners
who sell and an even better one for those who stay in the
fishery. Congress is going to force citizens and recreational
fishermen to buy out a big chunk of their competition.
Taxpayers, consumer and recreational fishermen will foot the
bill and the remaining boats will each get a greater share of
the same quota.
Therefore, in all honesty, H.R. 3390 does not reduce
overall fishing effort and any reduction in bycatch is purely
speculative. In effect, it forces taxpayers and recreational
fishermen foot the bill to make the boats in the longline fleet
more profitable and ultimately, more politically powerful.
However, there is still another very troubling part of this
poorly conceived bill. If, for any reason, the reduction in the
landings of juvenile swordfish, the overfishing of billfish and
the mortality of marine mammals and sea turtles through bycatch
are not realized, and there are many reasons to believe they
will not be, the bill guarantees the remaining longline fleet a
four-year moratorium on any further regulatory or legislative
measures. This is a recipe for disaster.
The Jersey Coast Anglers Association and the New Jersey
Federation of Sportsman's Clubs can not support this bill for
all of the above mentioned reasons.
H.R. 3331
The second bill, sponsored by Congressman James Saxton
(NJ), chairman of the House Committee on Sustainable Fisheries,
Oceans and Wildlife, mirrors H.R. 3390, but establishes a
correlation in quota reduction corresponding to the number of
boat purchased through the buyout. Though some mechanism, the
quota reduction only comes into play for boats transferring
effort to, or fishing in the Mid-Atlantic Bight area. H.R. 3331
recognizes the concerns of many conservationists and
recreational fishermen that H.R. 3390, while having the
potential to provide some conservation benefits in the Gulf and
South Atlantic closure areas, will create a massive shift in
fishing effort to the Mid-Atlantic region and further north.
Such an effort shift is all but guaranteed by H.R. 3390 because
most of the boats that will ``volunteer'' for the buyout money
will most certainly be the least profitable and least mobile in
the fleet. They will be boats that are only marginally in
business at this point in time, if not already sitting idly at
the dock. The remaining 75 percent of the fleet will consist of
larger, more modern vessels capable of traveling great
distances or shifting their base of operations into the mid-
Atlantic region. They will be increasing operations in an area
of the greatest concentration of recreational fishing boats,
the states between North Carolina and New York, where grounds
conflicts are sure to arise. In addition, the effort shift will
place far greater pressure in areas where seasonal
concentrations of white marlin are still found in U.S. waters.
Note that that the white marlin is the most endangered and
overfished of the billfish species and is in that precarious
state due to longline bycatch over the past twenty plus years.
It will further stress the critically important yellowfin tuna
fishery that accounts for the most recreational participation
in region.
While H.R. 3331 recognizes one of the flaws in H.R. 3390,
it still does not do enough to address the many inadequacies of
that proposed legislation. JCAA can not support this bill in
its current form.
H.R. 3516
The third bill, H.R. 3516, introduced by Congressman Mark
Sanford (SC) calls for the complete session of longlining in
all U.S. EEZ waters. This bill is obviously the strongest and
offers the greatest conservation benefit for both swordfish in
U.S. waters and in reduction of bycatch mortality of all
billfish, marine mammals and sea turtles. It embodies a concept
that approximate 100 recreational fishing and conservation
organizations had signed on in support of in just last year. As
a result of the strategically timed introduction of H.R. 3390
which offers greatly watered conservation efforts, if any at
all, H.R. 3516 is given little chance of advancing through the
House. This is truly unfortunate.
NMFS Highly Migratory Species Fisheries Management Plan
Proposed Rule for Time and Area Closures
With all these legislative efforts underway, the National
Marine Fisheries Service, in a recent public hearing
announcement, detailed specifications for a proposed rule that
would institute major time and area closures in the south
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico through the regulatory power
granted them by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The use of time and
area closures to reduce bycatch of juvenile swordfish and
billfish was actually the highlight of the Highly Migratory
Species Fishery Management Plan unveiled by NMFS last year
after two years of development time. The time and area closures
portion of the FMP was postponed while NMFS could further study
longline logbooks to determine where such areas should be
located to be effective. Now begins the public hearing process
to gather additional information concerning the proposal so
that it can be fine-tuned to accomplish its objectives. The
time and area closure portion of the FMP was strongly supported
by the majority of the recreational fishing and conservation
organizations involved in the advisory process during the
development of the FMP, including The Billfish Foundation,
which has now shifted its effort away from the regulatory
process to seek a legislative solution, including a costly
buyout scheme.
