NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
                       JOINT MEETING OF THE BILLFISH 
                          AND HMS ADVISORY PANELS
       
       
                          Thursday, June 10, 1999
       
                                 1:00 p.m.
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
                            NOAA Science Center
                           1301 East-West Highway
                          Silver Spring, Maryland
              
       PARTICIPANTS: 
       
       Irby Basco
       Nelson Beideman
       Randy Blankinship
       Raymond Bogan
       Karyl Brewster-Geisz
       Jose Campos
       Maumus Claverie
       Jack Dunnigan
       James Donofrio
       Bob Eakes
       Robert Fitzpatrick
       Sonja Fordham
       John Graves
       Robert Hayes
       Robert Hueter
       Ed Irby
       Pete Jensen
       Gail Johnson
       Rob Kramer
       Rebecca Lent
       Steven Loga
       Linda Lucas
       Gary Matlock
       Joe McBride
       Charlie Moore
       Russell Nelson
       Ellen Peel
       Corky Perett
       Richard Ruais
       Carl Safina
       Mark Sampson
       Robert Spaeth
       Alan Weiss
       Peter Weiss
       David Wilmot
       John Wingard
       Robert Zales
       
                                     C O N T E N T S
       
                                                                PAGE
       
       Welcome/General Information/Overview of 
       AP Meeting Objectives                                       8
       
       Summary/Overview of HMS Framework Issues                   11
       
       Presentations & Discussion:  Time/Area Closures            21
       
       Public Comment                                            153                           P R O C E E D I N G S
                 MS. LENT:  Good afternoon and welcome.  Okay,
       welcome.  Please take a seat.  I believe this is like
       our 16th or 17th meeting if you count all the advisory
       panels, and it's probably the third or fourth joint
       meeting.  Probably most importantly, this is our first
       joint meeting of the APs, or any AP meeting, since the
       final FMP and amendment and rule have been out so this
       is the start of our new beginning which is using our
       blueprint and moving forward.
                 For those of you I haven't met yet, my name is
       Rebecca Lent.  I am the chief of the Highly Migratory
       Species Management Division.  Gary Matlock was planning
       on being here today but he had an unexpected court date
       and he's not here, nor is Miriam McCall.  Jack
       Dunnigan, who is our moderator for this joint meeting,
       gracefully gave up the one seat left on the plane this
       morning so that I could get here on time and he'll be
       here in about an hour and Jack Dunnigan will be our
       moderator.
                 Just on other housekeeping issues, you've all
       got your agenda.  We will be circulating a packet of
       information relative to how to get your refund.  It's a
       very important process.  Be sure and follow all the
       directions.
                 Also, I would note that tomorrow morning at 8
       o'clock we will have a meeting for only folks on the
       HMS AP.  It's open to the public so billfish are
       welcome to come, but because we're discussing an issue
       that's relevant only to the HMS FMP that will be the
       priority is to call on those folks to speak and then
       we'll hear from folks on the floor as well.
                 And just relative to the agenda then, I'm
       going to speak for probably much less than an hour.  We
       want to move right into some of our presentations
       relative to the time/area closures.   After the break
       from 4:00 to 6:00 we'll have a public comment period
       and I hope that all of the members of the public, and
       perhaps even more importantly, the members of the AP
       will stick around to listen to the comments from folks
       from the floor.
                 Before we go any further, I would like to go
       around the table.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MS. LENT:  Yeah, just a quick announcement
       regarding handouts.  We'll have more copies of the
       billfish amendment and volume three of the FMP later
       this afternoon.  Apparently there has been a bomb scare
       or some kind of a scare and they had to evacuate our
       building.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  It was a fire.
                 MS. LENT:  It was a fire scare.  That's better
       than a bomb scare.  Thank you.  And we can't get back
       in there.  Or, can we get back in now?
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Yes.
                 MS. LENT:  We're back in.  We're back in
       business.  Okay, so let me go around the table starting
       on my left.
                 MS. LURES:  I'm Katherine Lures.  I work with
       Miriam McCall in NOAA GC.  
                 MR. SUTTER:  Buck Sutter, Billfish Team
       leader.
                 MR. BLANKENSHIP:  Randy Blankinship, Texas
       Parks and Wildlife Department from Brownsville, Texas.
                 MR. KRAMER:  Rob Kramer, Florida Department of
       Environmental Protection.
                 MS. PEEL:  Ellen Peel, the Billfish
       Foundation, Fort Lauderdale.
                 MR. MOORE:  Charlie Moore, South Carolina DNR.
                 MR. NELSON:  Russell Nelson, Director of
       Marine Fisheries, Florida.
                 MR. HUETER:  Bob Hueter, Mote Marine
       Laboratory.
                 MR. JENSEN:  Pete Jensen, Maryland Fisheries
       and the Mid-Atlantic Council.
                 MR. FITZPATRICK:  Robert Fitzpatrick, Maguro
       America.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  Nelson Beideman, Blue Water
       Fisherman's Association.
                 MS. JOHNSON:  Gail Johnson, fishing vessel
       Seneca.
                 MR. HUDSON:  Russ Hudson, directed shark.
                 MR. SPAETH:  Bob Spaeth, Southern Offshore
       Fishing Association.
                 MR. SANOVA:  Miguel Sanova, chairperson,
       Caribbean Fishing Council.
                 MR. WILMOT:  David Wilmot, Ocean Wildlife
       Campaign.      
                 MR. DUNN:  Russ Dunn, Ocean Wildlife Campaign,
       filling in for Carl Safina.
                 MR. LOGA:  Steven Loga, Tuna Fresh,
       Incorporated, Louisiana.
                 MR. GRAVES:  John Graves, Virginia Institute
       of Marine Science representing the ICCAT Advisory
       Committee members.
                 MS. LENT:  And just -- and Corky.  And Ed, do
       you want to introduce -- 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  Mau Claverie, Gulf Council.
                 MS. LENT:  Thank you.  Thank you very much. 
       All right, let me just do a quick recap of the meeting
       objectives.  This is something that Gary wanted to do
       this afternoon but, as I said, he wasn't able to be
       with us.
                 The objective of the meeting is to focus on
       two issues that we want to work on for continued
       management of highly migratory species, and these are
       issues which could be addressed through the framework
       provisions of the plan.  The first issue is time/area
       closures for reducing bi-catch and the focus there is
       on juvenile swordfish and billfish as well as other
       factors and fish, and the second issue is the cap on
       the purse seine bluefin tuna quota allocation.
                 As we review these issues, we would expect
       advisory panel members to base their input and their
       comments on how the various options for addressing
       these issues could help us or not help us meet the
       objectives of our fishery management plan.  
                 The new world order is we now have a Fishery
       Management Plan for highly migratory species.  We have
       Amendment One for billfish.  We are also managing some
       of these species -- well, tunas for the first time --
       under Magnuson-Stevens so we have to consider for all
       of the species what the impacts are, what are the
       aspects relative to the national standards, so keep
       those in mind.  I'm going to do a quick overview of the
       framework process and of the objectives in a second.
                 And we know that there is a lot of interest in
       many other issues other than these two.  We would ask
       that as those issues come up we just keep a list of
       them and that we discuss them tomorrow afternoon when
       we have a space on our agenda for other topics.  In
       fact, we want to make sure that tomorrow afternoon we
       have a chance to get some input from the advisory panel
       and, if possible, from folks on the floor.  And we'll
       hear from the folks tonight on other priority issues
       that you think we need to address.
                 As I said, the final FMP is not the final
       word.  It's our blueprint for the future.  It's our
       framework under which we're going to operate, and we
       know that there is just as much, if not more, work
       ahead of us than we had in getting these plans
       together.  
                 Okay?  So that's relative to the objectives of
       the meeting.  Any questions on that?  Mau.
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  Rebecca, do you have any
       corrections or addenda to the regulations because, if
       you do, we'd like to hear them tonight before thinking
       about it overnight.
                 MS. LENT:  I don't have any pre-prepared, but
       we will have a technical amendment shortly.  And, Mau,
       if you have a list we'd be pleased if you could help
       us.
                 Any other questions relative to the objectives
       of this meeting?  
                 (No response.)
                 MS. LENT:  Okay, then let's move on into a
       quick summary and overview of the framework issues. 
       Now, we had available for handouts the sections of the
       FMP and the amendment that discuss the framework
       procedure for these plans as well as the objectives,
       and in the case of billfish we had the objectives in
       the original FMP, plus the new ones under amendment
       one.  So pull those out and keep those in front of you.
                 Again, what we're trying to do is make sure
       that as we discuss these issues we make an argument for
       or against how one option might or might not help us
       meet that objective.
                 So the framework provisions under both HMS and
       billfish allow us to make adjustments to the
       regulations in a fashion that involves rulemaking,
       proposals, public hearings, final rules, all sorts of
       analyses, slightly more quick or slightly more
       expediently than under an amendment process, but not
       much.  The amendment process -- the rulemaking process
       under Highly Migratory Species is pretty thorough in
       terms of its input and meaning.
                 The adjustments to these regulations should
       meet the management objectives of the FMP as well as
       the national standards.  You base the needs for
       adjustment on the annual safe report as well as
       deliberations that we have right here in the advisory
       panel and, again, tomorrow afternoon we'll be looking
       at other hot issues as they come out.
                 By the way, as you know, we already have our
       first proposed rule issued under the framework
       provisions of the plan, and that is a proposed rule
       relative to the use of spotter planes in bluefin tuna,
       so that we're already underway with our blueprint for
       the future.
                 The FMP and EIS which we've already prepared
       constitutes the safe report for 1999 and then each year
       starting in the year 2000 we'll have a new safe report.
                 In the case of time/area closures, I just want
       to add a quick footnote relative to the public
       comments.  Virtually all the comments we received from
       the recreational constituency, from the commercial
       constituency, from the environmental community,
       indicated that the time/area closure that we had
       proposed would be ineffective.  One of the biggest
       concerns was that it was too small and that there might
       be fishing around the edge and that the displaced
       effort would just obliterate any benefits from this
       time/area closure.  
                 So we went back to the drawing board and we've
       conducted some more analyses and it's in the light of
       those new analyses that we wanted to, as soon as we
       could, call this meeting because this is an issue that
       we considered top priority.  It really needs to be
       addressed and, indeed, it's been a criticism of the FMP
       since it's been out.
                 Now take a look at your management objectives
       in the HMS FMP and billfish FMP.  Just very quickly,
       you might want to check off some of those, first of
       all, that we feel would be relevant to looking at
       time/area closures.  Under the HMS FMP there is the
       objective to minimize to the extent practicable bi-
       catch of living marine resources.  Obviously, that's a
       key point here.
                 There are also several objectives related to
       overfishing and rebuilding of these stocks.  If we're
       reducing juvenile mortality or bi-catch mortality,
       we're contributing to rebuilding.  
                 We also have an objective to minimize to the
       extent possible economic displacement and other adverse
       impacts on fishing communities as we transit from
       overfished to healthy ones.  That's relevant as well.
                 And, of course, objectives related to the
       ICCAT -- to implementing ICCAT recommendations.  We do
       have an ICCAT recommendation that says we should
       minimize the bi-catch of juvenile swordfish as well as
       billfish.  
                 And in the billfish FMP, again, minimizing bi-
       catch and discard mortality, all the objectives related
       to overfishing, minimizing the adverse social and
       economic effects to the extent practicable, ICCAT
       implementations and, from the original FMP for
       billfish, maintaining the highest availability of
       billfish to the recreational fishery. 
                 Under the national standards of course for bi-
       catch, which you want to refer to as National Standard
       Nine.  National Standard One is also relevant, optimum
       yield.  National Standard Eight, taking into account
       the effects on communities.  National Standard Ten is
       also an issue as we look at time/area closures, safety
       at sea.  We want to make sure we're doing what we can
       to minimize the effects on the safety of fishing
       vessels.
                 For the purse seine cap we'll be talking about
       this again starting tomorrow morning at 8:00.  We'll
       have, of course, public comment and discussion at 4
       o'clock today.  
                 Objectives in the HMS FMP that might be
       relevant:  minimizing to the extent practicable
       economic displacement and other adverse impacts on
       fishing communities; providing the data necessary for
       assessing fish stocks; consistent with other objectives
       of the FMP, managing for optimum yield, to provide
       recreational opportunities, preserve traditional
       fisheries, et cetera; better coordinate domestic
       conservation and management of the fisheries
       considering...historical fishing patterns and
       participation.
                 Under the national standards, some of the
       standards you might want to consider in evaluating
       options relative to the bluefin tuna purse seine cap,
       conservation and management measures should not
       discriminate between residents of different states,
       allocations should be fair and equitable, et cetera.
                 National Standard Five, no measure shall have
       economic allocation as its sole purpose.  National
       Standard Eight, again, a sustained participation of
       communities, minimizing adverse economic impacts on
       such communities.  
                 So that's just a little bit of background and
       encouraging you to rely upon the FMP objectives, rely
       upon the national standards as you review those and
       interpret them relative to the different options we
       have for the issues that we're discussing.  That helps
       us write a better rule, if indeed we proceed with
       rulemaking, and it helps us support what the different
       alternatives would be, the pros and the cons, and how
       they help us with our fishery management objectives. 
                 Okay?  Any questions relative to that?  Yes,
       Mau.
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  As you are aware, I want to add
       another criteria but it's really probably a subset of
       one.  Do we do that now or later, and just how do we go
       about doing that?
                 MS. LENT:  Why don't you go ahead, Mau.
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  Okay, I've got to get my act
       together because I just got these papers.  Objective
       one in the billfish plan is -- not objective, problem. 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible) microphone
       (inaudible).
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  Okay, sorry.  All these mikes
       work different.  Is that okay?  
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  Can you turn the thing up? 
       Okay.  In the billfish plan problem one, not objective
       one, problem one, is intense competition for the
       available resource between the recreational fishery for
       billfish and the other fisheries that have a bi-catch
       of billfish.  
                 And I want to add that in as a subcriteria
       under one of the objectives in the billfish FMP but I'm
       looking through to see which one.  It's the one about -
       - apparently number eight.  I think that's where it
       would go.  I'm not locked in on that.  There might be a
       better place elsewhere.
                 MS. LENT:  Okay, thank you, Mau.  
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  So I don't know how that gets
       done but -- 
                 MS. LENT:  You've made that statement on the
       floor and when folks are discussing the pros and the
       cons I think -- hit that button again, Mau -- we can
       consider that.  
                 The emphasis is on reducing bi-catch of
       juvenile swordfish and billfish.  There are other
       factors to consider including protected species,
       including economic displacement, safety, interaction
       between different gear types.  That's certainly part of
       the discussion in the pros and the cons.
                 Any other comments relative to this?  And,
       Rich, why don't you introduce yourself.  You missed -- 
                 MR. RUAIS:  Rich Ruais, East Coast Tuna
       Association.  Sorry for being a few minutes late.  Are
       you on the agenda right now or are you past that?  I
       just had a comment on the agenda.
                 MS. LENT:  Well, I guess we didn't do a formal
       adoption of the agenda.  Would you like to do that?
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. RUAIS:  Thank you, Mau.  I appreciate
       that.
                 MS. LENT:  Go ahead.  We sort of went over it
       quickly.
                 MR. RUAIS:  Okay.  Well, the comment I had was
       that on the draft agenda I recall there was an item on
       the second day where there was going to be a
       presentation on the purse seine cap and now I see that
       it's just a discussion.  And that's fine with me.  
                 I'm not suggesting you need to do any kind of
       a presentation, but if there is going to be anything
       from the agency though, I was going to ask that you put
       it prior to the public comment period today rather than
       wait until tomorrow, recognizing that it would probably
       be short whatever it was you were going to do anyways.
                 MS. LENT:  Thanks, Rich, for that comment.  In
       fact, the main points that I wanted to make was here we
       go, we have something we can do under frameworking,
       what is frameworking all about, what are the management
       objectives and the national standards that apply.  So I
       folded it into what I just did and there is certainly
       no problem with sort of doing a recall at 4 o'clock if
       we need do.
                 Okay, since Rich is here why don't we go down
       and -- we missed some introductions.  Linda, do you
       want to say good afternoon?
                 MS. LUCAS:  Linda Lucas, Economics Department,
       Eckerd College.
                 MR. WINGER:  John Winger, Department of
       Anthropology, University of Memphis.
                 MS. LENT:  Bob and Rusty, do you want to
       introduce yourselves or are you going to be incognito?
                 MR. SPAETH:  I already did.  Bob Spaeth,
       Southern Offshore Fishing Association, Madeira Beach,
       Florida. 
                 MR. HUDSON:  Rusty Hudson, directed shark,
       Daytona Florida.
                 MS. LENT:  Did everybody around the table then
       -- okay.  If there are no more questions, we are going
       to proceed to agenda item -- well, I guess the
       presentation and discussion on time/area closure.
                 Again, for those of you who missed the
       introduction, Jack Dunnigan is on his way here and he
       will be moderating the discussion.  We're going to
       start with a presentation of the analyses by the
       National Marine Fisheries Service.  After that, I'm
       going to ask the AP members if they have presentations
       they would like to make or someone on their behalf to
       come forward as well.  
                 So, Karyl, why don't you come on forward.  And
       I believe everybody has handouts relative to your
       presentation, right?  
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  I'll try to speak into
       this but if I miss for some reason, just let me know. 
       As Rebecca was saying, we are trying to do some
       time/area closures.  We have two goals on this:  first,
       to reduce the discards of juvenile swordfish; and our
       second goal is to reduce the discards of billfish.  
                 So when we first start with this, we need to
       take a look at where the discards are occurring.  So I
       plotted out some maps.  This is for swordfish discards
       between '96 and '97.  Everybody should have these. 
       These are by quarter.  The same symbol on each map
       means the same amount of fish.  Some maps don't have
       the symbol simply because there weren't any fish caught
       within that range.
                 For swordfish discards, as you can see, most
       of them seem to occur in quarter three and four right
       along the east coast of Florida.  We've seen this
       before in some of Jean Kramer's stuff and what we
       proposed in the draft FMP.  
                 I've also plotted out blue marlin.  The
       billfish, as you'll see, is different than the
       swordfish in that we actually have two areas to look
       at.  We have the Gulf of Mexico and we also have right
       off the east coast of Florida, but they are slightly
       different time frames than swordfish.  The swordfish
       happened on the east coast of Florida in the third
       quarter and the fourth quarter.  For billfish we're
       looking at quarters two and three for the most part. 
       And you have it for sailfish, the same sort of thing,
       and the same type of thing for white marlin.
                 So this is just a quick overview of where
       we're looking.  Based on these maps, I picked out some
       areas to look at.  I'll start with the swordfish
       time/area closure.  
                 Before I actually go over the areas, I'd like
       to show you what we like, what we're looking for, if
       you turn to the graph labeled SWO-3 up at the top. 
       I'll wait till it looks like everybody has it.  You
       should have two packages, one with billfish stuff and
       one with swordfish stuff.  Okay.
                 These graphs are a little bit hard.  First of
       all, anything above zero percent actually means a
       reduction in the number of fish that we're seeing so,
       for instance, this top bar going across, swordfish
       discards, we actually can get a reduction in discards
       up to about 20 percent.  Anything below zero percent is
       an increase in the number of fish.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  It's an increase in the
       number of fish throughout the Atlantic and Gulf of
       Mexico.  It depends upon what fish.  If you look at
       these pluses going down, they are pelagic shark
       discards so, in that case, it would be an increase in
       the pelagic shark discards.  But you can also see the
       bays are down below zero percent.  That's an increase
       in the number of bays kept.  
                 Does everybody understand that?  No.  
                 A PARTICIPANT:  On the bottom axis, months
       closed, is that if you close it for one month, two
       months, three months?  And what month is it?
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  Okay.  What this is is
       this is looking at it cumulatively and you see the
       numbers ten, eight, twelve, nine.  So if you close
       October, this is the percentages you would expect.  If
       you close October and August, those are the percentages
       you would expect.  And so by the very end you're
       closing all the months.  
                 Why they're in such a weird order instead of
       going January, February, March, is because I sorted it
       by discard per unit effort, so October has the greatest
       swordfish discard per unit effort, followed by August,
       and May has the lowest discard per unit effort.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  Right, the swordfish
       discards.  
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  Right.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  In October you can get
       about probably 4 percent reduction over the entire
       Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico if you close this
       particular area.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  No.  If you close October
       and August, eight and ten, both of those months
       together, you'll get probably an 8 percent reduction in
       swordfish discards. 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  Right.  Nelson.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  Nelson Beideman, Blue Water. 
       As a general comment to Rebecca, Rebecca, I've been
       working with this stuff, you know, pretty intensively
       for quite a while, but just sitting down here and
       getting this stuff is very difficult even for me.  I
       know it's got to be difficult for the rest.
                 But, Karyl, how is this different from the
       information that we got two years ago and one year ago
       and six months ago in presentations from Jean Kramer?
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  Are there substantial
       differences or -- 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible) microphone.
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  I didn't realize it had
       gone off.  It's a very different analysis.  It's taking
       into account different areas.  It's taking into account
       displacement, and it's taking into account all the
       landings throughout the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico and
       all the discards.  So we've expanded the analysis based
       on a lot of the comments we received on the draft FMP.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  Okay.  And this is still just
       through '97?
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  All of this incorporates
       '96 and '97.  We chose those years because in '95 the
       weird change between the season occurred.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  Did you find substantial
       differences, because what we've been working on is Jean
       Kramer/Jerry Scott's analysis of, you know, basic areas
       where over 50 percent of the catch is discarded dead as
       hot spot areas.
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  Right.  We didn't look at
       any of that.  This is straight -- this is everybody,
       everything that has been recorded landed or reported
       discards.  It's not limited between 50 percent of the
       sets occurred in this area and 25 sets a year, or what
       your criteria -- 
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  Right.  So this is not hot
       spot.  This is more scattered -- scatter-gun?
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  I started with those
       plots that I showed you and then I picked areas from
       that.  And right now I'm trying to explain how these
       graphs work.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  Okay, thank you.
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  Go ahead.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  So real basic here.  This 
       SWO-3 means that the percentage is the percentage of
       that amount of fish that is caught in the area bounded
       by the SWO-3?
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  Yeah.  I'll be getting to
       what the actual areas are.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Okay, I'm getting ahead of you
       then.
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  Yeah.  
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  Go ahead, Ellen.
                 MS. PEEL:  Before we move on, I just want to
       make sure -- you know, I hate to ask something that's
       probably perfectly clear to you but -- 
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  No, not necessarily.
                 MS. PEEL:  For instance, on swordfish where
       you've got the open triangle, to get a 15 percent
       reduction, is it reading it correctly to say you'd have
       to close October, August, December, September, November
       and March, it looks like, to increase -- 
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  Yes, you would need to
       close -- 
                 MS. PEEL:  To increase what?  Discards?
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  Right.
                 MS. PEEL:  To decrease your discard?
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  Yes.
                 MS. PEEL:  Okay.
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  Go ahead.
                 MS. PEEL:  I just wanted to make sure I was
       reading the -- decreasing discards or increasing
       retention is what you're -- or increasing discards. 
       All right, okay, I just wanted to make sure I was
       reading it right.
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  Okay.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Karyl, you said you sorted --
       the order of the months is sorted according to least
       discard per unit effort to the most discard per unit
       effort?
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  The greatest discard to
       the least discard per unit effort.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  So -- 
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  Yes, so October has the
       greatest and May has the least.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Of what, though?  Of
       swordfish? 
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  Swordfish discard per
       unit effort in that area.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  So what do all the rest of
       these plots on this particular graph mean?  Do they
       mean anything since they are dealing with other
       species?
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  Okay.  If -- you're
       looking at the swordfish discard line.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Right.
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  If you want to maximize
       the reduction in swordfish discards, you would go over
       to, I guess that's June, and if you close the entire
       year in this area up to June you would see not only a
       reduction in swordfish discards of about 20 percent;
       you would also see a reduction in sailfish discards of
       about 15 percent, a reduction in white marlin discards
       of almost 5 percent.  
                 So it's taking into account what else is being
       landed in the area and how well they're doing, because
       we're trying to reduce the swordfish discards and
       hopefully billfish discards as well, but without really
       affecting what else is being caught.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Okay.  Now I understand that. 
       Now I understand arithmetically why you would plot this
       the way you did, but from a management perspective is
       that practical to pull months, you know, different
       times of the year, and order them in that way?
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  We need to choose some
       time for a time/area closure.  This is one way of doing
       it.  We are also looking at quarters but I haven't
       quite figured -- finished that analysis yet.  We're
       looking at the entire year.
                 MS. LENT:  Let me just add to that.  In fact,
       when we're discussing the pros and cons of different
       options, obviously from an enforcement point of view
       and facility of planning and everything, it would be
       preferable to have consecutive months.  In fact, we
       often find that the months are clustered and it makes
       sense.
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  Go ahead.
                 MR. PERETT:  I apologize.  I'm still not --
                 MS. LENT:  Please say your name before you
       speak.