NMFS detailed a total closure of the south Atlantic region
from South Carolina through the Straights of Florida year-round
and a seasonal closure of the entire western Gulf of Mexico
from the Mexican border through Louisiana from March 1 through
September 30 in the proposed rule. Following the procedures set
out in the Magnuson-Stevens Sustainable Fisheries Act, passed
by this body, NMFS is requesting public comment on the closure
areas and timing and is in the process of holding public
hearings. Once comments are reviewed, the final rule will be
developed and implementation could be in place for the 2001
fishing year.
The importance of accomplishing the time and area closures
through regulation, actually the correct venue for such
measures, is that no buyout burden will be placed on the
general public and recreational fishermen and no new permits
will be required of recreational fishermen. Provisions in the
Magnuson-Stevens Sustainable Fisheries Act allow the longline
industry to buyout boats effected by the closure through
special, low interest government loan program that would not
burden taxpayers and recreational fishermen that would be paid
back through the sale of fish products caught by the remaining
boats. No legislative buyout is necessary, period!
The entire concept of boat buyouts to reduce fleet size,
and, ostensibly, fishing effort is highly questionable when one
looks at what has happened in New England in the past few years
and what is occurring in the Pacific northwest right now. In
New England, the government has spent over $23 million to
purchase 79 commercial trawlers, $7 million in so-called
disaster relief for remaining fishermen who can't still can't
fish, and now an additional $15 million is being spend on
questionable scientific research to be conducted by idle
commercial fishing vessels. With over 45 million in taxpayer
dollars spent already, the fisheries off New England are still
in terrible shape and little, if any, reduction in fishing
effort has been realized. Whose to say the results of a
longliner buyout, which is actually a subsidy for the remaining
boats in the fleet as well, will have any better results.
Summary
The NMFS proposed rule accomplishes time and area closures
through the proper channels. It closes areas that longline,
recreational fishing and conservation organization
representatives, in the development of the HMS-FMP, agreed had
to be closed, However, it stops short of spending millions of
dollars to compensate longliners for their supposed economic
loss, even though they are the cause of that loss in the first
place.
In the case of H.R. 3390 and H.R. 3331, these legislative
efforts appear to be more focused on creating a compensation
package for commercial fishermen than conservation and
protection for juvenile swordfish and decimated billfish
stocks. We feel that it is not the place of Congress to
micromanage fisheries. We find it disturbing that these bills
contain provisions that prevent any regulatory action for an
additional four years during which time the need to further
protect these species and other marine animals could arise.
While H.R. 3331 begins the process of bring some measure of
conservation to H.R. 3390, in its current form, it falls far
short of the expectations of the majority of conservation and
recreational fishing groups. With an open and constructive
dialogue, this bill might be crafted into a real conservation
bill and one simply aimed at conserving the longline industry
and bailing out a portion of the fleet that is no longer
profitable.
In the opinion of the Jersey Coast Anglers Association,
it's time to take a step back and look at the motives of all
the groups involved and the benefits and downside of each
approach being put forward. We should establish a forum where
we can put all our heads together and do what is best for the
resource without taking punitive action against the
recreational fishermen who, we feel, are being used as a pawn
in this process, by pitting us against each other. The largest
number of recreational groups have agreed that the proper venue
for time and area closures is through the regulatory body
charged by law with doing it, the National Marine Fisheries
Service. The mechanism already exists in the law. While NMFS
has a less than stellar track record in the past, the agency
appears poised to do the right thing without Congress getting
in the way.
Further conservation efforts, if legislation proves
necessary, must be hammered out between the longline industry
and a more far more widely represented majority of the
recreational fishing and conservation communities than were
present at the negotiations that developed H.R. 3390. Any
suggestion that the three groups involved in that process
represent a majority of the recreational fishing and
conservation organizations is simply not accurate.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much.
Dr. Wilmot.
STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID WILMOT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LIVING
OCEANS PROGRAM, NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY
Dr. Wilmot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify today on behalf of the National Audubon
Society. National Audubon Society is a national conservation
organization with more than 550,000 members and, as a member of
the Ocean Wildlife Campaign, has advocated for bycatch
reduction measures in the pelagic longline fleet for years.
Minimizing bycatch and bycatch mortality is a fundamental
element of conserving marine wildlife and rebuilding depleted
populations of overfished and protected species. Large scale
time and area closures are a necessary part of any bycatch
reduction plan for the fleet, and we are pleased they are being
seriously considered.
NMFS proposed rule, H.R. 3331 and H.R. 3390 all propose
large area closures. In general, we concur with the areas
selected because they include areas with the highest bycatch
rates. We are studying the proposed rule in detail and will
recommend adjustments in the borders of the closed areas.
It is difficult to evaluate the conservation implications
of the area closures in the two bills because there is not a
detailed analysis available. We do, however, suggest that the
South Atlantic closure in the bills be expanded to include the
entire Charleston Bump area, which is known to have high
bycatch of juvenile swordfish.
It must be recognized that closures alone, even with a
buyout, may not be sufficient to guarantee significant bycatch
reduction because of the threat of displacement of fishing
effort.
NMFS's analysis of its own proposed closures shows that at
least some displacement is likely, and factoring in
displacement has a major effect on the biological benefits of
the closures. In order to have confidence that significant
bycatch reductions are realized, we recommend that landings of
vessels in closed areas--this is with or without a buyout--be
subtracted from the overall pelagic longline quota. We propose
expanding the effort in quota reductions detailed in H.R. 3331
beyond the mid-Atlantic to include the entire region. We also
support changes as suggested in H.R. 3331 to the Atlanta Tunas
Convention Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Act to accomplish this.
Providing for a quota reduction for longliners based on
closures will not result in effort reduction for the remaining
fleet or disadvantage U.S. fishermen. Commercial fishermen
don't have to lose quota. Commercial fishermen don't have to
lose quota because we can reallocate a portion of the swordfish
quota from the longliners to commercial fishermen using
selected gears--for example, harpoons or rod and reel. Give
these men the opportunity to catch the remaining swordfish
quota. This would allow the quota to be caught while minimizing
the risk of increasing bycatch.
The turtle situation has been raised. That is one of
particular concern because the turtle bycatch in the New
England area is so high, and if we have increased effort in
that area, we likely will see that problem exacerbated.
In fact, commercial fishermen in the New England area have
indicated to us that they will target swordfish with their
selected gears, provided that big fish return to the region.
We strongly support NMFS efforts to publish a final rule,
and we do not believe that NMFS is required to provide economic
relief for needed conservation in management efforts, however,
we could support legislation that establishes large scale time
and area closures to significantly reduce bycatch, and includes
a buyout, provided specific changes to existing legislation
proposals are incorporated. We believe there is an opportunity
to move forward with the legislation, and we welcome it.
We have additional issues that we would like to raise very
briefly. I have provided detailed comments in writing that you
have. The first one was raised this morning by Ms. Dalton and
several other panel members. This is the four-year, or longer,
prohibition on interim regulations. Monitoring, evaluation and
adjustment are critical to the success of any bycatch reduction
plan. Because of the uncertainty surrounding the effectiveness
of time and area closures, it is essential that any bycatch
reduction plan be designed from the onset to provide NMFS the
ability to manage in a flexible and adaptive manner. We
strongly oppose Sections 13 and 12 in H.R. 3331 and H.R. 3390,
respectively, because they deprive NMFS of this flexibility.
We also oppose the prohibition on closures going into
effect unless and until a buyout is completed. We believe
closures must go into effect whether or not a buyout takes
place.
The second issue is the need for onboard observers. Given
the uncertainty surrounding any large scale time and area
closures, we recommend that increased observer coverage should
be mandated so that we can reliably determine the effects of
the closures. In addition, we recommend the research program
proposed in H.R. 3331 and H.R. 3390 be expanded beyond just
billfish to include all species in geographic areas in the HMS
and billfish FMPs. In addition, the conservation community
should be included in all phases of the research programs
development and implementation.
The third issue is the need for a vessel monitoring system,
which is essential for enforcement of closed areas. NMFS'
current requirement that all longline vessels carry VMS should
remain in place. To do less would represent a rollback in
current regulations.
In closing, H.R. 3331 and H.R. 3390 require a huge
investment by the public to help conserve a valuable public
resource. We believe strongly that the public interest will be
served only if conservation takes precedence and the
legislation is revised to provide additional bycatch reduction
guarantees and protections for overfished and protected
species.
Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the opportunity to share our
thoughts on these challenging and important issues with the
Subcommittee, and we look forward to working with you in the
future. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Wilmot follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.056
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much.
I would like to thank each of you for articulating your
positions. It has been an interesting process to date.