                 MR. PERETT:  Corky Perett.  Can we take one of
       the lines on swordfish on -- or let me use the
       swordfish discard, again the open triangles.
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  Yes.
                 MR. PERETT:  On the left we start with month
       ten and it looks like it's around 5 percent.  
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  Yes.
                 MR. PERETT:  And as we go forward, ten to
       eighth month, it's a cumulative thing.  I'm correct so
       far.  Well, then would you explain to me how after ten
       months we get to June and we're approaching roughly 20
       percent, how does it then go down when you've got two
       more months in the year?
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  It's all because of the
       displacement.  The displacement does funky things.
                 MR. PERETT:  But it at best has got to stay
       even if there is no discards whatsoever during those
       latter two months of April and May.  How does it
       actually go down?
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  It goes down because the
       boats are being displaced into areas that during April
       and May have greater effort.  
                 Go ahead.
                 MS. LENT:  Let me just add a point to Corky's
       -- this is something that's very important.  Relative
       to everything else you've seen prior to this except for
       the bluefin time/area analyses, these numbers take into
       account displaced effort.  They say let's close this
       area and this time and this -- close this area in this
       time.
                 But it doesn't assume that those sets go away. 
       It assumes that the sets are going to be made somewhere
       outside the area, and there's an assumption made about
       where those sets will be redistributed.  That's why
       it's the net effect.  It's a very important difference
       with what Jean Kramer has done in the past.
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  It also has to do with
       the catch occurring in the entire Atlantic and Gulf.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  The entire Atlantic or the US
       of A?
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  U.S.  Go ahead.
                 MR. MOORE:  Charlie Moore, South Carolina.  If
       you look at, like, white marlin discards, if you look
       at that one, and it seems to indicate that as you go
       below the line you have more fish, I don't see how it
       decreases.
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  It doesn't decrease the
       white marlin.  I'm sorry, did I say -- 
                 MS. PEEL:  You said earlier it did.
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  I'm sorry.  I meant this
       line, which is the swordfish kept.  I must have just
       mispoke.
                 MS. PEEL:  Yeah, you said white -- 
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  Sorry.  Go ahead.
                 MR. NELSON:  Russell Nelson.  How did you
       handle displacement of effort?  I mean, that seems to
       be a fairly important -- 
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  Right.  I started with
       this area that I'll call SWO-3.  I assumed that all of
       the hooks that were in that area, if we closed it
       during a certain month, went anywhere within 4 degrees
       of that area.  So four degrees outside that area in all
       directions.  And that area kept its same catch per unit
       effort and discard per unit effort; it just happened to
       have more effort.
                 MR. MOORE:  So you distributed any direction
       in four degrees?
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  Any directions four
       degrees outside that area.
                 MR. MOORE:  Was there a basis for that
       assumption?  I mean, some kind of -- 
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  We can change that
       assumption.
                 MR. MOORE:  Well -- 
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  That's what I started
       with now.  
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  Go ahead, Nel.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  What Russell is saying is, you
       know, very important.  At the last meeting, you know,
       we had discussed that the preliminary information on
       observer coverage for the FMP proposed area was like 23
       dead discards per thousand, south of that 38 dead
       discards per thousand, north of that 17 discards per
       thousand, and north of that area 13 discards per
       thousand.  
                 So it's very important where that displaced
       effort may go and factors such as these are small boats
       that really can't fish far from shore and the Gulf
       stream goes out as you go north would suggest that
       they'll basically move toward the south, at least the
       smaller boats, into the 38 per thousand rather than the
       23 or 17 or 13.
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  This says they can go
       south as well.  It's distributed equally in the area of
       four degrees around this area, so they could go four
       degrees to the south or four degrees to the north. 
       That's included in the analysis.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  Okay.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  It makes a big difference.
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  Sorry.  Go ahead.
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  Can you break out how many of
       these discards and kepts are within the 50,000 line or
       shallower?
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  I haven't done that yet.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  No, because they can't really
       break into the one degree but I would say none unless
       it's, you know, a piece of gear that's gotten away or
       something but really don't drift up into 50 fathoms.
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  Are there any more
       questions?  Okay.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  A clarification.  Did you say
       that these numbers represent the percentage of all
       swordfish, not just swordfish discarded in that area?
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  That's correct.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  So these curves represent a
       percentage of all swordfish? 
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  All the swordfish
       reported, yes.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Rebecca, is it your intent to
       have this panel suggest to you some percentage
       reduction or are you going to suggest to us that you
       have some target percentage reduction in mind?
                 MS. LENT:  Well, this is for the time being,
       based on these very preliminary analyses, this would be
       our preferred alternative.  We obviously have more work
       to do and more analyses to conduct.  We need to hear
       from you indeed on what you think is a good goal and
       what are the trade-offs and what about the assumptions. 
       As Russ and Nelson have pointed out, we have to make
       assumptions about displaced effort.  Are there better
       assumptions to make?  Give us some suggestions.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  I guess I'm confused.  What is
       the preferred alternative you're talking about?
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  SWO-3 for swordfish. 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Pardon?
                 MS. LENT:  This chart that's SWO-3 out of the
       options that we've analyzed so far -- and there is
       plenty more analyses we can do -- but this appears to
       be the most appealing right now, but we need to hear
       from you about the pros and cons about it.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  I'm still confused.  There's a
       lot of choices there.  There's one month, two months,
       three months, four months, five months, six months -- 
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  I was getting to that.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  And they have some percentage. 
       So has anybody from the stock assessment side given you
       any advice on what a 5 percent reduction does to the
       stock rebuilding or the rebuilding schedule versus 20
       percent? 
                 MS. LENT:  Well, we know what replacement
       yield is and we know what current yield is so we can
       make some assessment ourselves within this panel as to
       how much this contributes.  That's an important goal
       but, again, the overarching goal is reducing bi-catch
       as much as we can to the extent practicable, et cetera,
       et cetera.  
                 Now, SWO-3, as Karyl points out, depends on
       which months you're going to choose, but it's the one
       that appears to have the biggest bang for the buck. 
       It's able to go the highest.  We have to look at all
       the effects and all the assumptions.
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  Right.  This one goes
       pretty high and it also doesn't really impact a lot of
       the other -- the catch or the discards -- all that
       much.  What we've been looking at is going all the way
       up to the Asentope (phonetic) up to June, so everything
       would be closed in this area except for April and May. 
       Unless we have changes of assumptions, we have ideas
       from the panel of where else to look and what else to
       look for.
                 Nelson.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  Karyl, I'm sorry but my mind
       keeps drawing me back to the information that we have
       been working with over the past couple years, Jean
       Kramer's documents that I'm most familiar with.
                 And what Jean and Jerry had done is laid out,
       I believe, eleven two-degree squares where over 50
       percent were discarded.  And I believe the bottom line
       of that was if you shut all these down it would amount
       to about 28 percent reduction without redistributing
       the effort and only 7 percent reduction with a basic
       redistributing of the effort.
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  That's because they did
       it a very different way.  They had the criteria of your
       50 percent in those areas.  We do not.  
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Again, just to make sure that
       I got it right, what you did was for this SWO-3 area,
       the total number of swordfish caught is the percentage
       -- that's the 100 percent from which the other things -
       - and then you took the total number of sailfish caught
       and figured your reductions and discards in the total
       number so that each species has a total number from
       which you got the percentage, right?  
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Again, a clarification. 
       Looking at SOW-3, am I reading this correctly that if
       you close SOW-3 for the entire year, right, you would
       get a reduction in discards of swordfish by about 18
       percent and you would reduce the actual swordfish
       catch, total U.S. catch, by 6 percent? 
                 Am I reading that right?
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  That's correct.  
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  That number, the total number
       of swordfish kept, that is -- that number is from the
       entire U.S.?
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  All of this is from the
       entire U.S.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Oh, okay.
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  All of this is relative
       to the entire -- 
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  I have a question.  It's a more
       general question, probably for Rebecca, and it cuts
       across all the different proposals that I've heard of.
                 And that's, you know, how do we close areas
       that are beyond our EEZ, you know, in Bahamian waters,
       et cetera?  I mean, how is that done?  You know, what
       is the relevance of that?
                 MS. LENT:  Well, we haven't found a way to do
       that yet.  Actually, the way this analysis is done,
       there is just some big chunks taken, including like
       Indianapolis.  Obviously, you just sort of, for
       purposes of the analyses, you cut out some chunks.
                 If indeed we go forward with proposals, that
       would have to be worded in such a way that anything
       that's not in the EEZ is not relevant.  I mean, if it's
       in somebody else's EEZ it's not relevant. 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Could we close it outside of
       our own -- on the high seas?  
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  Yeah, to U.S. fishermen
       we could close it beyond the EEZ, yeah.  Thanks, good
       question.
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  Now, is everybody clear
       on how these graphs work, because this is the whole
       basis of what I'll be showing.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  Yeah, we'll walk through
       more examples.  Go ahead.
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  I think I'm clear but I'm not
       clear on what use we're going to make of these.  This
       is just the basis for something else so that we get to
       some practicality?  I'm assuming that the way these
       graphs are set up is if you wanted to maximize the bang
       for the buck you would pick the months that are
       numbered here that show the greatest increase in
       percentage change of swordfish discards, and I don't
       know about the decrease in swordfish kept.  In other
       words, if you look at the line between ten and eight,
       it goes up pretty good on swordfish discarded.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  What graph are you on?
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  I'm on SWO-3, the one we've
       been discussing.  So I assume that means -- I don't
       know which month that is.  I assume that means if you
       close the tenth month you get the biggest increase, you
       get the biggest number -- I don't know what you would
       say.  You get the biggest decrease in swordfish
       discarded in one month of any month on this graph
       because it's the steepest slope.
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  It's sort of that way, okay.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Sorted.
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  Oh, sorted.  
                 MS. LENT:  Sorted that way.  The why it goes
       October, August, December, September, November, is
       Karyl arranged for these plots such that the one that
       appears first is the one with the highest swordfish
       discard per unit effort, then the next highest, then
       the next highest, then the next highest.  It's not a
       random order here.
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  Except towards the end it goes
       down.
                 MS. LENT:  That's because of the displacement,
       displaced effort.  As the displaced effort goes out
       into other areas, it may be pushed off into areas where
       we didn't have as much effort before and, in fact, we
       have high rates of discards.  The fishermen have been
       avoiding those areas purposefully so you get into some
       kind of declining returns.
                 Remember that all of these numbers are net. 
       It's not just what you lose by taking that effort out
       of that area; it's what you lose by displacing effort
       from the hot spot to the next closest area.  That's
       very important because a lot of the things we've looked
       at before don't have that displacement.  Until you know
       that, you don't know the net effect of a time/area
       closure.  You need this information. 
                 And in terms of your first question, Mau, you
       know, you're starting to understand but you don't know
       what it's all going to lead to.  I think this gives us
       some numbers, get a start to say where are we zeroing
       in.  It's not just hot spots.  It's more than hot
       spots.  It's where do people go when they avoid the hot
       spots.  What's the net effect?  And if you can help us
       with assumptions on a better way to deal with
       displacement, we need to hear about that, too.  
                 Trade-offs.  There is a lot of trade-offs. 
       We're going to have some increase in discards of other
       things that we don't like.  We want to know about that,
       too.
                 MS. LUCAS:  Linda Lucas.  Can you tell me
       intuitively why SWO-1 and SWO-3 sort of look a lot
       alike?
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  That has to do with the
       areas of (inaudible) and areas of (inaudible).  Sorry. 
       I'll be getting into the areas as soon as everybody is
       clear on what these graphs mean and do, and then I will
       show what the areas are and the other results from
       those areas.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  SWO-3.  And if my objective
       was to reduce blue marlin discards, I'm assuming I
       would be focused on the months of June, July, and
       August.  Am I reading this correctly?
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  What this is showing is I
       pretty much focused on swordfish discards for these
       areas, billfish discards in the other areas that I
       chose.  So there is -- you are getting pretty good for
       the sailfish and for the blue marlin in certain months
       in here.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  It looks like October, August,
       December, September, and November are blue marlin and
       then it gets worse for them after that.  Now, these
       months are -- you go from October to August.  
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. PERETT:  Thank you.  Corky Perett.  Let's
       try again, back to basics.
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  Okay.
                 MR. PERETT:  SWO-3 is a geographic
       description.
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  Right.
                 MR. PERETT:  And all these pluses or minuses
       as to whether it's discarded or kept only refers to
       this geographical area?
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  Yes, for this -- 
                 MR. PERETT:  I got -- wait, wait --
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  So this graph -- 
                 MR. PERETT:  Wait, that's where I'm going
       because -- 
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  Well, it refers -- the
       percent discards and everything are all relative to the
       U.S. catch but what we did is we only closed this area
       during these months.
                 MR. PERETT:  So -- 
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  It's all relative to the
       U.S.. 
                 MR. PERETT:  So for SWO-3, and we'll take that
       first month -- again we'll work with swordfish because
       that's the one we're talking about the most thus far. 
       In the month of October, the discards at roughly, say,
       4 percent and the kepts swordfish are, say, 2 or 3
       percent.  Now, in that geographical area -- 
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  In that area -- 
                 MR. PERETT:  And we have the others that show
       what it is for SWO-1 and so on.  Okay.
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  Right.  If you close that
       area, that's what the reduction will be.
                 MR. PERETT:  Thank you. 
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  How do you define discards?  Is
       that dead discards or all discards? 
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  It's total discards, both
       alive and dead.
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  Is there a mortality -- an
       observed mortality different at different times of the
       year or different areas?  I mean, is that considered in
       this?
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  This is total discards. 
       It's not taking into account whether we're discarding
       dead or alive.
                 MS. LENT:  That's a good question and I ask if
       anybody here might want to comment on that.  I'm not
       aware and we'll have to ask the science center of
       whether there might be a difference in the percent of
       swordfish discards that are dead relative to certain
       times and areas.  As far as I know, there's none. 
       Maybe Bill or other -- 
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  The fishermen ought to be able
       to come in on that if the scientist can't because
       they've seen them.  It's pretty well -- I mean, if
       you're just going to keep bait live you have a much
       better chance in a cooler water than you do in a warmer
       water.  
                 And I assume that that's true with all fish. 
       I don't know.  Maybe John can tell us or something. 
       There may be a substantial difference or there may not
       in the mortality, actual mortality involved, and that's
       what we really have to get to.  So if we can do that,
       maybe we ought to.  I don't know if we can do it.
                 MS. LENT:  But, Mau, I think for purposes of
       this discussion we'll assume that where we have the
       highest rate of discards we probably have the highest
       rate of dead discards.  There could be some variations
       therein, but that's a really good question and we'll
       follow up on that.
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  Well, the highest rate of
       discards is in a cool month, the tenth month, and so
       that may be the highest rate of live to dead on the
       discards.  I'm just guessing, you know.  I mean, it may
       be totally different from that in the swordfish
       fishery.  
                 A PARTICIPANT:  I'm having trouble with the
       months the way they are arranged.  I understand that
       starting right out looking at SWO-3, October is the
       month that has the biggest reduction in swordfish
       discards. 
                 However, as you go along and the months are so
       out of sequence -- and maybe I'm interrupting your
       presentation here and you would have explained it --
       but how do we figure out consecutive months?  I'm
       having trouble with that.
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  (Inaudible.) 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  The rate of discards. 
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  (Inaudible.) 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Okay, that's right.  But even
       so, it's still hard to get from the graph to know what
       block of months or -- 
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  Karyl, I'm looking at sword
       four and I'm imagining that the split at 33 may have
       come out of conversations that I had with you as far as
       the difference between 32 and 33, and 33 and 34?
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  Okay.  Well, if I can give
       folks a tiny bit of background.  Without getting into
       the pelagic longline industry proposal, it goes up to
       34 degrees.  And some fishermen raised that, you know,
       the area between 33 and 34 really isn't that much of
       the problem.  And we looked up those numbers and from
       33 to 34 we're looking at approximately 370-some, I
       think it was 377, dead discards over a six-year period,
       and the area from 32 to 33 is 3,700.  A large
       difference.
                 MS. LENT:  Before Karyl starts this, I would
       ask everybody to please look at the screen.  This is
       absolutely critical to understand.  The SWO-1, SWO-2,
       SWO-3, SWO-4, that's sort of a progressive range. 
       Please pay attention to what SWO-1, 2, 3, 4, means.
                 Thank you. 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Is SWO-3 (inaudible)?
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  I'm getting there.  We
       start with the FMP.  That's what we have originally
       proposed.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  Okay.  And SWO-3 is this
       entire block going from 76 to 82 and 24 through 33. 
       It's the entire block including the FMP area.  SWO-1 is
       the entire block from 74 to 82 and from 24 to 33.  So
       SWO-1 includes SWO-3 and the FMP.  It is not just the
       skinny little rectangle.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  That goes back to why
       SWO-3 and SWO-1 look pretty much the same on the
       graphs.
                 Nelson.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  Is there any consideration
       given that, you know, depending on, you know, what
       areas are closed, there may not be a displacement of
       effort?  I mean, some of those boats may just be out.
                 MS. LENT:  These are good points, but let's
       finish the definition of these four areas and then
       we'll come back to that.  
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  Go ahead.
                 MR. BASCO:  Irby Basco, Texas.  Do you have
       any kind of numbers of the SWO-3 area only of numbers
       of swordfish discarded? 
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  I don't have an overhead
       of the numbers.  I have it on the computer back on my
       desk.  That's how I did all those graphs.
                 MR. BASCO:  I was wondering if somebody made
       note of those numbers here on the panel.
                 MS. LENT:  We can calculate those.  Actually,
       if you open up your FMP to the total amount of discards
       in '96 and '97 and calculate what that percent
       reduction would mean because all these percentages are
       relative to the total amount of discards, total amount
       of landings, et cetera.
                 MR. BASCO:  Okay, thank you.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Okay.  So SWO-4 goes from 22
       to 36 and 76 to 82, so SWO-4 includes SWO-3 and the
       FMP?
                 A PARTICIPANT:  And it definitely includes
       (inaudible).
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  It doesn't include 1 and
       2.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  And then SWO-2 is this
       entire big block.  
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  Everything.  
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  SWO-1 goes from 74 to 83,
       and 24 to 33.  They are very big areas.  They are not
       these little rectangles.  They are the big area. 
       Everything includes SWO-3, basically.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  Yes, the FMP is the
       smallest and then the SWO-3.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  33 comes just about to
       Charleston, huh?  That's why we chose 33 so we weren't
       cutting across -- 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  So when I did the
       displacement, what I did is when you're looking at 
       SWO-3, fishermen could go four degrees north, four
       degrees east, four degrees south, and four degrees in
       the west in the Gulf of Mexico.  And that was the same
       for all of these areas.  They could go four degrees in
       any direction.
                 Go ahead.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  You only took the effort that
       existed within a closed area in that time frame and
       moved it within that time frame outside the area?
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  Correct.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  You did not look at the fact
       that maybe in the next month effort that had been
       suspended during one month would be back in the same
       place or there would be an increase in effort the next
       month?  You didn't do that?
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  We didn't do that.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Okay.
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  We could.  And going into
       Nelson's point, no, we did not take into account that
       some of the people in the middle of SWO-3 wouldn't be
       able to move out.
                 Does everybody understand how these areas
       work?
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  A good point was just brought
       up to me that I tried to bring up before.  If you close
       this entire area, due to the nature of those boats that
       are basically coastal fleet boats, there isn't one boat
       that I know of -- 
                 (End of Tape 1, Side A.)
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  -- would have been in that area
       that would have the capability of fishing outside of
       that area.  So you can eliminate the effort.  
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  Along with looking at
       these areas for swordfish, I took what I had from the
       Blue Water proposal.  I'm not going to go over their
       proposal.  I just tried to take their area, or as close
       their area that I could, and I did the same sort of
       analyses.  
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  You should have a copy of
       this somewhere.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  But we don't seem to have
       (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  Karyl, just to point out to
       folks without getting into the proposal, these blocks
       are a little bit different than what the actual
       proposal is, okay.  On the BWFA-1, the south-southwest
       corner is a tiny bit different and the BWFA-2, that's a
       one and a half by one degree that goes to 87.30, not
       87.  You know, this is plenty for visual.
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  So these are pretty close
       approximations.  So in the SWO package or somewhere in
       the package you should have the analyses for all of
       these blocks, and all of these were sorted by swordfish
       discard per unit effort.  
                 A PARTICIPANT:  I don't see a discard -- I
       don't see an analysis based on these -- these.  Do you
       have one?  
                 A PARTICIPANT:  These?  I don't (inaudible).
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Karyl, do we have the analysis
       and changes in landings or discards by species for the
       Blue Water?
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  They should be in -- we
       made photocopies of them.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Does anybody have them?
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  I've got that but we don't
       have the -- 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  No, it would come from
       us.  It wouldn't come from Nelson.  (Inaudible.)  Go
       ahead.
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  Karyl, are all of these
       analyses strictly for '96 - '97?
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  All of these are just for
       '96 and '97, yes.
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  Do you have the information for
       more years than that? 
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  We could do more years. 
       The reason we didn't is because of the season.  It
       changed in '95 and we wanted to make sure that we had
       equivalent effort to look at, and '96 and '97 were very
       similar.
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  Well, I can't speak for the
       east coast but in the Gulf it can vary substantially
       from year to year, particularly the billfish situation.
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  Right.  I did look at '96
       and '97 and they were pretty much the same.
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  No, but if you go back to as
       far back as you can go, you'll find that the location
       of billfish can vary substantially from year to year. 
       It depends on currents and swirls, and those change
       from year to year.  Where the fish are this year may
       not be where they are at all next year.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  I presume on the Blue Water
       graph, the one that says BWFA-1, that the last point
       that isn't numbered is October.  
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  Again, without getting into the
       proposal much, this would just be from the closure of
       the areas.  This would not be the additional benefits
       accrued by eliminating the effort through buyout.
                 MS. LENT:  Just a comment to that effect. 
       Even though that effort, the vessels that are bought
       out wouldn't be in the fishery any more, if we assume
       that we're still going to be harvesting our full
       swordfish quota, we would still have some sets being
       made over and above -- you know, some of those sets
       would be replaced and so some assumptions are made to
       that effect.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Now, and this was just -- I'm
       assuming, and please tell me if I'm wrong-- this was
       just a static analysis looking at snapshots in time. 
       You didn't, for instance, the cumulative discards in
       one year did not then roll in to increase availability,
       increase size in fish the following year and -- 
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  (Inaudible.) 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Just static snapshots of
       points in time.  
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  (Inaudible.) 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Okay, so it doesn't model --
       you're not trying to model shifts in the population
       which might be affected by changes in discards or --
       okay.
                 MS. LENT:  Again, Russ, I would invite
       everybody, not just you, to take a look at what the
       yields are right now for swordfish and what the yields
       could be if we reduce these dead discards relative to
       replacement yield.  Where does it get us relative to
       that?  That's what these number can help you with.  
                 We don't have a dynamic model but I think
       we've got the most useful information we've had to date
       that helps us figure out what's the best way to do a
       time/area closure.  There's a lot more analysis we can
       do, but this is pretty good.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  To that, Rebecca, my point
       would be that when you're looking at some of these
       static snapshots that you see has a fairly substantial
       reduction in discards of undersized swordfish and also
       reductions in total harvest, that in the long term it's
       likely that if the discard reductions are three or four
       times what the short-term reductions in harvest are
       from the snapshot, in the long terms you're likely to
       see increases in harvest or accumulation of your quota
       in a quicker time period because what you're saving in
       the discards is going to be growing and creating higher
       abundances and higher densities of larger-size fish in
       subsequent years.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  Only on 9 percent. 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Just to confirm, the BWFA-1
       assumes no displaced effort because it assumes a
       buyout; is that right?
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  No, (inaudible).
                 A PARTICIPANT:  It does?
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  It keeps turning off on
       me.  
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  This does not assume a
       buyout.  None of these analyses do.  It always assumes
       displaced effort.  
                 A PARTICIPANT:  It seems like in the Blue
       Water -- and it's not that great a difference in
       geographical area -- October goes from first to last.
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  I'm not sure if that is
       October.   It would make sense that it is.  I would
       have to go back and check.  It might have just been a
       mistake on my part when I was filling in which blocks
       it's supposed to graph.  It might have been October
       should be at the first and all the numbers should be
       moved down.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  I think that's probably closer
       to right.
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  That would make sense,
       but one of the missing months is October.  
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Could I clarify the comment
       you just made?  I'm pleased to see there is no linkage
       here with a buyout, but even if an improper linkage had
       been put here you could not assume no effort.  As
       Rebecca just clarified, the catch, the landings, are
       going to remain the same unless we change our law;
       therefore, the boats that are fishing outside this area
       are going to increase their effort.  
                 So I don't understand why you said because you
       did not assume a buyout you therefore displaced effort. 
       Even if you had assumed a buyout, you would have to
       displace effort.