If I may just reflect on what has occurred. For years,
members of this Committee, including me, have anxiously awaited
the rule that would provide for the limited entry as a
prerequisite to implementing a conservation plan, buyout, what
have you--closures, buyouts, et cetera. I was encouraged to a
large degree when NMFS put the limited entry rule in place, and
thought that we could move forward. But in moving forward, it
seems to me that we have at this point several options. We can
find a consensus, or not. And if we don't, then the legislation
would proceed to run over somebody's interest--I am not quite
sure whose it would be at this point because I don't see a
consensus among the members of the Subcommittee either--or we
could do nothing, I suppose, and I am not sure that that serves
conservation's needs. And so in order to try to bridge the gap,
I met over months with all of you and other interested parties,
and listened to all sides, understand that we need conservation
effort, understand that NMFS has an important role to play,
tried to listen and move toward a consensus--incidentally, I
didn't introduce my bill for talking purposes. I introduced my
bill as a serious effort--and then we tried to take the
proposal that was arrived at by three coalition members to my
left and your right, and we tried to add some provisions to it
to solve the problems of the mid-Atlantic Bight, which had to
do basically with displacement.
We provided for a second buyout, which is optional. We
provided for a 10-percent limit on increased effort by longline
boats/fishermen, and we included a provision which said that
displaced boats, if that is the correct term, could increase
their days at sea in the mid-Atlantic Bight by no more than 10
percent of what they had done on average in the mid-Atlantic
Bight between 1992 and 1997. I figured we were moving toward
some kind of a compromise.
And so Congress broke right after we introduced the bill,
and I left Washington with the intent of spending my break
talking about this issue with all interested parties. First, I
met with the longline fishermen, explained my provisions,
talked about it for a couple of hours, explored possibilities,
and at the end of the day there was no movement.
And I went and met with members of the conservation
community, members of the recreational community. After about
three and a half hours, there was movement toward more
conservation and more stringent measures.
So my efforts in closing the gap had just the opposite
effect, it broadened the gap. So we are not moving toward
consensus. So that means that somehow or another, as chairman
of this Committee, I have two other choices. Since we are not
moving toward consensus, I can do nothing, or I can hold a
series of hearings and see if a consensus develops, or I can
try to develop a consensus among Members of this Committee
which none of you are going to end up liking. So, I am a little
frustrated with the process because we haven't seemed to move
together in any meaningful way.
And so I guess my question is, inasmuch as we don't appear
to be moving toward a consensus, and inasmuch as I doubt if the
Members of the Subcommittee are going to mark up something
where there is no consensus, I guess my question is, to whoever
wants to respond, where do we go from here? Mr. Stone?
Mr. Stone. Mr. Chairman, since no one else has spoken up, I
will try just to say a few words. First, we are pleased with
your attempt to try to come up with a consensus. I think, as I
stated in my testimony, that it is important that we pull
fisheries folks together, both the fishermen and conservation
community, and try to solve bycatch problems. There is no
question, it is a problem. However, there is a process--what
the organizations I represent are concerned about is that by
going through the legislative route, we are getting away from a
process that has been set up, an interactive management
process. There is an advisory panel. There is the ICCAT
Advisory Committee. And what I would hope is that we could work
within that process that is already set up and come up with
something to solve the problem.
Now, it is going to be difficult, no question about it, but
it is going to be difficult, as you pointed out, under any
scenario, and it is just a concern of the groups that I
represent that if we go with a legislative approach--what you
are proposing, there is no problem with what you are proposing
in the sense of the closed areas, the buyout, things like that.
It is just that that takes the management authority really away
from NMFS. It just disrupts the management process that has
been put into place.
So, we would hope that it could be done somehow within the
process that has been set up. Thank you.
Mr. Saxton. Any other comments?
Mr. Delaney. I will take a shot. Just to clarify, I said in
my statement, I believe, that it was my understanding that the
provisions, the additional provisions that were added to your
bill were particularly for the purposes of discussion, but at
the same time we have provided discussion on those issues. And
in my testimony, I think we made clear that Blue Water
Fishermen's Association is not supportive of the second buyback
in the mid-Atlantic area. It does not support unilateral
actions through amending the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act or
through unilateral reductions in swordfish quota for a number
of reasons we have articulated in our testimony. But at the
same time, as my testimony indicates, we are very sensitive to
your concern about displacement into the mid-Atlantic Bight and
do feel, as I stated in my testimony, that we would like to
work with you on the provision that specifically addresses
monitoring and looking at the issue of increased fishing effort
in the mid-Atlantic bight as a consequence of the closed areas,
particularly those in the South Atlantic region.