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  We didn't assume a
       buyout.  Everything is just displaced effort.  If we
       were assuming a buyout we might be able to try to
       figure out some way to reduce effort based on those
       boats leaving the fishery.  We might be able to make
       some assumptions about that.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  But my point is you couldn't
       make that assumption because you still have to land the
       quota. 
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  You would still land the
       quota but not necessarily in that area.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  No, but my point is there
       would be increased effort outside the area that is
       displacement.
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  It would still have
       displacement, yes.  I'm just saying it would be a
       different displacement.
                 MS. LENT:  What Karyl is saying, and this is
       an important point, that with a buyout you would have a
       number of vessels, probably those vessels that would be
       most affected by that time/area closure would
       disappear, but the vessels that remained in the fleet
       would be making all the sets necessary to reach a
       swordfish quota, we give them a reasonable opportunity,
       et cetera.
                 Would it be the exact same number of sets? 
       Would it be more sets?  Would it be less sets?  That's
       an important question we need to discuss.
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  Go ahead, Nelson.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  Yeah, a couple of things.  In
       response to Rebecca, at least they would be in bigger
       swordfish areas.  
                 I hope that the information from Jean Kramer
       that, you know, we need gets copied in time.  If not, I
       have a copy but just one copy.  I think it's a little
       bit unfair to characterize, you know, this information
       as the Blue Water proposal because -- 
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  I just labeled it that
       because that's what areas I used.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  Okay.  But as an explanation to
       everyone because, in reality, the Blue Water proposal
       not only has the benefit of closing the areas which
       reaches 47.4 percent of the swordfish discards within
       the U.S. EEZ, but it also has the benefits of
       eliminating those boats that volunteer for the buyout,
       which will make that 47.4 percent rise.
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  Right, right.  I'm sorry
       if I made that unclear.  I did not mean to point out
       that this is the Blue Water proposal.  These are just
       the areas that I used based on what your proposal is. 
       These are the same analyses as everything else. 
       They're just labeled differently because they were your
       areas.
                 MS. LENT:  But for purposes of discussion, I
       think it's useful to say what if we conducted the same
       analyses on the areas that Blue Water has proposed for
       their buyout.  Obviously, it's not the same result
       because you folks are talking about -- 
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  And I've also mis-spoken
       because it really is no longer a Blue Water proposal.
       It's a Senator Breaux's proposal.  
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  Okay.  
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MS. LENT:  Let me just suggest that we let
       Karyl continue the presentation of the analyses, then
       Karyl can sit here at the front table.  Then Jack
       Dunnigan, our moderator, has made it.  Thank you, Jack. 
       Jack can moderate the discussion.  We don't want Karyl
       standing on her feet too long.  As you can see, there
       is a new cohort on the way.
                 Thanks, Karyl.
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  All right, I'll go on
       with the billfish for those of you who are anxious,
       billfish.  And during the discussion we can talk more
       about the other areas for swordfish. 
                 For some reason, this one is very curved. 
       This is all based very similar to the swordfish, only
       we're now in the Gulf of Mexico.  Billfish-1 includes
       Billfish-1 and Billfish-4, so it's the big area from 22
       up to the coast and from 92 over to the coast.  And,
       yes, that probably incorporates some of Mexico's EEZ.
                 Billfish-3 is the smallest area going from 24
       to the coast and 92 to the coast.  Billfish-2 gets
       bigger.  It incorporates 1, 4, and 5.  Five goes over a
       little bit smaller than Billfish-2 so it incorporates 4
       and 5, and then you just keep increasing out so you get
       almost up to Florida.  Very large areas.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  Bill-6 is the top three,
       yes.  And Bill-3 is that entire block.
                 Now, when we're going over these graphs,
       remember that we're not including the fact that we
       might be closing some of these areas on the east coast
       of Florida.  These are just closing these areas, not a
       combination of these areas and Florida, so we're not
       including the billfish discards so we might get from
       those SWO areas. 
                 Did that make sense or did I confuse anybody? 
       Go ahead.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Would we be right in assuming
       that though they are -- if you are looking at both sets
       of data they would not be additive because of the
       chance of -- I mean, if you just look at that analysis
       you've got effort coming over here and back and forth? 
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  Right.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  So if you got 5 percent on one
       and 6 percent on the other, we wouldn't be saying there
       is 11 percent if you did them both.
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  That's correct.   I'll
       spend the discussion on the one that at this point we
       tend to like the best, which is Bill-4.  And I don't
       think on this one you really need to close the entire,
       or mostly the entire year as we did on SWO.  But if we
       closed 7, 8, and 9, maybe January, you have almost a 7
       percent, or around about a 7 percent decrease in
       sailfish and in blue marlin and in white marlin.
                 Remember, this is what these areas are
       supposed to be helping.  For those you have very little
       impact, almost zero percent, on anything else if you
       close those areas, or this area, which is why we happen
       to like this one the best.
                 For those of you want to know, I sorted these
       months by white marlin discard per unit effort.  I just
       chose a billfish.  White marlin happened to be the
       hardest one to get to fit.  
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Karyl, I have a question. 
       Would it be a correct way to interpret this then is
       that you would have the same impact if you closed it
       just in July as you would the rest of the year,
       basically?
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  Basically, yeah, for the
       sailfish if you close the entire year or just in July.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Well, you've almost got the
       same thing for every species.
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  Right.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Because if for one month you'd
       have the same impact you would if you closed it the
       whole year.  
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  If there aren't any other
       questions, we can let Jack moderate and have a
       discussion over these areas.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Do you have a preferred option
       in terms of the duration of the billfish closed area?
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  I think what we were
       looking at is July, August, and September.  And we can
       always put up any of these overheads if you guys want
       to see them.  
                 A PARTICIPANT:   I have (inaudible) for
       example, hot spots (inaudible).
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEISZ:  No.  
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MS. LENT:  We started with the hot spots as
       identified in previous studies, but if you have some
       hot spot ideas we're listening.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible) look at some
       (inaudible).
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Okay, thank you.  I apologize
       for being late.  Thank you, US Airways, and it's nice
       to be here.
                 It's about 2:20.  We'd like to maybe take not
       more than ten minutes to continue on this subject and
       then we'd like to be able to move to some other
       presentations this afternoon that we're going to have
       on this question of time/area closures.  
                 We will then be coming back to a more
       substantive discussion of how you feel about all of
       this either after those proposals or, if we run out of
       time this afternoon we'll end up doing that tomorrow
       morning.
                 But we could take a couple of more comments
       right now or more clarifications if you have further
       questions for what Karyl did.  
                 The other thing is about the record. 
       Everybody, please make sure you use the mikes and make
       sure you give us your name before you start so that we
       can have a nice, clean record when this gets put
       together.  
                 Russell Nelson was first and then Nelson
       Beideman and then David Wilmot.  Russell. 
                 MR. NELSON:  Me nombre es Russell Nelson. 
       Rebecca.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Rebecca.
                 MR. NELSON:  This is not for Karyl.  This is
       for you.  Karyl just gave us what you said we should --
       a preferred alternative in terms of billfish reduction. 
       So implicit in picking a preferred alternative, I guess
       you all have at a policy level established some goal
       that you're trying to get.  The Billfish Advisory Panel
       asked that we look at reductions in bi-catch that would
       get us at least a 25 percent reduction in mortality,
       bi-catch induced mortality. 
                 What goal have you all selected as the policy
       goal to base your selection of a preferred alternative
       on?
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Rebecca.
                 MS. LENT:  There is no specific number.  What
       we are trying to do is balance a reduction in discards
       of billfish and juvenile swordfish with the impacts on
       the directed fishery, balance it relative to other
       issues in managing these fisheries. 
                 I would remind you also, Russ, to add the two
       numbers.  When we close the swordfish area we save some
       billfish as well.  You can add the two to see what the
       effect is.  But no, Russ, we don't have a number.  If
       this panel wants to discuss it some more in the joint
       panel and the pros and the cons, in some cases we could
       go higher but we might increase dead discards of large
       coastal sharks.  We need to hear from you about the
       trade-offs.
                 MR. NELSON:  I didn't mean to get you all
       testy, Rebecca.  I was just wondering, when you decided
       that you selected proposals, I mean, what is the trade-
       off?  What is the goal?  What is the balance?  Is there
       some quantitative goal that you set or is it just all -
       - you know, is it -- I mean, what's the basis to say we
       like this one?  That's all.
                 MS. LENT:  Again, I can't give you a hard
       number.  And I'm not testy.  I just have a sore throat,
       Russ.  It's why I have this raspy voice.
                 But it's looking at preliminary analyses,
       looking at putting these graphs all in front of us and
       saying if we had to choose between just these six or
       just these four, which one looks most promising in
       terms of the trade-off and the side effects, and which
       ones might not be as preferable.
                 You might find that we have more options we
       need to look at or you might find that we need to
       change the assumptions that we used to come up with
       these results.  The whole picture could change if we
       say, you know, no, it's going to be boats just going
       north or just going south.  
                 So I can't give you any specific formula,
       Russ.  I wish I could.  And if you have a specific
       formula for balancing all these different things, I'd
       like to hear about it.  Thanks.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Nelson.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  Nelson Beideman, Blue Water
       Fishermen's Association.  What I'm passing out, Jack,
       might make things a tiny bit clearer.  What we did was
       we took the information from Goodyear and we broke it
       into one-degree squares of those 12, you know, squares
       in the Gulf, and we took the years '92 to '97 and
       averaged it into annual average by species in those
       one-degree squares.  And that's being passed around. 
       At some point if people have questions I can explain
       the, you know, headings, et cetera.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  David Wilmot.
                 MR. WILMOT:  Russ Nelson asked the very
       questions that I was most concerned about.  I will
       follow up with one small addition.  Rebecca, I
       understand your answer and you don't have a
       quantitative answer that I would certainly like to see;
       however, can I take from what you said that the
       variables that you're balancing have equal weight, or
       could you in a qualitative way at least rank what is
       most important to HMS, to you, in conserving these fish
       and reaching the objectives of the FMP?
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Rebecca.
                 MS. LENT:  I think the overarching objective,
       as we noted earlier in the meeting, is reducing bi-
       catch of juvenile swordfish and billfish.  We can't
       just blindly go forth and take the maximum area and the
       maximum amount.  We have to consider the side effects,
       not just the effects on the fishermen but the effects
       on large coastal shark discards and the effects on
       turtles and the effects on a lot of other things.
                 So I don't have an equal weight but I would
       say that our number one goal as we went through these
       numbers was swordfish dead discards and billfish
       discards. 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  David, go ahead.
                 MR. WILMOT:  Okay, thank you for that.  And
       again, I don't mean to imply what might have been what
       you had in mind here, but if I just glance down and
       look at blue marlin and I put the two together, we've
       actually lost a few more blue marlin than we started
       with with these two closed areas.  
                 So I hope you can understand the difficulty of
       trying to understand.  You tell me the number one
       priority is to reduce the discards of more than one
       species, I admit, yet when I look at a key species I
       see more blue marlin will be discarded.  I think you
       can imagine that would cause some pause for me in
       trying to understand where exactly we're going.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Steve Loga.
                 MR. LOGA:  A question for Rebecca.  Rebecca,
       have we looked at other alternatives besides the closed
       area in the Gulf?  For instance, I was looking at the
       observer log book data today and it shows somewhat that
       possibly we can reduce the catch of billfish by four or
       five times just by simply switching from live bait back
       to dead bait before we look at these, because these
       areas obviously affect me greatly on that.
                 Have we looked at those other ideas also?
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Rebecca.
                 MS. LENT:  That's a very good point, Steve,
       and I hope we could get some input from the advisory
       panel.  We obviously need the science that proves to us
       that yes, indeed, with live bait versus dead bait, with
       circle hooks versus j-hooks, we can have different
       mortality rates.  
                 So this meeting obviously is focused on
       time/area closure.  Anything we can do with gear types
       that would mitigate the need for time/area closures
       we'd love to hear about, we'd love to do it.  It's a
       good point.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  Nelson Beideman, Blue Water. 
       Rebecca, what Steve is referring to is today we still
       have an ongoing contract with, you know, John as far as
       the review of a grant contract.  
                 One of the things that, you know, is part of
       that is trying to see if there is anything that is, you
       know, a red flag on live versus dead, you know, bait in
       the Gulf of Mexico area.  An observed subset that he
       showed us today to review was like a 47-set subset
       where they had marked tended, and it looks as if you
       both have live bait and you tend the line that, as
       Steve said, there is a three to five times on billfish
       interactions and it's only for a gain of 2 to 3
       yellowfin tuna directed species per trip.  
                 So I would encourage HMS please get up with
       Dr. Hoey (phonetic).  You know, when that information
       is more developed it would sure be a good thing for
       this group to see.
                 MS. LENT:  Thanks, Nelson.  We'll check.  We
       did invite Dr. Hoey but he wasn't able to come today.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Ellen Peel.
                 MS. PEEL:  I just wanted to clarify.  Nelson,
       you were saying that with the live bait that the
       increase in the marlin was higher?
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  With live bait and tending the
       line, the increase -- I can't remember the exact but it
       went from like .6 on white marlin to like 3, four or
       five times higher, .6 per set to 3 per set.
                 MS. PEEL:  Right.  An increase in the
       interaction and hookup with billfish with live bait?
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  Yes.
                 MS. PEEL:  Okay, that's what we're saying
       also.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  Yes.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Okay, John Wingard and then
       Pete Jensen.
                 MR. WINGARD:  Has there been a socioeconomic
       analysis done in conjunction with this because, as you
       said, there is a number of trade-offs going on here and
       suggestions made, changing bait, changing hook types.
                 It seems that without some idea of the impact
       these are also having not only on the fish but the
       fishermen, we may be getting some very marginal gains
       in the biology with major losses, say, on the
       socioeconomic side.  So I think that's a critical
       component that could be added in to help more fully
       evaluate the total trade-offs we are talking about.
                 MS. LENT:  Just to respond to that, that's a
       very good point, John.  In fact, we've got a partial
       look at some of the gross output economic effects
       because we know what happens to their catch of their
       target species.  If it's going down, then obviously
       their gross revenues are going down.  If they're having
       to fish farther out, obviously their fishing costs are
       going up.  
                 If we're affecting communities in these large
       areas that could be closed for a long amount of time,
       then obviously we're having social effects.  That's a
       very important point that we need to hear about.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Pete Jensen.
                 MR. JENSEN:  I'm still curious about one thing
       on swordfish and maybe I missed it.  If we have an
       annual quota in your analysis, why does the catch of
       swordfish go down?  Don't we presume that we're still
       going to catch the quota no matter what you do, or are
       you simply suggesting that you're going to transfer the
       catch from those people that move out to somebody
       that's somewhere else?  Shouldn't that line be flat?
                 MS. LENT:  Yeah, that's a good point.  What we
       could do is add sets until we reach the quota, then we
       get back to status quo.  But, in fact, when we're
       displacing people out we're putting them in areas where
       they might be catching less of the target catch. 
       They're fishing where they find it most profitable, and
       that makes sense.  
                 So by displacing the effort, we're making the
       decision for a fishermen I'm going to go here and make
       ten sets here where, in fact, on that trip maybe would
       have made another two sets because he didn't quite have
       enough swordfish for his trip.  So that's a good point,
       Pete.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Okay, thank you.  Any last
       questions just for clarification, facts on Karyl's
       presentation?  
                 (No response.)
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  All right, let's move ahead. 
       We have a couple of more presentations that we're going
       to be doing this afternoon for you and for the next one
       or set of them I'm going to ask Nelson Beideman to
       introduce that. 
                 Go ahead, Nelson.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  Nelson Beideman, Blue Water
       Fishermen's Association.  I really don't want to get
       too much into introducing the proposal.  John Flynn,
       legislative staff from Senator Breaux's office and Glen
       Delaney, our U.S. ICCAT commercial commissioner will be
       doing that.  
                 I would like to make a couple of more general
       remarks about the reasons that the industry has come
       forward, you know, with initiatives and proposals of
       this nature.  Would that be proper now or after,
       Rebecca? 
                 MS. LENT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  Well, if I could.  And,
       Rebecca, you might be interested in this.  We have
       reflected on this many, many, times but if was a very
       focused reflection this past week in Spain.  We were
       staying at a hotel where the toreadors from the
       bullfights were staying, and each evening the locals
       would line up chairs and watch the bullfights just
       like, you know, we do here for football and baseball.
                 The difference of cultures and the thought of
       going to a bullfight with a sign saying, "Save Baby
       Tunas," it just doesn't work over there.  And the
       realization that we are never going to get Europeans to
       discard any fish as an incentive to protect small
       swordfish or tunas or what have you.  
                 So we're really -- one of the big incentives
       behind the industry looking harder at what is already
       accomplished on reducing small swordfish catches is how
       do we find a way of moving the international community
       to further protect small fish?  Because it's not going
       to be through minimal sizes.
                 Thank you.  And who first?  John?  You can't
       even read Jean's stuff, you know.
                 MS. LENT:  This is the printout we got on 
       e-mail.  We tried to enlargen it.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  Okay.  I have regular size if
       you want.  
                 MS. LENT:  We'll send somebody over to copy
       it.  
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  Nelson, you got it wrong. 
       You'd say, "Save the Baby Bulls so they can grow up to
       fight."  
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  You know, that was Mr.
       Claverie.  Just to make sure the record will reflect
       that.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  It's kind of funny when you
       think about it though, Mau.  It's an unbelievable
       difference of cultures.  
                 MR. FLYNN:  Before you go ahead, like any good
       Coast Guard guy, I'm the Coast Guard person in Senator
       Breaux's office but I also staff all fisheries issues
       and maritime issues.  I've been there for about a year.
                 I have charts that it doesn't look like I'll
       need because there is an overhead set to go.  But I'm
       not here today as John Flynn.  I'm here as Senator
       Breaux to discuss something that took place in our
       office.  
                 And Nelson kind of laid the groundwork just a
       little bit by mentioning ICCAT.  This past November in
       ICCAT went over just kind of sidebar discussions on
       ways of addressing the swordfish issue, a way of
       addressing the bi-catch with billfish and other
       species.
                 And that kind of followed over to when we got
       home just reviewing the FMP draft process.  And any
       other congressional folks that are here, I mean, our
       office was virtually flooded with valid concerns of the
       bi-catch issue and problem.
                 And at that time we said what can we do?  What
       can we do about this?  And we remembered back to
       discussions we had at ICCAT, and from there basically I
       talked to Senator Breaux about it.  And as everybody
       knows, he's been around for a long time.  He's a
       Commerce Committee and Subcommittee on Oceans and
       Fisheries and he's known as kind of the deal maker, to
       so speak, as far as bringing parties together.
                 So that's what we did.  That's basically what
       we're trying to do.  And then in our office actually
       was on -- you know, my last name and I'm an Irishman so
       I picked St. Patrick's Day of all times to call the
       meeting.  Some people say it was a bad time to do it,
       but on basically March 17th we called together Rawley
       Smitten (phonetic) not as Rawley Smitten but basically
       director of the National Marine Fisheries Service, Glen
       Delaney representing Blue Water, Senator Breaux was in
       attendance.  Bob Hayes from the Billfish Foundation and
       Peter Hill from Legislative Affairs.
                 And the proposal that we discussed is one that
       you have already seen and I won't spend a lot of time
       on it, but basically starting from North Carolina to
       the Florida straits then another area over Desoto
       Canyon and the Gulf.  And honestly I'll stay close to
       the mike.  What I'm talking about is swordfish.  I'll
       get into other species here in just a second, but this
       was a swordfish proposal.
                 There was some confusion, just to kind of air
       it right now, confusion between swordfish and yellowfin
       tuna, but what I'm talking about now is swordfish.  The
       swordfish and billfish issue.
                 These areas -- and I'm not a scientist.  I
       have a science background.  I'm not a scientist.  These
       areas, as everybody especially in this audience or this
       panel knows, there are grounds and hot spots for
       juvenile swordfish and also spots for billfish.  So as
       far as coming together to address a way of taking care
       of the issue, taking care of the problem, those in
       attendance looked at the proposal, and while we were
       there Senator Breaux said, "Is this something that
       works for everybody?"
                 And then while we were in the room, once
       again, you know, the parties were represented.  We all
       agreed to work together on it.  In turn, Senator Breaux
       said, and this is a quote from him.  He goes, "If this
       is something that's doable, something that everybody is
       agreeing to in this room and agreeing to work on in the
       future," he goes, "I'll champion the cause."  Those
       were his words:  "I'll champion the cause."
                 So with that, and some of the differences
       between this proposal and some of the other things that
       have been discussed -- and I might add that this is
       very close to SWO-3.  I think it's SWO-3.  See, I read
       your charts.  Very close to SWO-3.  The only -- not the
       only difference.  Some minor differences in geographic
       boundaries, but in other differences that this proposal
       includes a buyback.  It includes a buyback.
                 And if I get off base I know Glen Delaney will
       get me back on, but basically this buyback would impact
       approximately 47 vessels, 47 or 48 vessels.  I think
       that's accurate.  Now, the buyback is estimated to cost
       approximately $15 million; 7 1/2 would come from the
       industry and 7 1/2 would come from the United States
       during appropriations, basically Title XI loan
       guarantee.
                 Before anybody asks, we do have a draft bill. 
       There is a draft bill.  One of the key six sections
       that's missing from the bill is data.  We need data to
       put into it.  Three months ago data was requested.  The
       data we received was helpful but it was incomplete.  
                 In turn, I have a copy of a letter that
       Senator Breaux sent to Penny Dalton.  It's here if
       anybody wants to see it, but basically the letter that
       went back to Penny reminded Penny of the commitment,
       was the word, the commitment that had been made by
       Penny's predecessor, Rawley Smitten, to work on this
       proposal and then also requested the data.  The data is
       very important to this bill because without the data
       for the bill we can not go through the entire
       compensation formula for what would be a fair and
       equitable buyback to those longliners or those
       fishermen impacted, drastically impacted, by being
       forced out of the fishery through this time/area
       closure. 
                 Some of the concern that is in our office
       right now is that assurances or commitments were made
       to Senator Breaux and I have to say, I mean, he was
       quite surprised to learn that the AP process was
       underway and that we were looking at a proposed rule or
       a ruling process, and that's another reason that the
       letter went to Penny Dalton basically kind of
       reaffirming the fact that commitments had been made to
       work on this proposal that includes a buyback. 
                 So I have to go on the record in saying that,
       so I mean -- let me just kind of regroup here.  Some of
       the other points that I wanted to make is this is not
       just at the Penny Dalton or the director of the
       National Marine Fisheries Service level.  Dr. Baker and
       Terry Garcia were in Senator Breaux's office about two
       weeks ago.  
                 It was mentioned to them by me in Senator
       Breaux's office and again by Senator Breaux,
       commitments were raised by both individuals at that
       time that this was something very much worth pursuing,
       especially with the buyback option.  I don't have a
       copy of the article but earlier this week, I forget
       what publication it was but Dr. -- not Dr. Baker but
       Terry Garcia was quoted as saying that time/area
       closures and buybacks were the way to go with the
       Fishery Service.  I don't have the article but I've
       seen it two or three times.
                 What else can I say?  I'm not trying to slam
       anybody.  I'm just trying to bring everything up that
       has been committed so you know that everybody is trying
       to work together on this but, at the same time,
       commitments were made, promises have been made, and it
       seems like we're going down parallel tracks.
                 So Senator Breaux asked me to come here today
       basically to repeat and reaffirm what was discussed and
       what was committed to, and then at the same time to say
       that with a ruling process or the proposed rule, what
       is not included in there.  For example, I mean, SWO-3
       looks exactly like the area or very close to it, but
       the one element missing is the buyback.  So the buyback
       is not included and that's something that we'll address
       legislatively.  I think that's pretty fair to say that.
                 So I've been talking about swordfish and the
       bi-catch of billfish.  Another area that Senator Breaux
       is also working on -- in fact, he had breakfast in New
       Orleans with Gary Schweist (phonetic) and the Billfish
       Foundation.  And one of the concerns that was made was
       this area in the Gulf.  It needs to be a more open
       area.  The area in the Gulf that I'm talking about is
       swordfish.  I know there are some other areas that
       individuals say that there are swordfish and billfish
       bi-catch in there, but I'm talking about swordfish. 
                 The other areas that we continue to work on --
       and, in fact, I know that Bob Hayes and Ellen Peel met
       with Steve Loga from Tuna Fresh to discuss the
       yellowfin tuna issue.  So I say that because I'm not --
       I guess I'm a little sensitive right now because this
       is the area that we agreed to in principle and that
       partes that were there agreed to; at the same time,
       we're not ruling out looking at other areas, but the
       area that I'm looking at is swordfish. 
                 Hopefully in here everybody understands that
       because every time I talk to my boss and people in the
       office I have to make sure that they understand they
       are two different issues but that's, you know, one
       issue.  The one we're working on right now is swordfish
       and the bi-catch of billfish is important but we're not
       ruling out continuing to work with other parties as
       long as it's mutually agreeable without, you know, kind
       of bashing or slashing either side to address that.
                 I kind of went on and on about that.  You
       know, I'm looking directly at Bob.  Is that pretty much
       what we've -- 
                 MR. HAYES:  (Inaudible.) 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Use the microphone.
                 MR. HAYES:  Oh, yeah.  I'm Bob Hayes.  You
       know, I think it's a fair assessment that, you know, on
       my view of the swordfish industry here there's a couple
       things.  This is the first day I've ever seen this NMFS
       data so that gives me some pause for reflection.
                 But notwithstanding that, you know, on the
       swordfish industry to essentially come forward and say
       we're going to close a substantial portion of the EEZ
       because we've got a small swordfish problem and we know
       that there will be some economic dislocation of that
       and I believe what they've decided is that they're
       going to buy themselves out with the assistance of some
       federal funds.  You know, I think that's a positive
       thing and I don't think that that's something we ought
       to beat up the swordfish industry for.
                 I think I said at the time and I've said for
       some time, we've got a problem, a bi-catch problem in
       the Gulf which is not a swordfish problem.  It is a
       yellowfin tuna problem.  And we've been talking to the
       yellowfin tuna folks about that problem and we're
       trying to see if we can pull something together.
                 And I think that's a fair assessment of where
       we are.
                 MR. FLYNN:  I think so, too.  I mean, if
       anybody has any questions about the mechanics of the
       bill I'd be happy to address those.
                 One of the other points that I did not make is
       that with the buyback 50 percent would come from Title
       XI loan guarantees and there would be -- correct me if
       I'm wrong -- but a 5 cent per pound dressed weight
       assessed at the dealer level.  
                 We had a trade attorney in my office review
       that for GATT problems or implications.  He was one of
       the crafters of GATT.  He didn't see problems with it. 
       But just to make sure that we're good and on par with
       everything, we requested USTR to visit Senator Breaux's
       office next week and they're going to do that.  
                 So I know there were some interim memos within
       NMFS that said that there might be a problem but, take
       my word for it, next week we'll meet on that.
                 Glen, what did I miss?
                 MR. DELANEY:  Well, the (inaudible).
                 MS. LENT:  (Inaudible.)  And we've received
       that letter and we're in the process of evaluating it
       and preparing a response.  
                 Let me just say that what I expected John to
       talk about here today was not that letter.  I expected
       you to focus more on the actual legislation, the
       mechanics, you know, the fact that importers would be
       taxed, and how would you pay -- which vessels you'd
       select and what's the basis and how much you're going
       to pay each boat and the price and that kind of thing.
                 So we'll take that as a comment from the floor
       that there's concern about -- you know, the same
       concerns that are raised by Breaux.  But let's focus on
       the time/area closure aspects of this proposal.  And I
       think one of the appealing things about the buyout
       which we all embrace, we would love to have a buyout,
       is that it helps minimize the economic effects of a
       buyout.  
                 And if we go with something that's, you know,
       similar to Blue Water or something along that seaboard,
       obviously we're impacting a lot of communities.  And
       that's what's appealing and we would love to embrace a
       buyback and we hope that this works out.
                 Thanks.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Sure.  Okay, I have about 20
       or 25 copies of it in my brief case as well.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Sure.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  No, I think it would be
       helpful because if I was on the panel I'd be asking,
       well, where are all the specifics of the proposal
       that's being made?  The major difference is buyout.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Why don't you just walk through
       the summary?
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  Rebecca, at some point there
       are, you know, comments that I would like to make
       relative to, you know, the possible two tracks as far
       as the ramifications of it in November. 
                 MS. LENT:  We have at least one more AP member
       who wants to make a presentation and so we'll try and
       make sure we have enough time for that before we break
       at 3:45.  We've got another hour.
                 MR. HAYES:  Can I make one comment, if I
       could?  Bob Hayes.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  State your name first.
                 MR. HAYES:  Bob Hayes.  I'm sorry.  I think an
       outline of this proposal and a discussion of it I think
       is useful, and I would like to point out -- and I think
       Nelson would agree with this -- you know, the work that
       the National Marine Fisheries Service has done in order
       to push this proposal to the point that it's pushed it
       is not inconsistent, I do not believe, with a
       legislative approach which clearly is going to require
       some -- if you're going to have a buyout you're going
       to have to have some kind of legislation.  I don't view
       them as inconsistent.  
                 And I think the fact that you can involve
       larger communities with more data and more analysis
       will be useful with respect to identifications of the
       positive impacts of your proposal and identification of
       maybe some other areas that could possibly be fixed as
       well.
                 So, I mean, I see this is a disclosure thing,
       as an analysis thing, and as something that is a pretty
       positive effort on behalf of the Fisheries Service.  
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Nelson Beideman.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  Nelson Beideman, Blue Water.  I
       would agree with what Bob is saying as far as, you
       know, the analysis, et cetera, but I would like to
       speak to at the proper time is we've got two possible
       different scenarios that are setting up here.  
                 One possible scenario is that we go into the
       international forum with an industry initiative,
       government cooperation, sport fish, recreational
       fishery, commercial, all working together.  We present
       this strong concept into the international forum and
       try to move forward across all species with small fish
       protection.
                 The other scenario is we have a massive closed
       area without compensation that's in court.  We go to
       our foreign compadres in the international arena and
       ask them for money to help us with the legal fees.
                 MS. LENT:  This is something that we discussed
       while we were in Spain with Miriam and Nelson.  And
       Nelson said -- I mean, not Nelson -- Miriam said,
       "Nelson, we're your best friends on this."  
                 And the reason is the following:  If indeed we
       go forth with a proposed rule and we analyze different
       options for time/area closures, one of the things we
       have to look at under a reg flex of course is
       mitigating measures.  And one great mitigating measure
       for a time/area closure is a buyout, and the analyses
       that we do are going to clearly show that we've greatly
       minimized the economic effects and we do better under
       National Standard Eight and under everything in the red
       flag if we have a buyout.  It looks great relative to
       the effects that we would have trying to reduce bi-
       catch without a buyout.  
                 So we are your best friends in this in the
       sense that even though we're on a parallel track, all
       of this would be considered.  Here is one way that you
       can mitigate economic effects, so let's keep working it
       together.  I think this is all for the common good.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  I can appreciate that, Rebecca,
       and boy, I hope everything you're saying is exactly the
       perfect world scenario that it works out to be.  But I
       believe that later on during the public comment period
       you will hear from longline industry participants that
       have agreed upon the buyout scenario that if there is
       closures without compensation there will be, you know,
       opposition.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  We want to let the presentation
       continue.  David and Russ, do you want to ask your
       question first or do you want to be first in line after
       they finish?
                 MR. WILMOT:  Well, no, I would like to ask it
       now because I was just wondering if we might actually
       get back to the agenda.  I didn't realize that we were
       coming here today to debate buyouts.  If so, we
       certainly have an awful lot of presenters who should be
       here to discuss the pros and cons of buyouts.  
                 I thought we were here to talk a little bit
       about time/area closures and the conservation
       associated with them.  Very different things.  I am
       more than happy to initiate a buyout debate here.  I am
       perfectly capable of doing it, but I'd like an awful
       lot of other experts to be here as well to talk about
       the pros, the cons, and a lot of other issues.  
                 This was not on the agenda.  I am not prepared
       to talk about it.  I don't know if everyone else knew
       about it and I'm the only one who didn't, but I would
       like to get back to talking about time/area closures
       and the conservation measures, not this lovefest with
       economic relief discussion.  
                 MR. FLYNN:  So let me talk about the time/area
       closure.  The time/area closure includes a buyout.  I'm
       sorry.  This time/area closure -- two areas.  Once
       again, I mentioned the difference between SWO-3 and the
       time/area closures identified on the over head.  The
       time/area closure in the first area is 80,000 square
       miles and it's closed the entire year.  The second area
       closed the first six months of the year is 5,400 square
       miles.  Those are the areas based upon NMFS data and
       not anybody else's data.  
                 And as far as conservation benefits, you'll
       see on the handout that's going around -- I won't go
       through all the numbers but, basically, when you think
       about small swordfish, 8,444 small swordfish, basically
       a 45 percent reduction.  
                 As far as concerns, and valid concerns, from
       the billfish folks and billfish panel, 295 blue marlin,
       148 white, 345 sail, and 25 spearfish, and anywhere
       from 34.2 percent reductions down to 8 percent
       reductions.  So, I mean -- yes.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  A little bit then about some
       of the assumptions that were made here.  This is great. 
       This is the discussion I really would like to discuss.
                 What was the assumption used on the movement
       of effort in the closed -- outside of the closed area?
                 MR. FLYNN:  Glen will help me on the science
       here.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Glen Delaney.
                 MR. DELANEY:  Getting back to the -- that's
       why a buyback is fundamental to this and, you know,
       National Standard Nine to minimize bi-catch is an
       important national standard but it's one of many and
       the one right before it also requires equal attention
       when we're doing something to conserve our resources,
       which is to consider the adverse economic impacts on
       people.  The Magnuson Act is fish -- I know it's hard
       to say -- and people.  All together.  And people.  
                 So that's the point.  It's fundamental to this
       proposal.  And to answer your question, there is no
       displacement of effort if you -- I mean, the effort is
       displaced out of the fishery.  Through a buyback the
       vessels are removed.  That effort ceases to exist so
       there is no assumption that effort is going to be
       displaced within that community of 47 vessels
       elsewhere. 
                 Will harvest continue for a longer period of
       time?  Will the catch quota be reached for swordfish? 
       Probably by vessels fishing elsewhere on larger fish. 
       That's the point is to catch larger fish and stop
       fishing where there are smaller fish.
                 MR. WILMOT:  So just to clarify -- David
       Wilmot.  The assumption was made that if the one third
       part of the quota that was caught in the closed area is
       indeed still caught outside the closed area that there
       would be zero small swordfish killed?  That's who one
       would accomplish a 45 percent reduction?  Is that
       correct?  Zero additional small swordfish would be
       caught?
                 MR. DELANEY:  I can't assume, and neither can
       you or anyone in this room, and that's why I'm
       surprised by the NMFS proposal as to what displaced
       effort or -- displaced effort is not maybe the correct
       term because it implies that these vessels are going to
       move somewhere.  But the catches are going to increase
       somewhere else.
                 MR. WILMOT:  Right, sure.  
                 MR. DELANEY:  I have an absolutely no idea. 
       No one in this room does, so it's a little difficult to
       make that assumption.  All we can say is that within
       this zone this many fish would no longer be caught.
                 MR. WILMOT:  But that's not what it says.
                 MR. DELANEY:  That's what we can say.
                 MR. WILMOT:  You could say that, but that's
       not what it says.  It says that that's the percent
       reduction in the EEZ.  That's a very different
       statement. 
                 By not catching 8,444 swordfish, that would
       constitute a 45 percent reduction in the small
       swordfish catch within the EEZ, without being able to
       assume what it is that your point is.
                 MR. DELANEY:  I know exactly what you're
       saying, David, but no one, including yourself, could
       ever make an assumption like that, could they? 
                 MR. WILMOT:  Well, actually, there are a quite
       a few data that would allow you to make a number of
       assumptions.  One could simply look at the discard rate
       in the other areas outside the closed area, and one can
       accurately make a number of assumptions from that.
                 MR. DELANEY:  Maybe more swordfish will be
       caught off the Grand Banks.
                 MR. WILMOT:  Making an assumption above zero
       in the rest of the EEZ where the fishing will occur,
       oh, yeah, that could be justified.
                 MR. DELANEY:  Well, that's your opinion.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Do you have more that you want
       to present or do you want to just get into the
       discussion?  
                 MR. DELANEY:  I think he just answered a
       question.  
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Okay, good.  We have Russ Dunn,
       Mau Claverie, Russ Nelson.
                 MR. DUNN:  I think David covered a lot of what
       I had.  The other questions went more toward, I guess,
       the -- and my understanding or qualification was 5
       percent income, more than a 5 percent change in income
       is significant and, therefore, they would be eligible
       for a buyout.
                 Is that still correct, if your income is
       affected by more than 5 percent, or is that -- the
       eligibility -- 
                 MR. DELANEY:  I don't have a copy of the draft
       in front of me but I'll be glad to get it if you look. 
       But it defines eligibility and what an eligible vessel
       would be, based on the performance.
                 Nelson, do you have in front of you the
       eligibility definition?  The question was what
       constitutes eligibility in terms of buyback and I don't
       have that piece of paper in front of me.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  Nelson Beideman, Blue Water. 
       The first eligibility point was that 50 percent of a
       vessel's sets in any of the last six years up to '97
       would have had to have been in these closed -- proposed
       closed areas.  
                 Another eligibility point is to make sure that
       these are substantial vessels.  We needed some cutoff. 
       We said at least 25 sets in that qualifying year from
       that vessel.  Okay.
                 And also that they would have to be under the
       limited access program.  That was assumed.  
                 Does that answer it?
                 MR. DUNN:  So there isn't a financial
       eligibility criteria?
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  Well, we started with we wanted
       75 percent of their income to be through pelagic
       longlining and what we discovered is that we would have
       to take a whole nother step of, you know, to get that
       information through their tax returns and what not, and
       at least at that point we were unwilling to prolong the
       process for that information.  We felt we could get at
       it, especially with Jean's advice.  We wanted the
       substantial boats and between the 50 percent of sets
       and the at least 25 sets in a year that we were indeed
       getting that.
                 Another thing I would like to reflect on is
       that to the extent that these boats volunteer and to
       the extent that, you know, they may when we eliminate
       their effort we're not only eliminating their effort
       from within the zone; we're also eliminating their
       effort year round so there could be additional benefits
       in that respect.
                 MR. DUNN:  So then my understanding is then
       that there is no link, financial link, of an
       eligibility criteria.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  No.
                 MR. DELANEY:  A further answer to that.  One
       of the reasons why we still are very much interested in
       getting the data out the National Marine Fishery
       Service regarding the particular catch histories of
       these specific 47 vessels is to further analyze what
       were the catch histories and therefore what -- 
                 (End of Tape 1, Side B.)
                 MR. DELANEY:  -- have that information.  So
       the type of analysis that you're talking about can't be
       done until we have the actual catch histories of those
       specific 47 vessels.  
                 Once we have that, it may, you know, new ideas
       or new approaches may develop when we see what the
       distribution of catch histories were over those
       fisheries and a more close linkage between what is it
       that these people are being asked to give up,
       basically, relative to how much compensation would be
       appropriate.  That linkage will become a lot more clear
       once we have that data.
                 Is that helpful?
                 MR. DUNN:  Yeah, (inaudible). 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Turn on your mike.
                 MR. DUNN:  Title XI loan guarantees.  Can
       someone tell me where the funding for that comes from? 
       Is that government money or is that money that
       fishermen have put away?  
                 My question goes to is this proposal double-
       dipping into the federal coffers.  If it's industry is
       paying for half but their funding is coming from Title
       XI and that's really a government funded program,
       aren't the taxpayers paying twice?  But I don't know
       the answer to that.
                 MR. DELANEY:  Well, you almost got it. 
       Actually, it's the federal ship financing fund is more
       correct, and Bob Hayes is nodding over there because he
       probably wrote it or something.  
                 And you can explain it better than I can, but
       basically it's a federal guarantee of a private sector
       loan to the industry, okay, which then would be
       distributed to those who are bought out, and then the
       remaining industry, whatever that principle amount plus
       -- would be amortized over, I think, a 30-year period
       with interest, whatever the standard government rate of
       interest is for this type of thing, and would be paid
       back by the industry in increments, basically just
       paying a debt service, through assessments on
       swordfish. 
                 And one thing -- I might as well go ahead and
       elaborate a little bit since it brought me to this
       point -- is, okay, what is it assessed on?  And we'd
       like to assess it on swordfish of Atlantic origin, for
       obviously reasons, not on swordfish of Pacific origin. 
       We are trying to advance the conservation of Atlantic
       swordfish.  This is all something that comes --
       basically, its origins are in ICCAT so we felt it
       appropriate to just restrict it to assessments on
       Atlantic origin swordfish.  
                 And then further, that it would be equitably
       assessed on swordfish of Atlantic origin caught by U.S.
       fishermen and caught and entered into the United States
       by foreign fishermen, under the theory that any
       swordfish that we conserve and any small swordfish that
       we protect in our own zone accrues to the benefit of
       all North Atlantic swordfishing nations because they
       are highly migratory species by definition.
                 And so we share -- perhaps one way to look at
       it is since we have 29 percent of the North Atlantic
       quota, we would get 29 percent of the benefit of
       protecting any small swordfish within this zone and 81
       percent of the benefit would go -- no, the other way
       around -- 79 percent of the benefit would accrue to all
       the other North Atlantic swordfishing nations, many of
       which export product into the United States.  So the
       assessment would be on all Atlantic swordfish marketed
       within the United States.
                 Is that clear?
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  We need to -- we have the other
       presentations.  We want to make sure we can get to it
       so we want to try to maybe take not more than another
       five minutes of questions about this one.  
                 I've got Mau Claverie, Russ Nelson.  Mike
       Nesman (phonetic), did you want to ask a question too? 
       Mike Nesman, Bob Spaeth and Steve Loga and Sonja, and
       then we're going to move ahead.  And we're going to get
       all that done in five minutes.  
                 MR. DELANEY:  I'll try to give shorter
       answers.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Go ahead, (inaudible).
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  I'll try to ask short questions
       to John about the legislation.  The Gulf Council has
       requested and Rebecca has responded to add as a
       criteria enhancing the catchability of the billfish for
       the recreational fishery in the Gulf as one of the
       criteria to look at for time/area closures.  Of course,
       all the other things have to be looked at too.
                 But this particular closure that you're
       talking about in the Gulf is not going to benefit
       billfish very much, the marlins.  It's a swordfish
       deal.  We have always thought that "longlining" is
       different kinds of fisheries in the Gulf, and the
       language in the billfish plan is carefully crafted to
       say that what the problem is is between the
       recreational fishery and the other fisheries that have
       a bi-catch of billfish.  It didn't just say longlines. 
       It said bi-catch of billfish.  
                 We assume that if there is a bi-catch of
       billfish that there is an adverse impact on the
       recreational fishing success as a result of that. We
       don't know that.  What we do know from the data that's
       historically been gathered in the Gulf is that when
       there is a yellowfin longline operation going on in the
       Gulf of Mexico in the summer months, it does adversely
       impact the fishing success substantially of the
       recreational fishery.  
                 There are other longline fisheries in the
       Gulf.  There is the swordfish fishery which is this
       closure that we're talking about, and there is the
       shark fishery, which I don't know if they catch any
       billfish.  They might catch a few but not many.
                 The bluefin tuna longline fishery which no
       longer goes in the Gulf impacted marlins very little
       because they weren't in the Gulf that time of year.
                 So my question is could that criteria be added
       into your legislation or is the door closed on that?
                 MR. FLYNN:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  It's not there.
                 MR. FLYNN:  It's not there as a swordfish
       issue; however, and I'll stress -- and please everybody
       hear what I'm saying -- is that Senator Breaux will
       continue to work with -- I mean, he went on the record
       in saying that in New Orleans (inaudible) and others.
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  Yeah, well -- 
                 MR. FLYNN:  I guess I'm looking around for a
       little bit of help.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Yes, John is correct.  John is
       correct.  Senator Breaux gave us assurance, yes -- 
                 MR. FLYNN:  (Inaudible) I mean the swordfish
       issue, the yellowfin tuna issue as well.  He came back
       and told me that, Senator Breaux, so I don't -- but
       it's not in the swordfish legislation.
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  Well, quite frankly, yellowfin
       longline fishery is the biggie and the chances of an
       agreement there are much slimmer than an agreement with
       the swordfish fishery, I think.  I'm just guessing.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Russ Nelson.
                 MR. NELSON:  Thank you, Jack.  Russell Nelson. 
       I guess three real short questions.  One, what is
       currently the value of a -- or is anticipated to be the
       value of the longline permit, the pelagic longline
       permit, the HMS permit?  
                 Two, can a permit be sold and transferred to a
       larger vessel?  
                 And, three, the language here says that the
       vessels can't be reflagged under a foreign flag or
       inter -- another closed U.S. fishery.  What does that
       mean, a closed U.S. fishery?  Does that mean any
       current fishery for which there is a permit required or
       entrance is limited?
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Glen Delaney.
                 MR. DELANEY:  I'll answer the last question
       because I think there's people more competent on the
       limited entry permits and all that.
                 But on the issue of closed fishery, would mean
       a closed, limited entry fishery.  If you don't have a
       permit, I mean, it's a statement of the obvious,
       Nelson, but for some people it was important to point
       out if you're on the Hill that they would not be able
       to fish in another fishery for which they did not have
       a permit.
                 MR. NELSON:  The legislation would not
       preclude them from using their vessel -- from obtaining
       a permit and using their vessel in another fishery? 
                 MR. DELANEY:  That's correct, if such permit
       is available.  And they may already posses such a
       permit.  Some of these vessels are multiple permit-
       holding vessels and the question they have to make is
       do they just get out of fishing or do they -- you know,
       they certainly would get out of longlining fishing
       because of the closed area.
                 Now, on the issue of the value of a permit --
                 MS. LENT:  I'm not aware of any transactions
       that have taken place yet.  If anybody from the floor
       would like to weigh in, you could.  Of course, you can
       sell your permit.  There is an upgrading restriction. 
       It's in the FMP.  It's well described in there.  I
       believe it's 10 percent on tonnage, gross net and
       length, and it's a one-time restriction, 20 percent of
       horsepower.  Those are all laid out in the FMP.  I can
       find that page for you.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Mike Nesman.
                 MR. NESMAN:  I'm intrigued by the first
       question that David asked regarding the percentage
       reduction and how those are calculated.  Obviously, I
       understand Glen and your point that 45 percent of the
       small swordfish come from the areas that we're talking
       about, but I don't think it's fair to assume that no
       other small swordfish are going to be caught if you
       catch the quota in other areas.
                 So my question would be to NMFS.  You
       obviously have looked at some of these closed areas. 
       How would this calculation be done to tell us what
       we're looking, for example, at a 45 percent reduction. 
       Is it possible now or would it be possible, you know,
       tomorrow to make an estimate of what the actual
       reduction would be assuming you caught the quota
       somewhere else?
                 MS. LENT:  If you look at -- again, Karyl,
       conducted the same analyses as for the time/area
       closures that we suggested for the Blue Water area one
       and Blue Water area two, and that's on these graphs
       here.  And that assumes that all that efforts gets
       displaced.  It gets displaced outside of the Blue Water
       closed area.
                 Now, it may be that there would be, in fact,
       fewer sets if we have a buyout and we buy out a lot of
       the small boats.  So this assumes that every single set
       that's made in the closed area, it gets made in an area
       outside.
                 MR. NESMAN:  But you also conceivably could
       have more sets.
                 MS. LENT:  Depending on how many sets it takes
       until the fishery is shut down and -- 
                 MR. NESMAN:  To catch your quota.
                 MS. LENT:  With larger fish you would expect
       fewer sets.
                 MR. NESMAN:  Well, they could be more random.
                 MR. DELANEY:  (Inaudible) provide a further
       answer to that?
                 MR. NESMAN:  Let me just finish my question
       and then I'll be glad to hear what you have to say.  At
       the same time we're looking at a quota reduction so
       none of that is factored into this; is that correct? 
       So this is just basically a status quo but closing the
       area.  
                 Thank you. 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Glen.
                 MR. DELANEY:  I would just like to clarify
       further.  I believe your analysis is a percent of total
       U.S. landings.
                 MS. LENT:  Right.
                 MR. DELANEY:  Many landings of which occur
       outside the U.S. EEZ, and our presentation is based on
       percent of landed within the EEZ.  So it's two very,
       very different numbers so it is not a relevant
       comparison to say it would be 27 percent instead of 45
       percent.  Okay, that's not a relevant comparison.  
                 I just want to make sure everybody understands
       that.  One of the two would have to be normalized to
       either everything or just the EEZ.  
                 We thought for the purpose of this discussion
       since it's -- we're talking about U.S. fisheries under
       U.S. direct management control with our EEZ, that was
       the relevant thing to look at because some of our
       catches are dispersed in quite distant water and I
       don't know that the time/area closure issue is really
       relevant to our distant water fleet, so that's why we
       talked about EEZ because it's more of the coastal fleet
       that we're talking about.  
                 But, I mean, you can make arguments either
       way.  It was just a basis to standardize it.  But it
       should be known that their numbers are total and our
       numbers are EEZ and they're very different. 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Bob Spaeth.
                 MR. SPAETH:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Steve Loga. 
                 MR. LOGA:  About the buyout, one of the things
       maybe I don't quite understand is that if 47 boats are
       bought out, that's a significant amount of boats that
       are being bought, Dave.  There is still only 365 days a
       year.  
                 We are under our limited entry on the
       swordfish.  How many more boats can fish?  How much
       more fish can we actually catch?  I don't think you'll
       see the quota even met after that 47 boats are caught. 
       If not, it will be very close.  We won't have a closure
       any more, but I would think it's a win-win situation
       for you guys and I would think you'd probably be
       patting us on the back.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Let's keep right now to
       questions about the proposal, okay?  Glen Delaney.