So, we do see that area as a productive area for
discussion, which I think there can be movement when we fully
develop and further develop our thoughts and ideas about how
most effectively to address that concern.
It is a very difficult issue to deal with in displacement,
and about the only thing we can say with any certainty at this
point is that any of the vessels who accept the buyback will
not be displaced. Beyond that, we can offer you indications and
assumptions that may be somewhat anecdotal based on our, and my
client's extensive knowledge of the industry as to what is
likely to occur. Until the program is implemented, it is very
difficult to predict precisely what will be the results of
those time/area closures, and who will accept a buyback, and
what vessels are capable of fishing where and where they will
go.
So, to address that issue in a more general way seems
preferable, such as the approach I think you took in section 12
of your bill. We would like to work with you, as I said in my
testimony, on that provision to try to address that issue.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you. Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, as you had stated earlier,
the attendance our friends at this hearing certainly a
reflection of the complexity of the issue now before us.
We have got, obviously, four competing interests. You have
got the conservationists. You have got the recreational
aspects. You have got the commercial, and also the regulatory.
I seem to hear interesting comments here that some of you are
satisfied with NMFS performance, and I hear otherwise.
Do I get a sense from you gentlemen that you are satisfied
with the current workings and functionings of the National
Marine Fisheries in providing the resources and the things that
are needful, whether it be commercial or recreational, in terms
of its regulatory authority under current statutes, or do you
feel that the current proposal is going way beyond what you
would envision? I mean, I am just asking a general question
here. If I could get some responses, please.
I am glad we have our friend here from ICCAT because I have
some questions for Mr. Delaney as well.
Mr. Hayes. Let me see if I can answer at least from a
coastal conservation standpoint this issue of administration
versus doing this in a fashion which we propose, which is do it
legislatively.
We don't think the National Marine Fisheries Service has
either the capability or the legislative authority to do what
we are trying to do in this legislation. They will tell you
that they can create a buyout. Those set of regulations, I
believe, have been about two and a half years in the making,
have been designed for another buyout up in Alaska. They have
no relationship to what is going on in this fishery or probably
any other fishery than the one they are being designed for.
Lord knows how long it is going to be before those regulations
come out and set up a framework in which they can operate.
Secondly, in the Gulf of Mexico, this distinction that we
made where we drew a line out to 500 fathoms and simply took
that for about a 105-day period and just pushed those boats
out, in some cases, 50 miles and in some cases about 125 miles.
The National Marine Fisheries Service is going to look at
that proposal and they are going to publish a regulation that
looks exactly like the one they have published, which says ``We
will close it all off of Texas, and for you Coastal
Conservation Association members that live in Florida and
Alabama and Louisiana and Mississippi, you lucky guys, you get
what is coming because it is coming from Texas''. We tried to
design something that would prevent the displacement of those
vessels, and we think we did that.
Now, if you were to look at what we did legislatively, or
proposed legislatively, it is probably arbitrary from a purely
scientific standpoint, but it does solve the overriding
problem. National Marine Fisheries Service has a standard by
which it publishes regulations which doesn't allow it to be
arbitrary. It has to do things based on science, and based on
the impact that it would have on existing communities when they
put those regulations in place. They can't draw that line, and
that line is vitally important to us as recreational fishermen.
We don't see how NMFS has the capability to do what is in the
legislation.
I can tell you that one of the basic hallmarks of the
Coastal Conservation Association is that we work inside the
system, and we try to work with regulators. We are in 15
states, we have 17 state lobbyists. I can tell you, we are
working inside the system in lots of places.
We don't normally come to Congress and ask Congress to do
specific management measures. In fact, under normal
circumstances, we would never take this route. We took this
route because we don't think the Fisheries Service can do what
needs to be done.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Wilmot?
Dr. Wilmot. I'd just like to very briefly add to this. On
the buyout side, it may be true that NMFS is not in a position
to be able to address this issue, but our biggest concern on
this is that in looking at it, this is the beginning of a
solution, not the end. This will potentially benefit
conservation. Depending on how it is crafted, it could have a
significant impact, but it is still only the beginning.
This is directed at a couple of species in particular, the
billfishes including the swordfish. It is not looking at other
species. For example, pelagic sharks. They are not overfished
right now. They may be designated as overfished in the very
near future.
The point is that we can't really anticipate all of the
problems that are going to come up in the next short period of
time that NMFS will need to be able to respond to. This
legislation has very strong language that limits dramatically
how NMFS will respond to this problem. The rhetoric is there.