                 MR. DELANEY:  Okay, just a couple points on
       that.  I believe there are -- and somebody correct me
       who knows exactly -- 202 pelagic longline permitted
       vessels.  Is that the right number?  Swordfish I'm
       talking about.  Swordfish.  
                 MS. LENT:  Direct is around 180.  We'll look
       it up.
                 MR. DELANEY:  Okay, so we're talking about 25
       to 30 percent of the swordfish longline fleet being
       eliminated, okay.  Maybe that's a context everybody
       ought to chew on.
                 And then secondly, one thing that Nelson is
       trying to bring out and is not quantified here, is if
       those 47 vessels were removed, these are 47 vessels
       that have 50 percent or more of their activity within
       this zone.  
                 Well, that means that up to 50 percent of
       their activity is not within this zone, okay, so there
       is a whole bunch more fish that will not be caught by
       these vessels outside the zone.  Now, granted, the
       large fish harvest may well be met through the quota.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. DELANEY:  Right.  And what would be wrong
       with that, David, if that's the quota?  I mean, is -- 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  David.
                 MR. WILMOT:  My only response would be to a
       calculation of the savings that are associated with
       closing an area.  That's what I've tried to focus all
       of my questions on.  One must make assumptions
       regarding what's going to happen outside of a closed
       area when changes occur in a closed area.  Whether one
       ties the boats up, whether one takes them and forces a
       different gear, one must make assumptions.
                 Those assumptions here are that not a single
       juvenile swordfish gets killed outside the closed area. 
       I argue that is an invalid assumption.
                 MR. DELANEY:  That's an incorrect statement. 
       It does not assume that not a single juvenile swordfish
       -- it assumes that 43 percent of the -- or 55 percent
       will still be killed outside the zone.  What you're
       trying to say -- 
                 MR. WILMOT:  Not an additional small swordfish
       beyond what that fleet outside the closed areas are -- 
                 MR. DELANEY:  And maybe just the answer is for
       you is what NMFS has presented, which is an area of
       swordfish three which is very close.  You know, and I'm
       sure with a little bit of modification we could compare
       applies to apples and make the geographic area exactly
       the same, but I doubt the numbers are going to be
       hugely different. 
                 But not talking about the EEZ, the answer is
       27 percent of total U.S. landings, correct?  Is that
       the number somebody threw out, 27 percent?  
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. WILMOT:  And, Glen, I agree with -- 
                 MR. DELANEY:  Why is it so hard to understand?
                 MR. WILMOT:  No, no, it's not hard to
       understand at all.  And you know what?  I'm going to
       sound like a broken record, but it gets back to what
       I've been saying for years.  This is why one needs a
       goal.  If you don't know where you're trying to get,
       how would you know if the 27 feels good or, if one
       actually looks at area three, Glen, you're talking
       about 18 percent, an 18 percent reduction in bi-catch. 
                 Now, we may all agree that that's enough.  I
       suspect if I'm included in the vote the answer would be
       no, but the point is if once again no goal here, no
       goal of what one is trying to accomplish.  You're just
       picking an area.  You can quantify the boats, you can
       quantify the area, but nobody wants to talk hard
       targets.  It's a fatal flaw in this discussion. 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Sonja Fordham.
                 MS. FORDHAM:  Sonja Fordham, Center for Marine
       Conservation.  Just to clarify Russ Nelson's question,
       is it true that there is nothing to prevent boats from
       getting compensated for their permits and then fishing
       in the U.S. Pacific longline fishery?
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Glen.
                 MR. DELANEY:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MS. LENT:  If these are mostly small vessels
       I'm not sure that it would work.  I see (inaudible)
       waving his arms up (inaudible).
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MS. FORDHAM:  Well, I would just suggest with
       our global overcapacity problems and international
       agreements that maybe you would look into ways that
       retiring the vessels as they've done in New England
       ground fish.
                 MR. DELANEY:  (Inaudible) don't know the
       situation over there so that's why I hesitate to answer
       your question and -- is that helpful?  I mean, the
       spirit intent is clearly there.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Nelson, and then let's see if
       we can move ahead.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  Yeah, for one thing, these
       boats in this particular coastal area would not have
       the ability of fishing over 200 miles offshore from
       California or to, you know, even reach Hawaii if they
       had the limited access permits that are already in
       place in the Pacific which, to my knowledge, none of
       them do.
                 There is a couple of other things I wanted to
       bring up, Jack.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Quickly.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  All right.  You've been given a
       handout of what is Jean Kramer's analysis of this.  We
       did not analyze this ourselves.  This is Jean Kramer's
       analysis.  
                 And what is actually comes out to is 47.4
       percent, and the only calculation or deduction that was
       made was the 47.4 is all swordfish discards.  The 45 is
       undersized, small swordfish discards, taking out the
       chunks and shark-bit, you know, catches.  And it also -
       - you know, these areas closures would include 24
       percent of the billfish interaction reductions.
                 And one other thing is, David, you know, there
       wouldn't be more sets.  I've heard more sets a few
       times.  You know, the quota is the quota.  The quota is
       not going up.  As you know, the quota is going down. 
       There wouldn't be, you know, ultimately more sets.  You
       know, it would be ultimately less.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MS. PEEL:  We're talking billfish now, John,
       the most important fish in the sea.
                 The Billfish Foundation, as I hope most of you
       know, is interested in the conservation benefits that
       can be derived from time and area closures that could
       reduce billfish bi-catch mortality.  To get the data
       and to identify such areas and times, we asked Dr. Phil
       Goodyear to look at the catch data and see where the
       concentrations of billfish bi-catch is highest.  We
       certainly looked at the area that the Blue Water
       identified on the east coast and, as they pointed out,
       there are benefits for billfish there also, reducing
       billfish bi-catch.  
                 I will say, however, for the area in the Gulf
       of Mexico that was identified by Blue Water, it will
       not help reduce billfish bi-catch at all in the Gulf of
       Mexico.  
                 A third point, as you will see from Dr.
       Goodyear's graphs -- and I think you'll find these much
       easier to follow than the information that NMFS put
       out, not that -- it's just a different method of
       presenting it.  I think you will find it much easier to
       follow.
                 We have looked at the area identified by Blue
       Water, but there is also a very important area -- where
       did John go?  John, this is a sentence for you.  We
       also looked at areas in the Gulf of Mexico in addition,
       and there is one very important area in Senator
       Breaux's back yard that would help billfish immensely
       by reducing billfish bi-catch.  
                 And let me add, John, that this area in the
       Gulf in Senator Breaux's back yard also has -- it's not
       just yellowfin, while that's the predominant fishery,
       it also is part of the swordfish fishery as well.  
                 So once we had Dr. Goodyear to assess this
       data, then the Billfish Foundation and CCA went and met
       with Senator Breaux and showed him this data.  In fact,
       Senator Breaux was so impressed with what he saw in the
       Gulf of Mexico and New Orleans, he said, "My goodness,
       I was planning on going to British Virgin Islands in
       August to fish for billfish, but according to our own
       data, billfishing would be much better in Texas."  And
       we told him it would be if, in fact, this legislation
       did include the Gulf of Mexico area.
                 So what we're wanting to do is to have the
       area that you see Dr. Goodyear will clearly identify
       for you included in this legislation that is moving
       forward so that there is not only benefits on the east
       coast for swordfish and the swordfish fishery, but
       there are also benefits, conservation benefits, for
       billfish in the Gulf of Mexico.  So we would like to
       see a combined legislative package that would include
       both areas because the other proposed longline closure
       in the Gulf is meaningless to billfish, and swordfish
       are included in this western area.
                 Now, Phil is going to pull up a series of maps
       and charts that will show the concentrations of
       billfish bi-catch discards by month in different cells. 
       This is all the catches taken by the U.S. -- reported
       by the U.S. longline fleet, whether they are within the
       EEZ or beyond.  
                 MR. GOODYEAR:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MS. PEEL:  What?
                 MR. GOODYEAR:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MS. PEEL:  Well, it's -- okay, he's got the
       maps actually hidden underneath the disk.  If we can
       figure out how to get rid of the disk.
                 And I think what was so surprising to us and
       to Senator Breaux and everyone else that has looked at
       this -- in fact, I might even say I think Nelson from
       his reaction and Glen's -- was that the interaction
       with billfish in the western central north Gulf was
       much higher than most people -- I think the folks from
       Texas will have a hugely better fishery.  
                 In fact, from Texas clear to Pennsacola and
       since the fish are migrating clockwise, the benefits
       will come all the way down the western part of Florida
       all the way to Key West.  So if the closure is in
       place, it will have a tremendous benefit, conservation
       benefit, for billfish.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Go ahead, Phil.
                 MS. PEEL:  He's going to, Jack.  
                 MR. GOODYEAR:  Slow down.
                 MS. PEEL:  Do you have a mike?
                 MR. GOODYEAR:  Yeah.  What I wanted to say to
       start with, this data is also based on the longline log
       books that I got from the National Marine Fisheries. 
       It is based on an average of all the log books from
       1972 through -- excuse me, 1992 through 1997.  
                 And I want to mention that because it's
       important in terms of billfish because reporting has
       been going down and in the last two years, particularly
       for blue and white marlin, the reporting rate is the
       lowest that we've seen and the data are very sparse. 
       So you need to think about that in looking at the
       billfish and the analyses that you're doing.
                 Okay, well, all right.  Basically what I did
       was to take the data and divide it into time and area
       cells.  The cells were five-degree, two-degree, or one
       degrees in longitude, and pull all of the data by
       month.  
                 I then sorted based on the percent of billfish
       in the catch of targeted species.  Actually, it's
       billfish discard, dead discards, in the catch of
       targeted species.  I identified those cells which, if
       eliminated, if you eliminated all of the effort in
       those cells, you would reduce the billfish bi-catch by
       50 percent.  This simply identifies the areas where the
       bi-catch is very high.
                 Now, these particular plots, the cells that
       are stippled, have effort in them.  The colored -- the
       yellow represent cells of five degrees latitude and
       longitude that exceeded that 50 percent criterion.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.)
                 MR. GOODYEAR:  Five degree.  
                 A PARTICIPANT:  The green (inaudible).
                 MR. GOODYEAR:  Yeah, I was.  It's green here
       but it's yellow here.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Okay.
                 MR. GOODYEAR:  Okay.  The red -- yeah, the red
       is the same thing by two degrees and the black is the
       same thing by one degree.
                 What you want to look for for areas of very
       high percentage of billfish in the catch, not
       percentage of the catch are billfish overall but the
       percentage of billfish in the catch, are areas where
       there is black within red within yellow.
                 We'll switch here for a second and run through
       a series that goes month by month, and you can follow
       the distribution.  Basically, what I want you to notice
       is that the although the fish are south down in this
       area in the winter, during the summer they move up
       (inaudible).
                 MS. PEEL:  Watch the Gulf of Mexico, May
       through August.  
                 MR. GOODYEAR:  (Inaudible) June, July, August,
       September.  
                 I'm make this presentation real short here.  I
       presented some of this to you before and last time I
       suggested -- well, I pointed out -- that the actual
       selection of various should require more than just a
       scientist doing it, a scientist perspective.
                 But since I hadn't gotten anybody to help, I
       suggested three areas based on the combination of the
       catch rates and the amount of effort and the fact that
       they were consistent, contiguous blocks.
                 One was a closure June through August in the
       central and western Gulf, one was March-April down
       south, and the third was a June through August closure
       up along the northeast coast.  
                 After discussions had gotten started with the
       proposal to -- for the legislative proposal, Ellen
       asked me to look at it again, and I actually
       (inaudible).
                 The area with the highest reduction was this
       area from the Gulf.  I hadn't really looked at where
       the fish were in particular, but once we -- actually,
       once Ellen started me looking I went in more detail and
       started looking at the actual areas that are involved
       in that catch rate.
                 And you can see here, this is (inaudible)
       shows some of the percentage rates in the Gulf at
       various levels right off (inaudible) which is
       (inaudible) two degrees by five degrees (inaudible) of
       which almost all of that high bi-catch occurred.  It is
       much higher there than anywhere else.
                 The bi-catch in that area is much higher than
       it is outside that area, and I think if you redo your
       analysis with a smaller grid size you'll find a
       difference because you're diluting some of the bi-
       catch.  Some of the lower catch rates outside of that
       area are combined with the high catch rates inside, and
       I think you'll find a better -- at least for billfish.
                 Now I want to point out that the reason that
       this area is, I think, particularly important for
       billfish bi-catch is that it's involved in a yellowfin
       fishery and it's the same problem off the New England
       coast -- well, not New England but the New Jersey north
       and, well, primarily New York and New Jersey coast.
                 In terms of the magnitude of what is being
       caught in these areas, this is the depiction of the two
       areas that are, I think -- I have urged and the
       Billfish Foundation is proposing that this Gulf area be
       included, or at least considered, in the proposal.
                 If you include it along with the other area --
       the small Gulf area is not terribly important, at least
       for billfish -- if you could eliminate all of the
       effort in those areas and not distribute it elsewhere,
       you get about a 50 percent reduction in the blue marlin
       bi-catch, dead discards bi-catch, and about a 75 or 70
       percent reduction in sailfish.  Obviously, some of that
       effort is going to go somewhere else.
                 MS. PEEL:  Now, did everyone hear that?  He
       said a 50 percent reduction in blue marlin bi-catch
       mortality discard and 70 percent in sailfish.  Those
       are pretty high numbers.
                 MR. GOODYEAR:  Those are for the EEZ.
                 MS. PEEL:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. GOODYEAR:  No displacement.
                 MS. PEEL:  Without accounting for displaced
       effort?
                 MR. GOODYEAR:  Without accounting for
       displaced effort.  
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  That's in combination with
       BWFA-1 and 2?
                 MR. GOODYEAR:  Yes.  And that's really all I
       had to say.
                 MS. PEEL:  Okay, now I'd like to go back -- 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Ellen Peel, Billfish
       Foundation.  I'd like to get back to what Dave Wilmot
       was bringing up.  We are interested in the conservation
       benefits both in the regulatory process as well as the
       legislative process, but since we have been involved
       with the legislative process we also have -- that
       continues and can be combined in this piece of
       legislation.
                 The area in the Gulf is not a permanent
       closure, as is the one off the South Atlantic.  We're
       looking for only four months there.  
                 Thank you.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Nelson and then Steve Loga.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  A couple of questions for Phil. 
       Phil, what is the target catch losses, because, you
       know, what I've passed out here, okay, Terry took your
       information, put it into one degree by month, okay, and
       set out the average.  
                 And if compare what the gains on billfish with
       the losses of the target species, it's pretty erratic. 
       It's all over.  Fifty percent of the target species
       would be lost during this time in that -- in the Gulf
       of Mexico. 
                 MS. PEEL:  Are you talking about the Gulf,
       Nelson, or are you talking about the South Atlantic?
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  I'm talking about in the Gulf
       of Mexico.  Over 50 percent of the yellowfin.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. GOODYEAR:  Well, let me make two points. 
       Yes, there's going to be a loss of yellowfin, and
       yellowfin is a principal target species in those
       months.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  We can't hear you.
                 MR. GOODYEAR:  I said, yes, there would be a
       loss of yellowfin.  But if you compare animal by
       animal, particularly in the recent years, your
       comparison is muddied I think quite a bit because a lot
       of the billfish are not being reported.  We can see
       that.  We've seen a decline in the reporting.
                 I say that based on the ratio of reported --
       ratio of catch rates on observer vessels versus catch
       rates as reported in the log books.  When observers are
       on the boats the catch rates for billfish are much
       higher.
                 MS. PEEL:  So this could mean that whatever
       the savings is could be two, three, and four times
       higher as the observer data quantified at the last
       stock assessment.  The gains could be even that much
       higher.
                 MR. GOODYEAR:  At least, and particularly for
       the most recent years.  But there still is a lot --
       there are a lot more fish in the directed fishery that
       are going to be lost than individual fish.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  And the loss is higher. 
       Fishermen don't report their catches and discards fully
       accurately.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Steve Loga.
                 MR. LOGA:  Phil, when the Billfish Foundation
       looked at this did they, since I guess you looked at
       the log book coverage, was there a difference in the
       amount of billfish caught live bait versus dead bait?
                 MR. GOODYEAR:  I didn't look at that.
                 MR. LOGA:  Okay.  And on the target catch of
       yellowfins, did the Billfish Foundation -- I guess they
       didn't really look at how much yellowfins were lost
       during that time of the year?
                 MR. GOODYEAR:  I have that -- those
       calculations but I don't have them on the top of my
       head.
                 MR. LOGA:  Okay.  And also the areas right
       there, would it be true that the four months out of the
       year probably or the four months out of the year that
       fish are mostly in the Gulf of Mexico probably for the
       highest rates for all catches, not just billfish? 
                 MR. GOODYEAR:  Absolutely.
                 MR. LOGA:  So it's probably the four months
       out of the year?
                 MR. GOODYEAR:  At least for yellowfin and
       billfish. 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MS. PEEL:  And that also means mahi-mahi and
       other fish would also reap the benefits.
                 MR. GOODYEAR:  Mm-hmm.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  We have Mau Claverie, Russ
       Nelson and Randy Blankenship.  Mau.
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  Yeah, Nelson, in I forget what
       it was, the '60s or '70s, a Japanese longliner was
       seized in Panama because they had done something bad in
       the EEZ.  I think it might have been so long ago it was
       a fishery zone.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  All right.  And they took the
       testimony, the depositions, of the captain and the
       first mate and a crew member, and their sworn testimony
       was that on the average in the Gulf of Mexico when they
       put a longline out it was 20 head of marlin every set. 
       That's how good it used to be, or that's how an
       accurate count was under oath.  I don't think which it
       is.
                 But anyhow, that's a piece of history in the
       Gulf from the yellowfin longlining as the operations
       they were conducting during the summer.
                 MR. NELSON:  Phil, in looking at the catches,
       are yellowfin and marlin billfish, is there a real high
       correlation between them throughout the time and space
       cells?  Do they separate?  Are they contiguous or do
       marlin move on and yellowfins stay behind, or do they
       tend to track each other throughout the whole year?
                 MR. GOODYEAR:  I can't really answer that.
                 MR. NELSON:  The point of my question -- 
                 MR. GOODYEAR:  From the data I've looked at, I
       think they probably do coincide pretty much.
                 MR. NELSON:  Well, the point of my question
       would be if you closed a certain period of time, after
       that time would blue marlin move on elsewhere and the
       yellowfins still be there and be available to be taken,
       or would that yellowfin catch pretty much be lost as
       the blue marlin bi-catch was lost?
                 MR. GOODYEAR:  I don't know.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Randy.
                 MR. BLANKENSHIP:  I notice that looking at the
       -- Randy Blankinship, Parks and Wildlife, Texas. 
       Looking at the NMFS proposals under Billfish 1 and 4
       show not only a reduction of blue marlin and sailfish
       discards but also of large coastal sharks.  
                 And when you spread that -- their areas of
       proposed closure is out across the Gulf, you don't get
       as much of a reduction in discards for large coastal
       sharks or for sailfish, it doesn't seem like from just
       looking at this real quickly.
                 How do you think this would compare
       specifically with sailfish and then also with large
       coastal sharks with that area right there?
                 MR. GOODYEAR:  I'm not sure with large
       coastals but I'm fairly sure that this area would
       behave better for billfish than the larger areas
       because of the way the displaced effort is treated.
                 MR. BLANKINSHIP:  For billfish, but we don't
       know about sharks. 
                 MR. GOODYEAR:  I don't know.  I haven't looked
       at the coastal sharks so I would be hesitant to say
       anything. 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Nelson.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  I'm still a little bit confused
       as far as are these hot spots?  Are these, you know,
       disproportionately high areas of billfish interaction,
       or are these in fact, you know, disproportionately high
       areas of effort during this time and in that region? 
       Because pretty much billfish has gone with effort.
                 MR. GOODYEAR:  The areas were not identified
       by effort but by the percentage of billfish in the
       catch.  So it's the percent of billfish and, actually,
       their catch was -- the target species included in the
       analysis were yellowfin -- I can't remember now --
       yellowfin, swordfish, mahi, and something else.  I
       can't recall right at the moment.
                 But effort was not included in the
       identification of the areas of highest catch.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  Right.  You haven't looked at
       it as far as catch per unit of effort?
                 MR. GOODYEAR:  Well, yes, I have in doing the
       calculations of what's actually removed.  You have to
       do that calculations in the catch in the areas so I
       have done that.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  Have you looked at how many
       boats would be affected?  You know, how many of the
       approximately 103 business that fish in the Gulf of
       Mexico in recent years would be impacted?
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  No.
                 MS. PEEL:  Nelson, you said you thought there
       was 110 and Steve said he thought there was 80, so
       probably somewhere between those.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  Probably all the boats in, you
       know, pelagic longline boats in the Gulf of Mexico fish
       in those areas during the four months, you know, 52 of
       which are, you know, I believe in Senator Breaux's back
       yard, Louisiana.
                 A buyout for those boats would be 40 or 50
       million dollars.
                 MS. PEEL:  We weren't talking buyout on those.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  You would have to for four
       months.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Steve Loga.
                 MR. LOGA:  Phil, another question.  If we
       displace that fleet, do you feel that we're going to
       push them into another area?  Will they have problems
       anyway?  You and I discussed it that the western Gulf
       of Mexico is probably the most prolific fishing grounds
       that we have in the Gulf, and the reason why the
       catches maybe aren't -- maybe look a little different
       than towards the eastern Gulf.  Maybe it's because
       their boats aren't there.
                 Do you feel that there is going to be a
       problem if we move those boats that way also?
                 MR. GOODYEAR:  Well, I mean, that's the whole
       problem behind trying to estimate what the displaced
       effort is going to do.  That effort will probably go
       someplace if it's not removed from the system.  It
       probably will continue to catch billfish but because of
       the way the area has been identified, the catch rates
       almost everywhere else the catch per unit of effort for
       billfish is less.  
                 So I would expect that although there might
       still be a problem it will be less of a problem.  I'm
       not prepared to try to guess what it would be at this
       point.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Irby.
                 MR. BASCO:  Thank you.  Phil, a question for
       you.  Did you all consider about the enforcement of
       that area of that size, like maybe vessel monitoring
       systems?  Is that what you all have in mind if it would
       be a closure there?
                 MR. GOODYEAR:  I've heard that discussed, yes.
                 MR. BASCO:  And what is the size of that area?
                 MR. GOODYEAR:  I haven't calculated it.  It's
       big.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  It's big.
                 MR. BASCO:  Thank you. 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Other questions for Phil? 
       Nelson.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  You know, Phil, we're talking
       about not removing the vessels in this proposal and,
       you know, we don't have an analysis of, you know, when
       we move them further east into further, you know, more
       concentrated swordfish, small swordfish nursery areas,
       you know, what that's going to do.
                 Can there be a calculation of displacing these
       vessels?  I mean, where are they going to go?  They
       either are going to be on the west coast of Florida
       escarpment or they go into the Caribbean where billfish
       catches can even be higher, or they go up into the Mid-
       Atlantic bigeye tuna fishery during those months.
                 MR. GOODYEAR:  Well, they can't go to the
       Caribbean that time of the year and have higher
       billfish catch rates.  Earlier in the year they could
       but during that part of the year they can't.  
                 We can make any kind of assumption you want
       about what the displaced effort is and make a
       calculation.  I haven't done it because I don't feel
       competent to make a guess about what displaced effort
       is going to do.
                 What I have done when I have needed to make
       such a thing is to take the average catch rate for
       every area outside the particular area that's closed
       and apply that.  I don't have any faith that that's
       terribly good.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Ellen Peel.
                 MS. PEEL:  I was just going to, I think,
       emphasize what Phil was saying.  At that time the boats
       can't go to an area that has a higher billfish catch
       rate, and Steve could elaborate probably as far as
       probably the size of the boats.  They may be limited to
       go beyond the eastern Gulf.  The billfish bi-catch on
       the eastern Gulf, you know, would be significantly
       lower.
                 MR. GOODYEAR:  I take that back a little bit. 
       They could possibly go around and go up the coast into
       New Jersey waters.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Nelson, and then we're going to
       try to wrap up.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  You know, what we're looking at
       here with the Gulf of Mexico vessels is a completely
       different scenario than the smaller fiberglass vessels
       that are along the east coast of Florida.  We're
       looking at basically ex-shrimpers.  We're looking at,
       you know, 65 to 85-foot steel hulls.  
                 Their basic move in the past has either been
       to go to Hawaii where the fishery is now closed or,
       more recently, they go down into South America and the
       Caribbean to escape regulations when they're pinched
       too hard.  
                 And that is a concern that should be
       considered, and it would basically put the entire
       yellowfin tuna fishery in the Gulf of Mexico out of
       business by closing those boats or displacing those
       boats during the top four months of the season for that
       fishery.  
                 They already sustained a month and a half to
       two months of swordfish quota closures.  Add an
       additional four months?  Who can withstand four to six
       months of their income being eliminated?  No business. 
       No business can.  They would have to be compensated. 
       They would have to be bought out, and it would be, you
       know, perhaps in excess of 40 to 50 million dollars.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  We're going to have lots of
       opportunity to discuss this tomorrow.  We're trying to
       get information out on the table right now.
                 Are there fact questions that you want still
       to ask?  Ellen.
                 MS. PEEL:  Well, I just want -- 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Not speak.
                 MS. PEEL:  No, I just was going to note that
       Steve Loga could probably better describe the design of
       boat because he had a different opinion than what you
       had shared with us, Nelson.  Most of these are
       Vietnamese American owned boats that are fishing right
       there in the Gulf that are not likely to go to Hawaii.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Steve, did you have a question?
                 MR. LOGA:  No.  Would the Billfish Foundation
       prefer us to move those boats into Mexico and fish
       those waters during that time of year?
                 MS. PEEL:  I haven't looked at the bi-catch
       assessment to know what the rate of catch is there at
       this time so I can't answer.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Question?  Bob Spaeth.
                 MR. SPAETH:  Yes.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Turn on the mike, Bob.
                 MR. SPAETH:  Phil, back from our old refish
       days, if you take -- I guess you said anywhere between
       80 and 105 boats, whatever the number may be, if you
       take those boats out for six months, have you had a
       chance to look and see what other permits those vessels
       might have and what stresses or overstresses they may
       put on other fisheries if you don't somehow affect
       taking the vessel out?  In other words, we know they
       have multi permits.  Do we know what we're dealing with
       here?
                 MR. GOODYEAR:  The direct answer to your
       question is no.  I haven't looked at that but we have
       been mixing up three and four and now six months.  The
       analyses that I did were actually for three months --
       June, July and August.  The Foundation is talking about
       adding September or has in part of the conversations,
       but the analysis we've really only done for June, July
       and August.  
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Gail Johnson gets the last
       question. 
                 MS. JOHNSON:  Thank you.  Gail Johnson. 
       Percentages are really interesting and they present one
       view of a situation, but I'm interested in knowing the
       actual numbers.  In other words, how many marlins are
       we saving versus how many yellowfin, dolphin, and other
       sailable fish that support families and boats are we
       giving up?
                 Do you have that information?
                 MR. GOODYEAR:  I have it in a notebook, except
       that I don't have billfish because of the non-reporting
       problem.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Yeah, let's do it tomorrow. 
       Let's see if we can wrap up now and come back for
       further discussion tomorrow.
                 We're going to go -- we're going to take a
       break and then -- about a ten-minute break.  And then
       the National Marine Fisheries Service will be running a
       public hearing.  You've been given a lot of information
       this afternoon, hard copy, paper, and whatever.  Take a
       look at all of that tonight.  You know, go over it and
       be prepared.  We are going to have two hours at least
       tomorrow to talk about the time/area closures issue. 
                 The AP will reconvene in the morning at 8
       o'clock.  The HMS AP will reconvene at 8 o'clock
       tomorrow morning to talk about the bluefin tuna cap,
       and then the joint meeting of the panels will reconvene
       at 10 o'clock.  So billfish people, you can sleep. 
       Come back.  
                 And everybody needs to be back here for the
       public hearing at 4 o'clock.  You know, you need to
       hear from the people that are here to speak as well as
       everybody else.  Hang around.  Let's take a break.
                 (Recess.)
                 MS. LENT:  -- gracefully given up his seat so
       we'll ask our speakers to come up one by one and speak
       at that chair.
                 Before we start I would like to ask that you
       please try and focus your comments on the two major
       issues relative to this meeting.  Even though you are
       going to be limited in your time, please remember that
       if we go forward on any rulemaking on these issues
       we're going to have public hearings and we're going to
       have a public comment period.  So this is your first
       opportunity but definitely not your last to get your
       input here.
                 Due to the limited amount of time and the
       large number of people who want to speak, I would like
       to ask you to limit your comments to four minutes each. 
       You can say a lot in four minutes.  I also invite you
       to leave any kind of written document that you'd like.
                 Finally, I'll remind you of the ground rules. 
       You address your comments to the Fishery Service and/or
       the advisory panel.  Nothing personal, and nobody gets
       interrupted.  We all respect each other's right to come
       up here and put in their four or five minutes of
       comment.
                 Okay?  Thank you.  All right, then we will
       start with Glen Delaney. 
                 Rich.
                 MR. RUAIS:  (Inaudible) few more AP members
       (inaudible) around the table (inaudible).
                 MS. LENT:  We said we were starting at 4
       o'clock.  It's now 5 or 6 after.  AP members, do your
       jobs and have a seat.
                 Glen Delaney, you're the first speaker.  Right
       there at the mike where Robert Fitzpatrick was sitting. 
       You have four minutes.
                 Thank you.  Willie Ethridge.  After Willie,
       Roy Hillhouse.
                 MR. ETHRIDGE:  Rebecca, I spent about five
       hours driving here and I've got to spend about five
       hours driving home tonight, and since most of my
       comments are to the panel members I would prefer to
       speak later or wait till more of them take their seats.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MS. LENT:  I thought the cafe was closed. 
       Well, if you don't mind, they were told that we started
       at 4 o'clock.  I apologize, Willie.  If somebody can
       figure out how the lights work, I would appreciate
       that.
                 Willie, let's just wait a few minutes if you
       don't mind.
                 Is Phil Cosack in the room?
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MS. LENT:  Okay.  Is Phil here as an AP
       member.  Is he taking somebody's place?  
                 A PARTICIPANT:  
                 MS. LENT:  So Phil is after you.  Please take
       your seats, advisory panel members.  Our speakers are
       waiting for you.  
                 Are you ready to start, Willie?  Four minutes. 
       Thanks.
                 MR. ETHRIDGE:  My name is Willie Ethridge. 
       I'm from Wanchese, North Carolina.  I run a family-
       owned seafood business and I personally own three
       commercial longliners.  I came to the meeting today
       because of my concerns about the time/area closure. 
                 The income from my boats is somewhat less than
       50 percent of the requirement, I guess, for the buyout. 
       I serve as a board of director on the Blue Water
       Fisheries Association and at our annual meeting two
       weeks ago I voted in support of the Blue Water
       Fisheries Association buyout program that Glen Delaney
       and the gentleman from Senator Breaux's office brought
       before you people. 
                 I had tremendous reservations as a Blue Water
       director or as a person voting in support of that, but
       knowing the tremendous amount of effort and work and
       the sincerity that Nelson Beideman put into this and
       knowing that as an industry we had to do something to
       address the catch of small swordfish, I voted for that
       proposal.  
                 And I came to this meeting to see how it would
       be accepted.  And I certainly wasn't shocked and I
       certainly wasn't surprised, but it was very, very,
       puzzling that when National Marine Fisheries -- let me
       know when I got about a minute left.  When National
       Marine Fisheries came out with their proposal, the
       people from the environmental communities were silent.
       The people from the recreational communities, the
       advisory panel members, couldn't ask enough questions
       because they acted like they were just shocked, as I
       was, by something that we weren't expecting to see and
       I saw that Nelson was a little bit shocked.
                 After we got through that -- and, Rebecca, one
       thing you got to give me a 30-second extension because
       this is for your benefit.  I have some real serious
       problems within National Marine Fisheries Highly
       Migratory Office, but there is under no conditions,
       they could not pay me enough money to have your job. 
       For you to sit here with this group of people coming at
       you from three different directions, it's got to be a
       very, very tough job.  And, you know, we're supposedly
       talking about swordfish and we've got the billfish
       thrown in there.
                 But whatever the deal was, there was one
       gentleman here and when he introduced himself he said
       he was from the University of Memphis, and he asked the
       question about the economic impact.  And I just -- I'm
       53 years old next month and I have a reputation of
       being an outspoken or a hard person, but I really am
       not.  
                 And I can't understand how people can be so
       self-serving even when it's not for theirselves.  I
       mean, it's like the environmental people that as much
       as I fight them and everything, I know that we have to
       have them and I'm glad that they're there.  I can't say
       so much that I'm glad of certain individuals but I'm
       glad that there's somebody there that's looking out for
       the resource and the environment.
                 I have nothing -- no problems with the
       recreational community except their greed factor.  And,
       you know, coming from a family that my family moved to
       North Carolina because one of my ancestors got
       shipwrecked on a fishing boat out of Gloucester,
       Massachusetts, in the winter months and there was no
       way to get out of there.
                 So as a person that's been involved in fishing
       all of his life, you know, you have to change.  And if
       they tell you you can't go catch king mackerel you -- 
                 (End of Tape 2, Side A.)
                 MR. ETHRIDGE:  -- you've always done
       something.  But we're getting to the point, we're
       getting to the end, that there's really absolutely
       nowhere else to go and maybe, you know, my daddy gets
       real mad when I say this, maybe it is time to sell out
       and get the hell out of it.
                 But the reason that it's that time is where I
       really have the problem.  You know, there is supposed
       to be fair and equitable treatment between the
       different fisheries and just the double standard that
       goes on with this billfish issue, I just don't know how
       somebody that is in a position of power like you are,
       Rebecca, can deal with the pressures that are put on
       you by people at the Billfish Foundation -- you told me
       not to get personal but I have to use that one -- that
       know that they kill far more billfish than longliners
       do.  Probably 10 times, 50 times, more than the
       longliners do and they can offer a proposal up here to
       close an area for three months to commercial fishermen,
       to people making their living fishing in that area, and
       in the same three months have tournaments that would
       pay people as much as a half a million dollars for
       catching one fish that are just telling people that
       they can't go fishing because they might accidently
       catch one, and even if they do catch it they've got to
       cut if off.
                 And I've really rambled on.  One more --
       another whole minute.  The time/area closure that was
       proposed, the one, two, three, four, I was going to try
       to say something a little bit funny.  When I'm talking
       publicly I have a hard time doing it, but if anybody
       saw the movie Goodwill Hunting, I was going to
       introduce myself as Badwill Ethridge.  
                 The guy in Goodwill Hunting was a mathematical
       genius and Badwill Ethridge is having a real hard time
       with those graphs.  Maybe if I get home and get some
       time by myself I might be able to figure them out.
                 But, you know, another thing I was going to
       say was my mother really stressed real hard that I get
       an education and I just didn't listen to her, and a lot
       of times through life I had wished that I had.  And it
       kind of made me feel a little bit better when I seen
       Russ trying to -- Dr. Nelson trying to understand this
       thing who keeps bragging about -- excuse me, keeps --
       has all those titles in front of his name.
                 (Laughter.)
                 MR. ETHRIDGE:  So I guess I might have made
       some people laugh but it just really bothers the devil
       out of me that people that work for a living are being
       restricted and regulated by people that want their
       pleasure to interfere with our livelihood.  
                 I know that all this is wasted time except for
       the fact that the United States Congress passed the
       Magnuson Act and they instructed you, National Marine
       Fisheries, to treat us fairly and equally, and you're
       just not doing that.  
                 The time/area closure, if you're going to put
       a time/area closure in effect, put it in effect for
       everybody.  Let's move out of there, let's let these
       resources get back plentiful, and then maybe if some of
       us are still around we'll go back fishing.
                 Thank you. 
                 MS. LENT:  Thank you very much, Willie.  
                 MS. PEEL:  Rebecca, since Willie chose to make
       it personal I can't sit quiet and let him go.
                 MS. LENT:  Ellen, just --  
                 MS. PEEL:  Wait, wait, wait.  No, no -- 
                 MS. LENT:  Can I get Roy Hillhouse to come up
       to the table while you're talking?
                 MS. PEEL:  Yes, yes.  Willie, I think, you
       know, if you would check with your own industry
       representatives you would find that we have been
       working very hard to try to come up with constructive
       solutions.  Had the industry representative been at his
       appointment yesterday with us, I think we would have
       made additional progress.  
                 We did not have tournaments either as far as
       your accusation that billfish anglers kill more than
       longline, I don't believe that and I don't think the
       science -- but I would appreciate, you know, not
       singling out the group that has worked hard to put
       science in to try to support constructive solutions.  
                 I think other members of your own industry
       would recognize that there are other elements that take
       a different approach.
                 MS. LENT:  Ellen, I'm going to have to --
       let's move on, please.
                 MR. ETHRIDGE:  I said I was speaking for
       Willie Ethridge.  I didn't say I was speaking for any
       organized group.
                 MS. LENT:  Roy Hillhouse, come on up.  Thank
       you.  We can not engage in a debate on each speaker. 
       This is an opportunity for these folks to give their
       comments.  We're not going to rebut.
                 MR. HILLHOUSE:  I'm Roy Hillhouse, and I just
       want to say I'm strongly opposed against the cap purse
       seiners.  I've been working in this company for 17
       years and we've been taking all the quota cuts.  We
       took two quota cuts, general category.  They raised
       their quotas.  I think the seiners should get their
       chance to get a little bit more of a quota this year.
                 That's basically all I have to say.
                 MS. LENT:  Okay.  Thank you, Roy.  Phil
       Cosack, are you here?
                 MR. COSACK:  Yes.
                 MS. LENT:  Okay.  Phil, are you on the panel
       at this meeting, in the advisory panel?
                 MR. COSACK:  No.
                 MS. LENT:  Okay, come on up.  After Phil we'll
       have Rick Hillhouse.
                 MR. COSACK:  Phil Cosack, National Fishing
       Association.  I didn't really come to make a comment
       today.  I came to listen.  But after the discussions
       and the information that was passed out today, I would
       like to commend Nelson and the Billfish Foundation for
       at least trying to bring up a solution because that's
       what it's all about.  Solutions.
                 And I have several questions that are in my
       mind and perhaps maybe if you don't answer them today
       you'll at least take time to think about answering
       them.
                 In the effort to reduce 50 percent on a
       monthly basis in the Gulf of Mexico, I would wonder how
       you could compensate the longliner monetarily for
       taking that hit.  That would be a very -- I would be
       concerned about that as an individual, and that should
       be something that if you were going to make a
       legislative move that you should consider compensation
       of some sort.
                 The next thing is the closure, the time/area
       closure for the -- from Florida to I think it's the
       34th parallel.  I would be concerned about the
       additional effort that would be placed in NE-5. 
       There's 2 million hooks now being fished in NE-5 on any
       given year.  I believe if you look in your log books
       you'll see that.  
                 And I would be concerned about being in the
       closure, where would the displaced vessels go.  And
       more than likely they've got to make a living so they
       would go to NE-5, and would that effort rise from 2
       million to 4 million and would it affect the
       recreational fisheries?  I think it would, and I think
       you have to consider that and how you're going to take
       care of those people that are displaced.  
                 If you just take -- even if you take the 47
       boats out, I believe at one time it was 65 boats
       fishing in NE-5 and it could easily double, and that
       would be a problem for us in the northeast corridor and
       I wish you would take that into consideration.
                 Thank you. 
                 MS. LENT:  Thank you, Phil.  Rick Hillhouse
       and after Rick we'll here from George Permont.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  Rebecca, one thing (inaudible).
                 MS. LENT:  Make it quick, Nelson.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  It will be.  Phil, just so you
       know, it's not only been TBF but the CCA and the SFA
       that have been working with Blue Water on this.
                 MS. LENT:  Thank you.  SFA?  
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MS. LENT:  ASA.  Okay, thanks.  Thanks for
       that clarification.  
                 Rick.
                 MR. HILLHOUSE:  I'm Rick Hillhouse and I'm a
       fisherman in the purse seine category.  I'm completely
       opposed to this quota for the purse seiners.  Since
       1982 the purse seine category has been cut by 35
       percent, from 386 metric ton to 250, while other groups
       have gotten an increase as much as 110 percent for just
       one group.  
                 Everybody is getting increases and the purse
       seiners have always been taking a decrease whenever
       other groups feel they should have a little more of the
       quota.  The way this new purse seine cap is written,
       250 metric tons or 18 percent of the U.S. quota,
       whichever is less.  So the purse seiners have no other
       place to go but down.  The law should be 18 percent of
       the U.S. quota, no more, no less.  
                 And the purse seine is a very historical
       fishery.  Without the purse seiners catch from years
       ago there wouldn't be much of a quota to fight over.
                 Thank you. 
                 MS. LENT:  Thank you very much, Rick.  George. 
       And after George Permont we'll hear from Chris
       Ingrande.
                 MR. PERMONT:  Good afternoon.  My name is
       George Permont.  I'm a commercial fishermen and fish
       spotter.  Since 1967, 90 percent of my annual income
       has been dependent on the accurate and successful
       harvest of tunas, in particular, the Atlantic bluefin
       tuna.  
                 My principal gear method is as a fish spotter
       working with purse seiners; however, I have also worked
       with recreational, charter, and other commercial
       categories.  My over-ocean efforts have also included
       aerial surveys for, among others, Woods Hole
       Oceanographic, Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences,
       the New England Aquarium, the Commonwealth of
       Massachusetts, and the National Marine Fisheries.  
                 I have also personally funded my survey work
       when I thought such a response by others was
       inadequate.  An example of that would be off of the
       North Carolina winter fishery in 1994, February.
                 I'm here to speak to the issue of the proposed
       quota cap on the purse seiners and the Atlantic bluefin
       tuna fishery.  Prior to 1981, various seiners accounted
       for nearly 80 percent of all members of the tuna family
       caught off the U.S. Atlantic coastal waters.  This
       historical fishing pattern with its documented landings
       was, in large part, the basis for the determination of
       the U.S. quota.  The quota was initiated in 1982-82.
                 In the 1960s and in the '70s, as many as 20
       seiners fished for bluefin, yellowfin and skipjack. 
       Those of us who began the New England purse seine
       industry were so alarmed at the threat that those
       vessels in passing posed that we lobbied for quotas and
       restrictions.  
                 Our initiative was to protect the valuable
       juvenile resource even if it meant the end of our local
       fishery.  It was the right thing to do and the results
       are evident.  I would note that they would be more
       evident if there had been similar stewardship in the
       eastern Atlantic.  
                 We also fished for the giant Atlantic bluefin
       tuna and have been since the late '60s and the early
       '70s.  When I began flying in 1972 there were no more
       than 20 boats using harpoon and rod and reel that tried
       to sell their catches of this giant fish.  The seiner
       AA Farany was the only commercial vessel of
       consequence.  
                 It was the early thinking of the Farany's
       owners which led to the introduction of the Japanese
       market, the result of which is that the Atlantic
       bluefin tuna fishery for giant fish is one of the most
       commercially viable fisheries on this coast.  
                 In 1981 we were rewarded with a quota
       allocation of giants per historical entry.  There were
       five regional seiners which were directed to equally
       share a 386 ton quota.  That quota divided amongst five
       vessels amounted to less than the tonnage of fish that
       I caught with one boat in 1972.
                 Later, that initial quota tonnage was reduced
       to 301 tons.  In 1996 the historical quota for the
       seiners was further reduced to 250 tons.  No other gear
       method was subjected to a reduction.  
                 Several written directives by Rawley Smitten,
       then-director of Highly Migratory Species, placed the
       restoration of the historical seiner quota as a
       priority.  We are now realizing an increase in total
       available U.S. quota, an increase in allocation for all
       gear methods based on their percentage of the harvest,
       all gear methods, with the proposed exception of the
       seiners.  
                 It has been suggested that the five vessels in
       question be capped at the current diminished level,
       that in spite of the documented historical fishing
       pattern which determined the U.S. quota, that in spite
       of our efforts to protect the future of the juvenile
       fish, that in spite of our already reduced quotas and
       in spite of written assurances from the director, that
       in spite of the advisory panel's majority position of
       status quo for all gear allocation, the historical
       seiners whose foresight has enabled the fishery to grow
       beyond everyone's expectations, that those vessels,
       their owners and crews and families and the dockside
       support systems and various other infrastructural
       entities should not be rewarded incrementally is more
       than lamentable.  It is legally challengeable.
                 I would strongly suggest that the National
       Marine Fisheries amend the fisheries management plan as
       to allow the seiners to receive their due percentage of
       quota; however, and I speak for myself, I do feel that
       this should cap when the quota returns to a mid-point
       between the original 386 and the current 250 tons.  My
       suggestion would be a cap of 320 tons.
                 Thank you. 
                 MS. LENT:  Thank you, George.  Chris Ingrande
       and then we'll hear from Roger Hillhouse.
                 MR. INGRANDE:  I'm Chris Ingrande.  What he
       said.  I'd say that the cuts are -- we definitely want
       to cut on our cap, on our quota.  We've been cut
       several times.  It's not -- it just hasn't been right. 
       We've bent over backwards and I think it's time we are
       (inaudible).   
                 Thanks.
                 MS. LENT:  Thank you very much, Chris.  Roger,
       and then we'll hear from Michael Avala.
                 MR. HILLHOUSE:  My name is Roger Hillhouse and
       I'm a part owner in three of the purse seiners.  I fly
       a fish spotting plane for the last 40 years, and I got
       caught by surprise on this meeting as I just got back
       from a trip so I'm a little off guard.
                 I was once an advisor just like each one of
       you are here a long time ago, right when we began this
       whole bluefin project.  I enjoyed it and I took the job
       just as serious as you're probably doing.  Kind of like
       a freshman congressman and you're going to go out and
       change the world.
                 But somehow or another it didn't quite work
       that way.  Year one we passed a quota and we also
       passed a size limit.  We were very proud of ourselves. 
       But then from that time on we put forward a number of
       very solid and constructive suggestions, and I'm sure
       you guys do the same thing and then you wonder what
       happened to them.  They never get to the floor because
       sometimes they don't fit somebody's agenda.  
                 And this agenda right now is catching us purse
       seiners in a very awkward position.  We really don't
       know how to fight back and there isn't any way, so we
       ask people like you to meet us half way and be fair. 
       And you voted -- well, let's go on down with what I
       wrote down.  
                 Maybe a half to two thirds of you are
       government people in some layer associated in state
       regulations or whatever, and you know the feeling when
       you put down a good idea and you think it will sail and
       then all of a sudden a group or an agenda above you
       somewhere buries it and you idea and thing fails.
                 This cap here appears to be a very small
       incidental thing.  It really doesn't sound like much,
       but it's one heck of a lot more than it's being touted
       to be because it's the first step into breaking
       historical fishing rights.  It's putting the foot in
       the door and we're upset about it.  
                 Last year you people here voted by a majority
       that it should be a status quo for purse seiners and
       you met it, but it didn't fit somebody's agenda so they
       put it back in another sheep's closing and it's called
       a cap this year.  It doesn't sound like much, but it's
       there.
                 Personally, I think it's a slap in the face to
       you because you voted it once and now you're finding
       yourselves voting it again, and we're sweating it out
       to see which way you will vote because it makes a lot
       of difference to us whether we have a cap or whether
       we're treated like other people.  
                 I don't think the fact that you catch a fish
       by a hook or you catch it by a harpoon or a net.  So
       long as you stay within the conservation lines it
       shouldn't be treated any different than anybody else.
                 If I was sitting on this advisory committee I
       know what I'd vote.  I'd vote my conscience on it.  I'm
       going to leave that up to you.  You did it the last
       time.  
                 This cap has nothing to do with conservation
       to start with.  There is no risk to the fish.  The vote
       on the purse seine of 250 tons should be null and void
       on principle if nothing else.  
                 I had a number of notes but I'm trying to keep
       within those four minutes, so let's go to independent
       science and its importance.  Do you ever wonder why so
       much pressure is put on purse seiners?  I've heard it a 
       number of times said that when we had 1 380-ton quota
       that we were the ones that financed a lot of the
       independent science.  And that's correct.  We did, and
       we'll do it again.  We'll do it out of what we have.
                 We help a lot and there are conservation
       groups that haven't put a dime into it.  Some of them
       are bad.  I mean, it just doesn't make sense.  They
       spend their time trying to cut us down when they could
       take that same money and join us and get something done
       at ICCAT.
                 So, anyway, we wonder why maybe we get cut
       down, and maybe this group or this agenda has figured
       out if we cut down on the money these people have,
       maybe we won't have so much opposition with independent
       science.  Independent science has embarrassed the
       National Marine Fishery Service a number of times. 
       They're not always wrong.  They are good, hardworking
       people but they've been shot down a number of times by
       -- and if we were not contributing to this science
       where would we all be?  I can tell you.  Amid doom and
       gloom sometimes.  
                 Let's say that a few years ago they were
       brought before the National Academy of Science to
       settle the argument.  Ten independent scientists, and
       they ruled that the cold, hard analysis was in error
       and the numbers needed to be adjusted.  Not our cold,
       hard, but National Marine Fisheries. 
                 MS. LENT:  About one minute left, if you could
       wrap it up.
                 MR. HILLHOUSE:  I am almost there.  So amid
       gloom and doom we went to one of the ICCAT meetings
       recently. Our government recommended a cut in the quota
       and due to an aerial survey that ten or eleven fish
       spotters put together with some National Marine
       Fisheries money and the CORIA money, took these photos
       of these huge schools of fish and ICCAT got so excited
       and says, we listen to your people, there's nothing. 