It is a first step. We know more has to be done. The language
is very Draconian and holds back. NMFS needs the flexibility,
and that is why I think in Mr. Stone's testimony and our
testimony we feel it is essential that NMFS have this
flexibility now and in the future to address this problem as it
evolves.
I can promise you, this will not solve the bycatch problem
of highly migratory species. None of us sitting here believe
that. The key is, how best do we take the second step. And many
of us fear that this will inhibit the second step that will be
needed.
Mr. Faleomavaega. My sense in reading the provisions of the
bill, there is no restriction that provides for NMFS to monitor
and to analyze the situation, unless I am wrong on this.
Dr. Wilmot. The section 12 and 13 language that basically
puts a four-year prohibition, a time-out as some have called
it, actually raises the bar quite high, requiring that
emergency action be taken by NMFS limiting it to actions on
highly migratory species, not other species, including
protected species such as turtles. So, we actually believe the
language in sections 12 and 13 in H.R. 3390 and H.R. 3331,
respectively, is very, very----
Mr. Faleomavaega. So your concern is that the language is
not as inclusive of other species, but are more specific on
these certain species that the legislation has addressed.
Dr. Wilmot. Correct.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Stone.
Mr. Stone. Just to elaborate a little bit more on what Dr.
Wilmot said, we do believe it is very important to conduct the
research and monitoring, and because of the flexibility needed,
to look at what is happening.
We have all stated that we don't know exactly what is going
to happen with the relocation or shift of effort or whatever,
and so there could be some things that could be damaging to the
other stocks. And they need to have the capability to move on
it quickly, not to wait for four years to do something.
And to address your question about is NMFS doing a good
job, I think a lot of people feel like NMFS doesn't do as good
a job as it should, and it varies by species/groups that we are
talking about. But we think that when NMFS does try to do
something, that Congress can find ways. I know when I worked
for National Marine Fisheries Service, they could find ways to
put pressure on us to do certain things--other than through
legislation is what I am talking about.
And so I think you have the capability to have influence,
and there are things, such as the buyout and the research
program, where there needs to be some help, but we are just
concerned that the process remains interactive.
Mr. Caputi. Specifically to your question about whether we
are comfortable with NMFS doing a good job, probably quite the
opposite is true. NMFS, on its own with highly migratory
species, has taken a long time to develop regulations for
specific species. Those regulations now are being finalized
with their time and area proposals which are supposed to be one
of the highlights of that Fisheries management plan.
In different arenas, NMFS has done a better job and,
unfortunately, in those arenas, the job being done is impacted
politically. Take a look at the council system. I sit on the
Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council. We have a relatively
balanced council as far as commercial, recreational and
conservation membership. If you look at councils in other areas
of the United States, those councils are heavily biased by one
user group or the other, usually commercial. And the job that
they do is impacted dramatically by that bias.
You only have to look to New England or some of the Pacific
councils to see the type of situation that their fisheries are
in and the reasons for those, and I think Congress could help
NMFS do a better job by enforcing the Magnuson Act provisions
that call for councils to be more balanced. So, in some cases,
NMFS' job is impacted politically. In other cases, the job that
NMFS does is impacted by competing pressures.
One of the things I would like to say is the proceedings
that we are dealing with here today I think set the stage for
us to do something in probably the most difficult Fisheries
management arena there is, and that is pelagic fisheries. There
are no simple answers. There never has been.
The Chairman, after many, many years of dealing with this,
I am sure, can attest to that. But I don't see the process that
has been started here with either of these bills or with what
NMFS is doing as an end, I see it as a beginning. I would like
to see the Chairman and this Committee put together a forum to
continue the discussions and to continue the work that has been
started between a wider range of recreational fishing groups,
bring in the conservation community that in some cases has been
left out of the process, and the commercial longliners, and see
if we can't hammer out a more conservation oriented bill that
still takes care of people economically.
Mr. Hayes. Can I take a moment to make a comment on this
timeout provision. I think people, frankly, before they become
overly critical of it, ought to read it because I think it is
fairly explicit in what it says.
It was designed to ensure that the scientific research that
is in the bill would be conducted before you made adjustments
to the areas that are closed. That was its intent. Limitation
in there doesn't limit the National Marine Fisheries Service
from doing the research, conducting the research, doing the
analysis. It doesn't limit anyone from coming back to Congress.
If we could do that, wouldn't that be a wonderful thing. People
would love us for that, but I think that is pretty unlikely. I
don't think you could do that to yourself.