       So these things are helped financed when people make
       money.
                 Now speaking of an aerial survey, I personally
       with another spotter put the Noah airplane on huge
       schools of fish, thousands and thousands of fish, line
       them up, tell them when to take the picture, and nobody
       has ever seen those pictures or ever heard of them
       again.  
                 And that was before our aerial survey and I
       still have never heard what happened to them, and I can
       assume they had bad film.  Excuse me.  So we may
       flatter ourselves that anybody would want to kill us
       off just because of independent science.  I think our
       Congress years ago settled that with check and balance
       of Congress, Administration, Judicial systems.  
                 So what's wrong with a little independent
       science?  It keeps us all on our toes and I say a vote
       no on this purse seine cap is a vote towards
       independent science because I guarantee every extra
       penny we get we spend it with East Coast Tuna on their
       science and we welcome other groups that will join us. 
       So I hope -- 
                 MS. LENT:  Thank you, Ray.
                 MR. HILLHOUSE:  I hope you vote the way I
       would vote if I was still on a commission.
                 MS. LENT:  Thank you.  Michael Avala and then
       we'll hear from David Cabrall.
                 MR. AVALA:  My name is Mike Avala.  I fish on
       the Bull Ruth and Pat (phonetic) purse seine for
       bluefin tuna.  I fished there for 20 years.  I'm
       married.  I have three little kids, and I make my
       living catching giant bluefin tuna.
                 Any cap on the purse seiners definitely
       affects me, my family, and my income.  Like I said, I
       fished for 20 years.  I believe it makes me a
       historical participant to this fishery.  And a cap
       would eventually put me out of business.  
                 The purse seine fleet has suffered many cuts
       in the past and now that the U.S. quota is increased,
       the seiners with a cap will receive no quota or any
       additional tonnage.  
                 And I am sure that in the future if there are
       cuts, they are going to come look to the purse seiners
       first for the cuts, and I don't think that's right.  If
       the quota goes up, we should be able to get an
       increase, and if the quota goes down we've always taken
       the increase.  
                 And that's all I've got to say.  I'm just
       totally opposed to any cap.  Thank you.  
                 MS. LENT:  Okay, thank you, Michael.  David
       and then we'll hear from Joseph Avala.  Please correct
       my pronunciation of your last name.  Sorry.
                 MR. CABRALL:  My name is David Cabrall.  I
       live in Westport, Mass.  I'm a crew member on the
       fishing vessel Ruth and Pat, a vessel which
       participates in the purse seine fishery for Atlantic
       bluefin tuna.  
                 I've been fishing for bluefin tuna for more
       than 18 years.  The share I get as a crew member on the
       fishing vessel Ruth and Pat is critical to me and my
       family for it accounts for more than 95 percent of my
       income.
                 I would like to talk about the National Marine
       Fishery's proposal for the allocation of bluefin tuna
       and, in particular, about the way which National Marine
       Fisheries proposed to handle allocations in a purse
       seine fleet in the future.  National Marine Fisheries
       has proposed that each bluefin tuna group gets a
       specified percent of the overall ICCAT quota to the
       United States.  However, the purse seine fleet would be
       the only gear group to be limited to a maximum tonnage,
       only equal to the 1998 allocation of 250 metric tons.
                 In other words, while all other gear groups
       would benefit proportionately from increases, the purse
       seiners would not.  This is including the additional 43
       metric ton we are due to receive in 1999.  It is
       unfair, unjust, to single out the purse seiners in this
       way.
                 When quota issues were discussed in the past,
       I'm sure that (inaudible) favored maintenance of
       historical allocation or status quo did not mean purse
       seine fleet would be frozen forever at its current
       level even if more quota became available from ICCAT.
                 It is completely unjust to say that the purse
       seine fleet must suffer along with others if the ICCAT
       quota is reduced, but that it can not benefit from an
       ICCAT increase.  For years we have shouldered the
       burden of conservation in order to help rebuild the
       stock.  Now with conservation working, it is only fair
       and right that we should receive our share of the quota
       increase due to the success of our efforts.
                 In sum, I urge the National Marine Fishery as
       strongly as I can to remove the 259 metric ton ceiling
       on the purse seine allocation in the final regulations. 
       Thank you for your consideration.
                 MS. LENT:  Thank you, David.  Joseph Avala and
       then we'll hear from Cory Desuzo.
                 MR. AVALA:  Hi, I'm Joe Avala.  I fish on Ruth
       and Pat and I own the Potpourri.  I'm here to talk on
       the tuna cap.
                 The total United States tuna allocation from
       ICCAT was just because of the seiners.  In 1982 when
       ICCAT wanted information or records of how much tuna
       was landed in the U.S., the records they had was from
       the seiners.  So all our tuna actually came from the
       seiners.  
                 Later on the seiners were given a quota and in
       1995 one of the categories went over their quota and in
       order for the U.S. to save face they came to the
       seiners and I say stole or borrowed 50 or 60 ton from
       the seiners, with the promise that when fish came back
       that they would be restored to the seiners.  We have
       letters and -- to that effect.
                 So any time that something has happened with
       the tuna, it's the seiners who have given up and given
       up and given up.  Now, I've had so many things pushed
       on me from NMFS with swordfish, we're dragging with all
       their rules that take into no consideration that I have
       a family to support.  I've only been tuna fishing now
       for three years but I need it because I have almost
       nothing else.  
                 So it's a big economic loss to me although
       every time NMFS comes out with an economical impact
       it's a very small economical impact because there's
       only 18 people involved.  Small for everybody else but
       not for them 18 people.  And I happen to be one of
       them.  Twice, not once.
                 So now here I am on a tuna boat.  I must be
       poison or you must have a target on my back because
       wherever I go you target me out.  Here we are with the
       seiners now.  We've got a little bit of fish back and
       we should be getting some, at least the percentage that
       everybody else is getting.  
                 We're not trying to cut any other user groups
       because by working together we did get more tuna.  You
       guys are trying to say there was only 3,000 in the
       whole western Atlantic and, thanks to George Permont
       and Marlene Lucavich and New England Aquarium and the
       pilots, we proved how much fish was out there.  Thanks
       to the seiners and their affiliates again.
                 So here we are now.  There's a little bit more
       fish and you put a cap on it so we can never go up. 
       However, if comes the middle of August and somebody
       goes over and the U.S. is in danger of going its
       allocated amount of fish quota from ICCAT, where are
       you going to get it?  The seiners are the only ones who
       haven't been out fishing.  Guaranteed you go after them
       again.  We have no guarantees.  
                 All these people know it.  They've told you
       that time and time again.  But do you care?  No, it
       don't make no difference to you.  But I'll tell you it
       makes a big difference to me.
                 Magnuson says in Magnuson Act that everything
       should be done fairly.  If you need to make rules to
       cut back on the quotas, it should all be done equitably
       amongst all user groups.  It hasn't been.  It's been
       the seiners.
                 It also says when the fish come back it should
       be done equally to all user groups.  It hasn't.  Not to
       the seiners.
                 That's all I have to say.  I want to thank you
       for your time.  I know it's all anecdotal information,
       but thanks anyway.
                 MS. LENT:  It's very useful.  Thank you,
       Joseph.  I do appreciate the tie to the national
       standards, the Magnuson-Stevens Act.  That's a helpful
       comment for everybody here.
                 Corey.  Then after Corey we'll hear from Sonny
       Avala.
                 MR. DESUZO:  Hi, my name is Corey Desuzo and
       I'm from Akusnut, Mass.  I'm a crew member on a seiner
       for 11 years and I've already seen what you guys have
       done to us in the past with our quota.  Since '91 we've
       taken a 40 percent cut and due to the Japanese economy
       last year we took a 40 percent cut in pay, which we had
       no control over.
                 We're the ones that have taken substantial
       cuts in the past and now when it's time to give some
       fish away you want to cap us at our current level.  How
       much more unfair do you want to make this?  One of the
       things you're forgetting is when the U.S. quota was
       established in the early '80s they took the landings of
       the seiners to get that quota, and had there been no
       seiners there might not ever have been a commercial
       bluefin fishery in the U.S.  
                 And, also, capping the seiners goes totally
       against the principle of traditional fishing patterns
       expressed in the Magnuson Act.  You're playing with our
       livelihoods and our future.  
                 The least you could do would be to do away
       with the purse seine cap so at least if the U.S. got
       more quota we could benefit from it too since we've
       already suffered enough.
                 Thanks.
                 MS. LENT:  Thank you very much, Corey.  Sonny. 
       And then after Sonny we'll hear from George Vasoncelos.
                 MR. AVALA:  Good afternoon.  My name is Sonny
       Avala.  I'm captain of the purse seiner Ruth and Pat. 
       I have been seining tuna since the early '60s.  The
       brunt of my income comes from seining tuna.
                 I want to go on record as being opposed to the
       cap on the purse seine fleet.  I'm a former member of
       the ICCAT advisory board.  I was also a U.S. delegate
       in 1982 when the original 30-year conservation
       management plan was drawn up.
                 The idea of the plan was for all user groups
       to accept a temporary inconvenience in the name of
       conservation so that all user groups involved could
       benefit in the future as the stocks were rebuilt.
                 The seiners have been expected to accept more
       than their fair share of the burden of quota cuts in
       the past and have done so in the name of conservation
       and with the intent that they would share in the
       expected rewards in the future as the quota increased.
                 It was under that concept that the people
       involved made their occupational and business decisions
       and investments with an 85 ton per boat allocation. 
       Now, once again, the new faces in NMFS have decided to
       change the rules in the management plan.  
                 I believe for a fishery management plan to be
       successful requires cooperation between the fishery
       managers and the fishermen.  Cooperation will provide
       good science for the fishery managers, good
       conservation measures for the fishery, and a lucrative
       fishery for the fishermen.  
                 Need we ask any more?  With this proposed cap
       on the seine fleet the new faces in NMFS are proposing
       a one-way street for one user group.  They are allowing
       for a decrease in the seiners' allocation with no
       chance for an increase.  
                 I fail to see any act of cooperation with the
       purse seine fleet by the fishery managers.  I think it
       would be a step against good science, good
       conservation, and the occupational and business
       decisions made by the fishermen involved.  I ask NMFS
       to reconsider and remove the cap on the seiners in the
       name of conservation and fairness to the people
       involved and to treat them the same as all other user
       groups in all them quota adjustments.  Nothing more and
       nothing less.
                 I feel this cap on one user group is unfair,
       unjust, and unacceptable.  This purse seine cap
       directly impacts the purse seine fisherman
       economically, which is against the Magnuson Act.  It is
       directly against preserving traditional fisheries,
       which is also against the Magnuson Act.  And also it is
       directly against the historical fishing patterns from
       which the U.S. quota was originally derived at the
       ICCAT meetings.  I was there.
                 And just for information's sake to wrap this
       up, I would like to say in 1981 the seiner Ruth and Pat
       landed approximately 24,000 bluefin.  That's thousand,
       no hundred.  In 1983 we voluntarily in the management
       plan, part of what I sat in on as a U.S. delegate, came
       up with an allocation, an individual allocation for the
       same boats, of approximately 330 fish.  That's 330
       versus 24,000.  There were boats that caught more than
       us.  We didn't catch the top amount.  There were people
       who caught more.
                 And in wrapping it up, I would just like to
       say the goal of U.S. fishery managers should be more
       fish for all user groups as the stocks continue to
       improve.  Thank you for your time and consideration.
                 MS. LENT:  Thank you, Sonny.  George.  And
       then we'll hear from Matt Paquette.
                 MR. VASCONCELOS:  Good afternoon.  My name is
       George Vasconcelos.  I'm a commercial fisherman on the
       purse seiner Ruth and Pat.
                 And here's a big surprise:  I'm opposed to the
       proposed purse seine cap.  I have counted on giant
       bluefin tuna for my main source of income since 1980. 
       There are about 60 people directly involved in this
       historical fishery who depend on it for their main
       source of income.
                 In this proposal we are allocated 18 percent
       of the U.S. quota, which seems fair on the surface if
       the quota ever goes down our quota will go down
       proportionately.  But if the quota goes up, indeed if
       the quota ever doubles or triples or even more, our
       quota can never go up.  
                 The purse seine cap goes against the proposed
       National Marine Fishery Service objectives because it
       is designed to possibly wipe out this historical
       fishery eventually.
                 Since 1991 we have lost about 40 percent of
       our quota, which had nothing to do with conservation. 
       In 1995 we had 50 metric ton taken from us with a
       promise we'd get it back if the U.S. ever got more
       quota.
                 Last year due to the poor Japanese economy and
       the weak Japanese yen, we had a 40 percent pay cut from
       the previous year.  We have such a small quota now that
       anything other than a high price for our fish makes it
       difficult for us to make ends meet.  
                 We have done everything we can to conserve
       this resource.  We are very selective and all the fish
       we catch have spawned at least once.  I ask you to
       please help get rid of this unfair proposal for a purse
       seine cap.
                 Thank you. 
                 MS. LENT:  Thank you, George.  And -- make it
       real quick, Ray.  We've got a lot of people who want to
       talk.  Thanks.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Thank you, Rebecca.  I just
       want to point out, what is the size of the crew of the
       Ruth and Pat or some of the other purse seiners?
                 A PARTICIPANT:  We have about ten on each
       boat.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  About ten on each boat?  Thank
       you. 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Also (inaudible).
                 MS. LENT:  Terrific.  Thank you.  Very good
       question.  Okay, Matt.  And then we'll hear from Steven
       Avala after that.
                 MR. PAQUETTE:  My name is Matt Paquette.  I'm
       from Fahavan, Massachusetts.  I've been a crewman on
       the Ruth and Pat for -- since 1980.  My income from
       bluefin is crucial to my family.  It's my main source
       of income.
                 Imposing this cap, you also impose a cap, a
       salary cap, on every man that works on a purse seiner. 
       I don't think there's a person in this room that would
       want to spend the rest of their life with a salary cap.
                 The purse seiners are a historical part of
       this fishery and I think the Magnuson Act calls for the
       preservation of historical fisheries.  
                 In past years when quota cuts were
       implemented, it was the seiners and the seiners only
       that received the cuts.  We have endured the brunt of
       the conservation burden for this fishery for a good
       many years now, and I think it's time we take part in
       the rewards brought forth by our efforts.
                 So I strongly urge this board to persuade the
       National Marine Fishery Service to remove the cap from
       the 250 tons on the purse seine quota.  Thank you. 
                 MS. LENT:  Thank you, Matt.  Steven Avala. 
       Oh, hang on, Matt.  A quick question. 
                 MR. BASCO:  (Inaudible) ask you a question
       (inaudible).  What was -- 
                 MS. LENT:  Use your mike, please, Irby.
                 MR. BASCO:  Sorry.  What is the length of time
       of your fishing season or how long do you fish?
                 MR. PAQUETTE:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. BASCO:  I'm sorry?
                 MR. PAQUETTE:  That varies.
                 MR. BASCO:  Well, I mean, do you have -- 
                 MR. PAQUETTE:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. BASCO:  Is it one month, two months, five
       months?  I'm unfamiliar with the fishery.  
                 MR. PAQUETTE:  It's been as short as two
       weeks.  It's been as high as three months.
                 MR. BASCO:  Okay, thank you.
                 MS. LENT:  Okay.  Steve Avala, go ahead.
                 MR. AVALA:  My name is Steve Avala.  I work on
       the seiner Ruth and Pat.  I've worked there for 20
       years.  I started there as a swordfisherman at the age
       of 12, and in 1980 I started tuna fishing.  I have been
       a commercial fisherman for some of my childhood and all
       of my adulthood.  I rely on fishing for 100 percent of
       my income.
                 I would like to say that I strongly oppose a
       cap on the purse seiners.  I think it is totally
       inappropriate to tell people that have fought hard to
       rebuild the fishery that they will not share in any
       profits in the future for all of their efforts in the
       past.
                 I feel the seiners have been discriminated
       against enough by all the regulations we have to live
       with and singling us out for a quota cap is nothing
       less than discriminatory.  I don't think any person in
       this room or in this country would agree to placing a
       quota cap or salary cap on their job, whether it be a
       government employee, an office worker, or a commercial
       fisherman.
                 I think this cap has nothing to do with
       conservation or preservation.  It's just another cheap
       shot by National Marine Fisheries.  They're trying to
       destroy a very traditional fishery. 
                 In closing, I ask everyone on the AP to oppose
       any cap on the purse seiners.  Thank you. 
                 MS. LENT:  Thank you, Steve.  Sam Mayola.  I
       hope I pronounced that correctly.  And after that we'll
       hear from Jule Bedrill.
                 MR. MAELLO:  Good afternoon.  My name is Sam
       Mayola.  I'm a fisherman on the tuna seiner Sea Rover. 
       I'm totally against a quota cap for the purse seine
       category because there is no legitimate reason for this
       biased action.  We have been continually harassed and
       discriminated against because we are a minority.
                 The seiners were the major reason why the U.S.
       received 52 percent of the western Atlantic quota, and
       I have watched as quota cuts after quota cuts have been
       taken away from us with a promise that you will get
       them back when the time comes.
                 The victory at ICCAT, I believe that time is
       now.  I believe we should return to the historical
       proportional distribution of 1982.  I believe we should
       stop the redistribution of quota so as to appease a
       political select few.  And I believe we should say no
       to the purse seine cap.
                 Thank you. 
                 MS. LENT:  Thank you very much, Sam.  Jule and
       then after Jule we'll hear from Joey Jansowitz.
                 MR. BUDREAUX:  Thank you for the opportunity
       to comment here today on the purse seine cap issue.  My
       name is Jule Budreaux and I am president of the North
       Shore Community Tuna Association from Saugus, Mass. 
       Our association has over 100 members, making us one of
       the largest organizations representing general category
       fishermen.  
                 In addition to fishermen, we have many support
       businesses such as marinas, bait and tackle supplies,
       fish dealers, marine electronic suppliers, boat repair
       facilities, and other supporting organizations.
                 This September our association will host a
       giant bluefin tuna tournament from Gloucester.  The
       purpose of this tournament is to raise money for the
       Atlantic bluefin tuna research program at the New
       England Aquarium.  We hope to sell all bluefin tuna
       fishermen participate in this worthy cause so that
       someday we may better understand the migration habits,
       the stock structure and biology of this magnificent
       fish.
                 Now on to the purse seine cap issue.  North
       Shore Community Tuna Association does not support this
       cap on the purse seine fleet.  We are fully aware and
       recognize the important role the purse seine fleet has
       had in developing this fishery and the markets we have
       today.  We respect the traditional nature of the purse
       seine fishery and the obviously economic importance it
       has on the Port of Gloucester as well as to the crews
       and the families of the fleet.
                 In 1997, the value of bluefin tuna landed in
       Gloucester was $4,200,000, second only to the codfish
       at $5 million.  I am personally aware of several
       businesses in Gloucester that benefit substantially
       from the purse seine fishery and, as I have said
       before, we are a commercial tuna association looking
       for the interest of the entire community.  
                 We can not see any valid reasons to penalize
       the purse seine fishery and the businesses and families
       that depend on it for this -- on it as this recovery
       plan moves forward.
                 I also want to inform the advisory panel that
       I and many of our members attended the March public
       comment hearing in Gloucester on the proposed rules and
       that every fisherman in the room opposed this cap.  We
       are the fishermen who directly compete commercially
       with the purse seiners and I think you should favorably
       consider our support and allow them full and equitable
       sharing in the U.S. bluefin quota and in any quota
       increase.  
                 A cap on the purse seine fishery is seen by us
       in the general category as the first step in the
       process of decommercialization of the bluefin tuna
       industry.  We in the general category don't wan this to
       happen.  North Shore Community Tuna Association does
       not support efforts to take anyone else's quota.  
                 We firmly believe that those advocating
       unfairly reducing another category from its historical
       level of participation are in the minority.  We urge
       the advisory panel to ignore these greedy calls and
       intentions.  We support the historical proportional
       sharing.  We believe in the Magnuson Act also requires
       that National Marine Fisheries allow an equitable share
       of recovery benefits among all user groups.  This cap
       is very discriminatory toward only one user group.
                 Again, I strongly urge you, the Highly
       Migratory Species Advisory Panel, to recommend that
       National Marine Fisheries eliminate the cap on the
       purse seiners as soon as possible.  Thank you. 
                 MS. LENT:  Thank you, Jule.  So we'll hear
       from Joey Jansowitz and them from Mark Porier
       (phonetic).
                 MR. JANSOWITZ:  Hi, everybody once again on a
       beautiful fishing day in New England that I can't be
       at.  My name is Joe Jansowitz.  I'm the current
       president of the East Coast Tuna Association.  I've
       been fishing for giant bluefins since 1966 when I was
       12 years old.  They finally let me in the chair in 1968
       and I caught one.
                 I've been in the general and harpoon
       categories since the beginning of the management
       regulations in the '70s.  The East Coast Tuna
       Association's membership ranges from about 350 to 450
       people a year.  We are the largest and the oldest New
       England based tuna organization and the bulk of our
       membership comes from general category and harpoon
       category members.
                 All five purse seine boats and their crews are
       also members, and we have charter boat category
       members, incidental category members.  Basically, we
       represent everybody in the bluefin fishery.  
                 Our board of directors consists of 25 members
       from the various fishing categories.  Includes several
       licensed dealers also.  The association was formed in
       1982.  We have two principal objectives:  to sponsor
       independent science on Atlantic bluefin tuna resource
       and to protect the traditional United States bluefin
       fisheries and our historical fishing patterns.
                 This means we work to fight and preserve all
       five historical commercial and recreational fishing
       categories for Atlantic bluefin.  We do not want to see
       any traditional U.S. fisheries put out of business. 
       Obviously we recognize that all U.S. groups need more
       quota and the only way we can do that is to get more
       quota from ICCAT.  We categorically reject the efforts
       of some to take away or steal quota from other
       categories.
                 East Coast Tuna is adamantly opposed to this
       cap on the purse seine fleet as it will destroy the
       historical proportional quota sharing system in place
       since 1982.  This cap is entirely inconsistent with the
       fisheries management plan's objectives to minimize
       economic displacement, preserve traditional fisheries,
       and the cap will eventually dramatically distort the
       U.S. historical fishing pattern for bluefin. 
                 I want to make this point very, very, clear to
       everybody here.  On behalf of all of our members of the
       East Coast Tuna Association, bar none, that includes
       every category of fisherman, hundreds of general and
       harpoon category members, there is no legitimate
       justification for this cap and this blatant
       discrimination against one user group and one user
       group only must end now.  Not five minutes from now. 
       Now.
                 We strongly urge that the Highly Migratory
       Species Advisory Panel not to be misled by a few vocal
       individuals with short-sighted agenda against these
       boats.  Purse seine boats have every right to their
       historical share in this fishery and the benefits
       resulting from the long-term, expensive recovery plan
       for Atlantic bluefin tuna.  
                 To summarize a few, purse seine fishermen are
       largely responsible for the U.S. receiving 52 percent
       of the western quota due to their large catch history
       when the fish were not valuable in the '60s and early
       '70s.  They were the first to develop the direct export
       market to Japan, bringing a longline freezer boat into
       Cape Cod Bay around 1970.  
                 They also insisted at that time that the
       longline boat from Japan purchase not only their purse
       seine fish but bluefin tuna giants from everybody,
       including the harpooners, the handliners, and everybody
       else who were selling these fish for about a nickel a
       pound back then to the canneries.
                 They volunteered to limit -- the purse seiners
       volunteered to limit their production when concerns for
       the resource developed, even though there were no
       regulations, the science was weak, much weaker than
       today, and even though their Canadian counterparts
       continued to fish heavily on school tuna. 
                 They also gave up entirely their catch of
       small fish in 1982 in exchange for a modest quota on
       the giants.  They have also been forced to bear the
       brunt of the quota reductions to restore the stock,
       seeing their quota reduced from 386 metric tons to the
       current level of 250, while the general category has
       gone up from 531 to 654 and the angling category has
       increased from 126 to 265 plus.  They have an equitable
       share of the resource, not an excessive share, as some
       have tried to claim.  Many highline vessels in the
       general and harpoon category, the charter boat, the
       angling categories, routinely exceed the purse seine
       shares in terms of numbers of fish caught per man and
       in terms of gross stock per man on an annual basis.
                 We object to this attempt to single out only
       the purse seine category on the basis of somebody's
       notion of what is fair or what should be fair for
       another competing group.  Capping the purse seine boats
       is simply a death sentence either in short term or long
       term because the fishery will not be able to compete as
       other category quotas rise.  
                 This market is very volume-sensitive.  You've
       got purse seine fish competing with harpoon fish,
       competing with handline fish, competing with rod and
       reel fish.  If there is more fish on the market from
       these other categories and the purse seiners are capped
       at 250 tons, it becomes economically insane for them to
       fish.
                 I hate seeing caps on any commercial
       categories.  I'm a commercial fisherman year round.  I
       fish for bluefin in the summertime, obviously, but I
       fish for lobsters in the wintertime.  And anything that
       limits commercial fishermen bugs the snot right out of
       me.