It doesn't limit the National Marine Fisheries Service from
taking any other form of conservation regulation or measure
that they deem necessary. They could adjust the hook size, the
length of the lines, the soak times. There are all sorts of
things the National Marine Fisheries Service could do.
What it does limit them to do, it says if you are going to
adjust those time and area closures, then, frankly, you can't
do that unless there is a resource emergency. They could even
do that if they could demonstrate that there was a resource
emergency.
Now, there are some consultation requirements in there.
There are some requirements that they at least have to consult
with commissioners, look at the ICCAT recommendations. There
are things like that which are findings, essentially, and
things that they would have to do, but it is not a raising of
the bar that it is so high that you have tied the hands of the
National Marine Fisheries Service.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, as you know, earlier I raised the
issue of the boundaries that were drawn by the National Marine
Fisheries Service as comparison to Congressman Saxton and
Senator Breaux' sense of boundaries in this EEZ, if you will,
and it is quite different, in my humble opinion, at least what
I found here.
And the question I raise, was it because their studies were
more scientific, or is it just by adjusting these boundaries?
Was there any reason behind these differences? And I would like
to ask Mr. Delaney if any of this has any impact on ICCAT's
mission, or are we in compliance with ICCAT's function and
everything that we expected it to be?
Mr. Delaney. Thank you. I appreciate that question. First
of all, the general concepts that we are trying to address here
to substantially decrease our bycatch in small swordfish and
billfish, I would say, far exceed our requirements at ICCAT,
our international obligation.
I would also note that the United States accounts for
approximately 5 percent of the total harvest by all ICCAT
nations, of ICCAT managed species, highly migratory species.
We cannot manage this resource alone. We can terminate all
of our highly migratory species in the Atlantic Ocean, and it
would have absolutely no positive conservation effect. In fact,
I would strongly argue it would have a negative conservation
effect because we would be turning our fish, our allocations,
our quotas, back over to those nations to do a far worse job in
terms of compliance in bycatch conservation. So, we are way,
way ahead of the curve in terms of ICCAT with this proposal.
What the three main parties sitting here today agreed,
though, was an important objective was to establish in the
United States basically a model that we could take to ICCAT and
advocate and say, ``See, this is what we were able to
accomplish through time/area closures in terms of bycatch
reduction, we ought to apply these same ideas and principles on
the international level to achieve far greater and what would
be truly meaningful reductions in bycatch throughout the
Atlantic''.
We talk about big numbers here in this bill and in my
presentation, big percentages of reduction in bycatch. That is
in the U.S. EEZ. If you compare that to the Atlantic-wide
effect, it is rather minimal.
What we need is international cooperation to do the very
same things we have done on a very micro-scale here.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Do you suggest, Mr. Delaney, that we are
not doing enough in pushing ICCAT to have a little higher
standard than just for the United States and its fishing
industry to do the same?
See, my problem here is I heard somebody mention about
imported swordfish. If we are to consider our own local
industry--of course, I know that we import about $7 billion
worth of fish from foreign countries because we don't produce
enough domestically--but there was some mention about imported
swordfish. It gives me the idea that all other foreign
countries are catching, they don't care whether it is small or
big or whatever measures, as compared to the restrictions that
we have set upon our own commercial fishing industry.
So, I suppose when we see this imported swordfish coming
from other countries in Europe, it does raise a concern. If I
were a commercial fisherman, I would be really ticked off.
Mr. Saxton. If the gentleman would yield.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I would be glad to yield to the Chairman.
Mr. Saxton. On that point, the United States has developed
a great appetite for swordfish, and obviously that has created
a good situation for commercial fishermen in this country, but
it also has given rise to the importation of large amounts of
swordfish.
And as Ernie suggested, we might want to look at doing
something with that. As a matter of fact, we are in the process
of drafting a bill which takes note of the fact that last
summer NMFS, with the assistance of the Customs Service and
other U.S. agencies, implemented a system which prohibits the
importation of undersized Atlantic swordfish, and we are now
looking at legislation which we will introduce under a separate
bill because it will be referred to the Ways and Means
Committee, that would prohibit fish caught by foreign fishermen
and fleets in excess of ICCAT conservation quotas from being
imported in the United States as well.
So, hopefully we will have the opportunity to leverage
through that legislation some international conservation effect
with regard to swordfish.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, I hope it will include the
Pacific as well.
Mr. Saxton. Ernie wanted to make a comment.
Mr. Panacek. Yes, I just wanted to comment briefly on the
import situation, too, just to convey that our American
fishermen are very frustrated and they are very discouraged
with that influx of foreign countries sending the swordfish in
and reducing the American fishermen's prices to a great extent,
when we are all involved, foreign countries and the United
States, and the United States is trying to make that position
that the American fishermen are doing the best they can to
conserve this resource, and I think we have to pursue that, and
we have to pursue it aggressively.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you, gentlemen.
Mr. Saxton. Mr. Pallone.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to ask
Gary Caputi a couple of questions. Actually, I guess I can make
them one question. I have your statement, but I obviously
wasn't here when you and the rest of the panel made your
statements orally.
With regard to the two bills, Mr. Saxton and Mr. Goss'
bill, what evidence do you have that the closed areas in the
Gulf of Mexico and off South Carolina, Georgia and northern
Florida might be ineffective. And then following up on that,
can you expand on your concerns about an effort shift to the
mid-Atlantic region and the implications for the resource and
the recreational fishing industry?
Mr. Caputi. Certainly, Congressman Pallone. I did have the
opportunity to address those a little bit earlier while you
were out of the room.
One of the businesses that I am involved in is a high tech
business that provides satellite ocean temperature charts for
recreational fishermen throughout the Gulf of Mexico, Florida,
South Atlantic and the mid-Atlantic States. And one of the
things that we have done--and we have provided Congressman
Saxton with some of the information--was detailing specific
charts that track the Gulf Stream, its currents, throughout the
Gulf States, the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic region.
And one of the areas that has been targeted in recent years
by recreational fishermen and by longliners, are temperature
gradients--and the Gulf Stream loop creates the largest
temperature gradient. Areas of great temperature change have a
tendency to amass bait fish and to amass specific types of
target species like billfish and swordfish. And one of the
rules of thumb that we used looking at the area closures was
the location of the Gulf Stream and its loop currents in the
Gulf of Mexico compared to where the breakoff line was at the
500-fathom curve for the proposed close areas in the two bills,
and noted that the Gulf Stream and its loop currents are well
outside of those boundaries. So we feel that while possibly in
years past the greatest bycatch of billfish and juvenile
swordfish was more in-shore, in recent years longline activity
seems to have been taking place further offshore along the
edges of the Stream and in those loop currents. So that is one
of the reasons that we made those comments, and we have
provided that information to any number of sources around the
table and on the Subcommittee.
Concerning the displacement, yes, there is any number of
groups, the two that I am here commenting on today, the New
Jersey Coast Anglers Association and the New Jersey Federation
of Sportsmen's Clubs, we are seriously concerned with an influx
of longline activity into the New York Bight, the mid-Atlantic
Bight area in particular, because it is such a vibrant
recreational fishery.
As you know, being a Representative from New Jersey, the
canyon areas between North Carolina and off of Long Island,
through that area, are prize recreational fishing destinations.
We have had our pelagic fisheries that used to occur closer to
short--bluefin tuna, pelagic sharks--pretty much decimated over
the last 25 years, and hence the recreational fishery has moved
further offshore into the canyons, and it depends heavily on
yellowfin tuna and also white marlin and blue marlin which
occur very heavily in those areas. And in recent years,
surprisingly enough, a large number of juvenile swordfish are
being caught and released by recreational fishermen through the
canyon areas. So, an increase in longline activity in those
areas is something that we really worry about and would like to
see addressed in the bills.
H.R. 3331, Congressman Saxton's bill, begins to do that,
and we would just like to see more discussion on that topic.
Thank you.
Mr. Pallone. And you said that information that you talked
about earlier is being disseminated to everyone so they will
all have it.
Mr. Caputi. Yes.
Mr. Stone. Congressman Pallone, if I could, I would like to
say that the Recreational Fishing Alliance also is concerned
about shift in effort, and that is one of the reasons why, as I
said in my testimony, they would support Congressman Saxton's
bill. Thank you.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you. I just want to thank all of you
again for being here to share your thoughts with us today. Just
by way of announcement, we had tentatively scheduled a hearing
to accommodate Mr. Goss and people in Florida who are
interested in this subject for February 23. Unfortunately, Mr.
Goss can't make it that day, and so we will have to go back to
the drawing board on that effort. So, that would have been the
next step in the process.
We also are planning a Northeast hearing at some future
date after the Florida hearing, so we will get back to all of
you with regard to that information at a later time.
Unless there are other questions at this point, the hearing
will be adjourned. Thank you very much again for being here.
[Whereupon, at 1:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]