                 To continue on, I would like to tell you that
       our members were pleased to hear that the HMS Advisory
       Panel supported the status quo on allocations in
       January of last year.  There is no better alternative
       to the historical proportional sharing system in place
       since 1981.  
                 Frankly, we believe it is inappropriate for
       the advisory panel to engage itself in the complicated
       issue of shares of a resource either within a category
       or among categories.  There is no management objective
       within the FMP to support this activity and we would
       not support a new objective to make this exercise
       legitimate.
                 MS. LENT:  Joey, can you wrap it up in about a
       minute?
                 MR. JANSOWITZ:  Yes, I will, Rebecca. 
       Anything for you, dear.
                 We're also aware -- and I've seen the
       transcripts -- that there was some substantial
       opposition on the advisory panel to cap -- to the purse
       seine cap when it was first proposed by NMFS in early
       1999.  We appreciate this past support and hope you can
       get NMFS to listen this time.
                 You should also be aware that support for the
       purse seine fleet was very strong at every public
       hearing that I attended in New England.  I attended all
       of them except for the one at the Samerset resort. 
       There was not one person in favor of a purse seine cap,
       because who's next?  Next year could it be the angling
       category in for a cap or the general category in for a
       cap?  Who's next?
                 Okay.  On behalf of the entire membership of
       the East Coast Tuna Association, I strongly urge the
       advisory panel to reject the National Marine Fisheries
       Service cap and support a framework regulatory action
       to eliminate the cap and provide the seine fleet with
       their 8 tons that they had due this year because we all
       got an increase.  
                 Thank you very much for your time and
       consideration.  Can I just -- 
                 MS. LENT:  Thank you, Joey.
                 MR. JANSOWITZ:  Can I just give my personal
       comments?  Just one quick personal comment.
                 MS. LENT:  Quick.  Personal comment.  Thanks.
                 MR. JANSOWITZ:  Leave the sworfisherman alone,
       and I personally think that the purse seine cap is
       bogus.  You want to start capping people?  You cap
       everybody and we can start with 1985 landings of 690 in
       the general, 74 in the harpoon, 377 in the purse seine,
       133 incidental, and 149 in the angling category.  Start
       your caps there.
                 MS. LENT:  Thank you.  Jim, I've asked that AP
       members address the group at the end.  Is that okay, or
       do you have a factual quota? 
                 MR. DONOFRIO:  I have just a direct question.
                 MS. LENT:  Can you come to a microphone, Jim? 
       Jim, introduce yourself.
                 MR. DONOFRIO:  Jim Donofrio.  I'm an advisory
       panel member.  Joey, I have a question for you.  Do you
       anticipate if this cap is put into place, will there be
       an increase in effort on the yellowfin tuna stocks from
       the purse seine industry?
                 MR. JANSOWITZ:  I wouldn't think so.  Why
       would anything change?
                 MR. DONOFRIO:  Okay, thanks.
                 MS. LENT:  Okay.  Mark Querierre.  I didn't
       recognize you, Mark.  You're in your civvies today. 
       And then we'll hear from Elden Greenberg after that.
                 MR. PORIER:  Yes, I am in my full Washington
       battle dress.
                 My name is Mark Porier.  I'm a commercial
       bluefin tuna fisherman out of Portsmouth, New
       Hampshire, a member of the board of directors of East
       Coast Tuna.  But today I'm here talking as Mark, the
       guy who fishes from Portsmouth.
                 I think that a lot of the points have already
       been eloquently made with regard to the history of the
       fishery and the opposition to the cap, which I am
       opposed to even as a general category fisherman.
                 And I guess I had to step back when I heard
       about this, and I was kind of befuddle by it all,
       especially as I see the increases that are scheduled
       over the next several years for every other category.
                 And I started asking myself why, why is this
       happening?  And, frankly, I didn't like the answers I
       came up with.  None of them pass the smell test.  My BS
       detector was going off and I just did not like what I
       was beginning to think about our National Marine
       Fisheries Service.
                 And, again, I ask the question why.  It can't
       be because of conservation.  These guys have been
       continually cut and have made excellent strides towards
       the conservation of these fish.  They have given us a
       lot of science and, again, those points have been made. 
       So it couldn't be conservation.  
                 Could it be institutional vendetta?  We all
       know that the purse seiners have kind of embarrassed
       NMFS from time to time along with the spotter pilots
       with regard to stock assessments.  I mean, we know in
       '93 for instance when there were four to six thousand
       fish in an afternoon we saw 17,000.  Maybe it's payback
       time.  I don't know.  None of these answers seem to
       make a lot of sense.
                 And with regard to intransigence.  They're not
       intransigent when it comes to changes.  They've been
       changing every year practically for the last 20 years.
                 So why are we continually being faced with an
       agency going against one particular segment of the
       fishery?  It simply doesn't make any sense.  And,
       basically, I would like to leave those questions in
       people's minds on this AP panel because you know that
       you have the power to change people's lives.  
                 It may sound melodramatic, but you've heard
       from people here today who have taken substantial pay
       cuts, who see their livelihood going down the tubes. 
       You additionally hear from people who are fishing
       commercially who believe this is the first step on a
       slippery slope towards full decommercialization of this
       fishery.  I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I see it
       going that way.
                 I don't understand why institutionally
       National Marine Fisheries continually bangs on the
       seine boat category -- 
                 (End of Tape 2, Side B.)
                 MS. LENT:  -- changed and we can increase the
       quota.  Then you're right.  We'd have to go back and --
                 MR. GREENBERG:  Elden Greenberg.  I'm a
       partner with the law firm of Garvey, Shubert and Behr,
       and I represent the East Coast Tuna Association and the
       owners and operators of the purse seine vessels. 
                 It is always daunting to come up to speak
       after you've heard the heartfelt comments of people
       whose lives and livelihood are dependent on a fishery
       and, as a lawyer, have to focus on dry legalities.  But
       those legalities are important here, and I think this
       committee, this panel, is faced with an important test
       having to do with whether Congress' solicitude for
       fairness and equity in allocation have any meaning at
       all or whether they can simply be ignored by the
       National Marine Fisheries Service.
                 Simply stated, I believe the cap is not only
       unfair and discriminatory, as you have heard, but also
       that it can't be squared with the requirements of the
       Magnuson-Stevens Act.  And you are faced here with a
       unique circumstance.  
                 This is the first fishery where we have three
       separate provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act
       relating to fairness and equity in allocation which
       come together and which have to be construed and
       applied.  You have National Standard Number Four, which
       you're all familiar with, which requires allocations to
       be fair and equitable and reasonably calculated to
       promote conservation.  
                 Because you're dealing with a highly migratory
       species, you have Section 304(g) which requires that
       management measure "take into account traditional
       fishing patterns," and also, "be fair and equitable."
                 And, finally, because you are dealing with a
       fishery which has been declared overfished by the
       National Marine Fisheries Service, you have Section
       304(e)(4) which provides that the Agency must allocate
       overfishing restrictions and recovery benefits fairly
       and equitably among sectors of the fishery. 
                 I want to emphasize two things about the
       history of these provisions.  First, in 1990 when
       Congress enacted Section 304(g), it stated that its
       goal was to recognize traditional participants.  And
       what it intended to do was largely ratify the
       consistent past NMFS practice in this fishery of
       allocating on the basis of historical proportions among
       the gear groups.
                 The second point I want to emphasize about the
       history of these provisions relates to Section 304(e)
       which was adopted in 1996.  And when that provision was
       added to the law, Congress made it clear that where
       groups were asked to bear the burden of restrictive
       measures under recovery plans then it was only fair to
       let them participate as well in the benefits of
       recovery.  
                 I simply don't see how a purse seine cap is
       consistent with these provisions of the Magnuson-
       Stevens Act.  
                 If in the future the quota for Atlantic
       bluefin tuna -- excuse me, the quota for Atlantic
       bluefin tuna grows, the purse seine sector will not get
       some benefit; it will not get a little benefit; it will
       get no benefit at all.  That is not fair and equitable
       sharing in the benefits of recovery.
                 At the same time, as has been pointed out by
       other speakers, the traditional fishing pattern in this
       fishery, the historical allocations in proportion to
       the harvest in the early 1980s, will be more and more
       distorted over time until ultimately it is
       unrecognizable.  
                 I think you'll hear more tomorrow in greater
       detail about the distortions which will occur as and if
       the quota grows, but it's absolutely clear that that
       distortion will be dramatic and absolutely
       unjustifiable in terms of the requirements of the
       Magnuson-Stevens Act.
                 The National Marine Fisheries Service rejected
       a 50 percent cut in the purse seine quota in the final
       HMS FMP.  It rejected it because it said it resulted in
       a "failure to maintain traditional fishing patterns as
       required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act."  
                 Well, I am telling you that the purse seine
       cap suffers from precisely the same problem.  Over
       time, it will distort the traditional fishing pattern. 
       That patterns will not be maintained and the result is
       inconsistent with the requirements of the Magnuson-
       Stevens Act.
                 The bottom line is that no matter how you read
       the law, such a result can never be deemed to meet the
       statutory standards for allocation.  It is the kind of
       political solution which Congress condemned in 1976
       when the statute was first enacted, that it condemned
       in 1990 when it adopted the HMS provisions, and that it
       condemned in 1996 when it adopted the provisions for
       managing overfished fisheries.  
                 And I urge this panel to strike a blow for the
       proper interpretation of what is, after all, the
       fundamental law under which we must all operate, and
       that it strongly recommend to the Fisheries Service
       that the purse seine cap be removed.
                 MS. LENT:  Thank you, Elden.  I think we have
       a couple of very quick questions starting with Mau and
       then Ray.
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  Elden, Mau Claverie.  What
       years would you suggest as a basis for historical and
       traditional allocation?
                 MR. GREENBERG:  Well, the Fisheries Service
       used allocations during the period 1983 to 1991 as a
       rough basis for historical allocations.  It maintained
       the same allocation among the gear groups during that
       period.
                 MS. LENT:  Okay.  Ray.
                 MR. BOGAN:  Mau asked the first question for
       me, and that is what is historical.  And I think we've
       arbitrarily chosen the 1980s because it's not in any
       way indicative of what the purse seine category was.
                 The reason I raise that point is because,
       first of all, I agree with your legal analysis, and
       that is that we can not ultimately sustain a vote that
       would cap the purse seine in this way.  
                 However, I think for the record it is
       important to ask the next question, and that is do we
       actually think that we are somehow maintaining the
       traditional fishery in light of restrictions on certain
       other categories, because we've heard that the purse
       seine category is the only one that's going to be
       capped.  
                 The angling category in the school fishery was
       capped a long time ago through ICCAT and we have the
       most restrictive catch per the amount of participants
       involved.  So I think it's not just the historical
       basis but if we talk about the recovery period I think
       we all have to look at a broader picture.
                 MS. LENT:  Okay, we'll be debating this
       tomorrow morning at 8 o'clock.  A quick comment by Bob
       Hayes and we've got to move on.
                 MR. HAYES:  I preface that by saying I don't
       think I've got a dog in this fight so I just -- 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  It's nice to hear that, Bob.
                 MR. HAYES:  But the question I've got is is
       your argument the same if -- and I understand there's
       sort of an 8 percent increase.  What if it wasn't a cap
       and it was a disproportionate level of increase?  In
       other words, let's say there is an 8 percent increase
       overall and the purse seine quota went up 2 percent. 
       Would your argument be the same?
                 MR. GREENBERG:  It might not be as strong but
       it would probably be the same.
                 MR. HAYES:  That's what I thought.  Thanks.
                 MS. LENT:  Okay, quickly, Rich.
                 MR. RUAIS:  Just quick to Ray's comment, I
       think the angling category is in a little bit different
       situation because the cap is a percentage of the total
       so it's not really a cap; it continues to go up.  As
       the total quota goes up, obviously 8 percent of 1,244
       is not as large as 8 percent of 1.387.  And if the
       quota eventually goes --the U.S. quota eventually goes
       to 17 or 18 hundred tons, 8 percent of that number is
       also going to be higher.  
                 So there is growth.  It's not the same kind of
       cap where what they're saying in the case of the purse
       seiners is that it's 18.6 percent or 250, whichever is
       less.  So they can't numerically go any higher whereas
       the angling category will grow as the U.S. quota grows.
                 MR. BOGAN:  But for the record, it was
       traditionally 15 percent of that.
                 MS. LENT:  Okay.  Thank you, Elden.  We're all
       getting some mathematical brain twisters here, 8
       percent versus 15 percent of something that's growing.
                 Jeff Oden and then we'll hear from Dewey
       Himelright.
                 MR. ODEN:  My name is Jeff Oden.  I'm a
       commercial fisherman from Hatteras and I'm not a very
       good public speaker and right now it's a pretty
       emotional issue for me for the simple reason that it's
       poetic that I ended up following the gentleman I just
       did.  He was speaking a lot of fair and equitable.  
                 And I say it's an emotional issue to me
       because I recently just lost two permits and I guess
       I've primarily lost them due to -- I was just trying to
       be versatile and I'm not a New York lawyer and I just
       didn't keep up with the paperwork.  And there was
       another mitigating factor but I'll deal with that
       through the appeal process and I've been told I'll
       probably lose it.
                 But, you know, what I find pretty hard to
       fathom is all that's come down on this fishery, the
       longline fishery, you know, and all the talk of
       reducing bi-catch and bi-catch mortality and so forth
       and so on.  And, you know, what I find pretty alarming
       is the strange silence from the environmental community
       for the simple fact that there is nothing being said
       about recreational catch-and-release mortality.  
                 Now, I mean, a lot of people try to shrug this
       off but I'm not ignorant to it.  I used to own a
       charter boat and, in fact, the first two years that I
       did not operate it a gentleman on the advisory panel
       who is with HMS, he was the operator of it.  But he won
       the Governor's Cup Billfish Conservation Series between
       North and South Carolina, and billfish were killed. 
       You know, that's part of it, Conservation Series.  
                 So what is the double standard that allows
       this particular sector to ignore -- to completely
       ignore the mortality in this fishery and yet takes my
       permits under those very same, you know, requirements? 
       You know, it's just unfathomable to me how this panel
       can allow my permits to be taken and would allow me to
       take the same vessel and go out under a tournament
       format and kill a big blue marlin, bring it to the
       dock, and make a couple hundred thousand dollars off of
       it.  That is just unfathomable.  
                 That's pretty much -- well, there's one other
       thing I'd like to say, and since you all have been
       talking about bi-catch, I'm also a shark longliner.  I
       was lucky enough to keep that permit.  You know, I
       almost lost my bottom fishing permit with the South
       Atlantic.  
                 You know, I mean, you know, we're forced to
       fish.  If you don't use every permit you're going to
       lose them, and if you do lose them I guess the resource
       suffers.  But somewhere in this whole process
       something's wrong.
                 But, anyway, the shark laws -- I mean, the
       shark plan, what does that do?  You all talk about
       reducing bi-catch.  Well, all the hell you're doing
       there is creating it.  I mean, the two seasons?  What
       does that do?  I mean, if we catch a black tip now we
       throw it back dead.  It's absurd.  And the black tip
       being one of the fastest growing species, as I
       understand it, ludicrous.
                 The other situation in it, duskies are primary
       -- you know, one of our favorite targets.  We lose
       that.  We're still going to catch them.  We just throw
       them back dead and they get wasted, and you people, you
       boggle my mind.  I'm sorry.
                 Thank you. 
                 MS. LENT:  Thank you very much.  Jeff, while
       you're here make sure if you want to chat with folks
       about limited entry, catch up with them, okay?  Okay.
                 Dewey.
                 MR. HIMELRIGHT:  My name is Dewey Himelright. 
       I feel like I'm going through repetition every time I
       come up here, which I'm sure I am and I'm sure it's for
       my own good but maybe with self-satisfaction goes a
       long way with some people. 
                 I'm not a vindictive person.  I'm just a
       person out there that's using that resource and I have
       a price to pay for using that resource, it seems like.
                 The time/area closures will affect part of my
       fishing but I will not be affected by any boater buyout
       or anything like that.  I see the time/area closures as
       something that is discriminatory, one-sided, and it
       just ain't right for using that ocean.  I use that
       ocean with hooks just like the other man or woman uses
       that ocean with hooks, but it's just something about
       that commercial man, he's got a price to pay and he
       pays dearly with it through permits, through reporting. 
       But that's part of it.
                 A lot of things as I sit around here and look
       at these advisory panel members, I have to take a
       little time and sit back and think about some of their
       opinions to the time/area closures.  
                 And over the last six months I've read a great
       deal of propaganda, and this is all my personal -- what
       I personally believe, not what I'm associated with or
       anything like this.  This is my personal belief of what
       I do on the ocean and work and who I am.  I've read
       over a great deal of propaganda from numerous
       individuals or organizations that hide behind the
       definition of conservation that are advisory panel
       members.  
                 And I would just like to pass this around to
       show how you get public sentiment to go one way or the
       other, how you get what one wants by getting the public
       turned around.  And I'm tying this in with how this is
       the message on the time/area closures that these
       advisory panel members have elected to do so has also
       affected by livelihood and it's also Americans better
       wake up and National Marine Fisheries because there is
       a resource out there that's owned by everybody in this
       world, not just 3 percent that can commercial fish or
       have a chance to do it.  How about the other people in
       Iowa or Texas that don't have a chance to go fishing? 
       National Marine Fishery balks or does not stand up at
       anything for those people or entities.
                 It just baffles me over and over how one group
       can be singled out and their livelihoods taken away
       because somebody else wants this particular area
       because of a high number of this or a high number of
       that.  When we go look at the data for the high number
       of this and the high number of that, you see one high
       number and one low number.  It's from the commercial
       man that uses that ocean.
                 When we go to look at the recreational
       industry and some people say oh, boy, daggone if he
       ain't going a good one now, he's all up in an uproar. 
       But it's because it's the truth.  When I go out there
       and go fishing I can't go out and there and go, well, I
       hope about 50 fish jumps in my boat or maybe not, but
       it's the things that we have to do and the price we pay
       for using that resource, and I just feel like and I
       know that it's wrong what's happened.  But I just hope
       through maybe investigations or maybe through higher
       authorities or something it can get changed around.  I
       guess it's the only thing to hope for.
                 And for some people that wonder why I get like
       I do, I read a lot of this stuff -- and I'll pass it
       around and hopefully would like to get it back.  And if
       you don't want to look at it, fine if you do.  But this
       is stuff that's put out through the public.  The top of
       it says, "Government fights to protect longlining." 
       And I'll pass it around and would just like to get it
       back if I could.  
                 And that's the types of propaganda that's
       being put out through the public.  That's how you get
       the 10,000 comments.  That's how you get it.  Pure and
       simple.
                 Thank you. 
                 MS. LENT:  Thank you, Dewey.  Okay, wait. 
       We'll now go to the advisory panel members who have
       signed up to speak.  I think if you each take five
       minutes we'll have just enough time to wrap it up.
                 Mau, five minutes.
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MS. LENT:  Have you spoken?
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MS. LENT:  Oh.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Rebecca -- 
                 MS. LENT:  Am I missing some slips?
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Did you lose my name?
                 MS. LENT:  I don't have it.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MS. LENT:  I don't have Vince -- come on up,
       Vince.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Was that by design, Rebecca?
                 MS. LENT:  Absolutely not, Vince.  Raise your
       hand if you signed up to sleep -- to sleep -- to speak
       and I don't have your slip.
                 Vince.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible) I get equal time.
                 MS. LENT:  Okay.  Go, Vince.
                 MR. PYLE:  Vince Pyle, fish dealer and boat
       owner, a southern swordfisherman.  I thought we were
       the only user group that was abused.  I realize now
       that maybe the purse seiner might have a bit of an
       argument.  At least I don't feel alone.  
                 User groups being treated equally I think is
       probably one of the most critical things this panel and
       this agency can do.  I don't know anything about purse
       seining or the fishery, but if they are being
       discriminated against while other user groups are being
       rewarded, I find that an atrocity.  
                 I find that the longliners have been put in
       the spotlight because of the tremendous reporting that
       we have always done.  I look at all the user groups in
       HMS and I can't find any data on effort, I can't find
       any data on their effect of mortality, but we can find
       specific exact data on the longliners.  Every bit of
       the data seems to have been used against us, I know is
       used against us.
                 Time/area closures, in my opinion, I am
       inherently against.  I don't -- and I say that and then
       I think we all are because it's hard for us who get no
       recognition for having reduced 30-some percent our
       juvenile swordfish in the last decade.  We get no
       recognition for the 40-some percent reduction in
       illegal sized dead discards, and yet we have to hear
       the reports that Spain actually reports 40-some percent
       of their landings to (inaudible) illegal size
       swordfish.  
                 So when we want to talk about how we can
       further helped the swordfish, we want to cut off
       100,000 square miles of the ocean or better to the U.S.
       swordfisherman in hopes of conservation, I can't help
       but say that I don't believe it will be effective.  I
       don't believe it will be effective unless we can
       somehow learn to manage the species as the highly
       migratory species they are.
                 Nelson spoke about a billfish and people
       laughed, but I believe that that culture will never
       throw away a fish that's caught.  I don't think it will
       ever happen.  I think we are probably one of the only
       countries in the world that will discard a wholesome
       food product.  I think my father would roll over in his
       grave if he knew that I had to discard so much
       wholesome food.
                 But with that said, the leaders of my industry
       are trying to wrestle and do the right thing and figure
       out how to better manage such a highly migratory
       species.  Well, knowing that our European counterparts
       are never going to buy into regulatory discards, maybe
       it's minimum sizes truthfully are not going to work. 
       So maybe time/area closures of so-called nursery
       grounds avoiding the interaction is the best way to go.
                 I too voted for the time/area closure in the
       Blue Water plan.  I'm a multiple vessel owner and I
       deal with 20 of the 47 people on the list.  It's not an
       exciting thing.  I make an okay living.  I wish we
       would close someplace else.  But if it's really going
       to do that much good for the remaining industry and,
       more importantly, that much good for managing the stock
       globally, then reluctantly myself and many that I
       represent are behind it.
                 I don't think it's the first choice of mine
       but as I've worked hard on it I think it's possibly the
       best way to go.  Now, I have to ask a question,
       Rebecca, and I didn't understand all of the tables that
       were put up today, which I was glad to see that a lot
       of Ph.D.s here scratched their head too, can I ask a
       simple question? 
                 When do you plan on putting a time/area
       closure in effect, the agency?
                 MS. LENT:  We have a goal of trying to get a
       time/area closure in effect by September the 1st. 
       That's something that we committed to in the plan. 
       That's going to depend on how much research and input
       and clear guidance and answers are going to come out of
       these analyses, Vince.
                 MR. PYLE:  So your goal then is to put a
       time/area closure in effect no matter what the industry
       and some of the recreational groups such as the
       Billfish Foundation and some of the other organizations
       have been working with the industry to try to come up
       with a most effective time/area closure which would
       compensate those that were the most dramatically
       affected?  The agency then, I understand, is -- that's
       not as important as coming up with something by
       September 1st?
                 MS. LENT:  Again, we welcome and would embrace
       a buyback program tied in with the time/area closure. 
       We also have a mandate under Magnuson-Stevens to
       address bi-catch.  We're going to continue working on
       it.  
                 We hope that by being your best friend, by
       coming forth with a proposed rule package that analyzes
       all the impacts and says, look, here's one way to
       mitigate it with a buyout, that that is a good salvo to
       Capitol Hill, which I'm not allowed to do but which
       will help move this along so it converges to a
       solution.  Hope so.
                 MR. PYLE:  I was unaware that my specific gear
       type is the only in the country that has bi-catch, so
       the mandate to address bi-catch being -- and must be
       done by September 1 seems to me like we're singling out
       a specific group.  
                 I think there is bi-catch that needs to be
       addressed in all fisheries in this country and I think
       your mandate addresses that you address bi-catch in all
       fisheries.  And I don't see September 1 being proposed
       to any other fishery. 
                 MS. LENT:  Vince, we're running a little short
       on time, if you can wrap it up.  Thanks.
                 MR. PYLE:  That was a fast four minutes.  If
       we need to go forward, I ask every member here on the
       council to do it a logical way.  I would hope that we
       don't have to end up in court and jumping off what
       we've worked hard to achieve and going after the
       agency.
                 Thank you. 
                 MS. LENT:  Thank you very much, Vince.  
                 David Wilmot, did you want to speak at this
       time?  Do you want to take four minutes?
                 MR. WILMOT:  I think I've had my opportunity
       to speak.
                 MS. LENT:  Okay.  Irby, I got a sheet for you
       here.  
                 MR. BASCO:  Thank you, Rebecca.  I'll take my
       (inaudible) that I'm a recreational angler.  I've heard
       a lot of comments today.  This is pertaining to the
       billfish.  Comments today about, of course, realize
       that commercial entities here are hardworking people,
       but the people in the billfish -- for recreational
       billfish are hardworking people as well.  
                 You ask any boat captain or deck hand, any
       service organization, yacht repair person, boat
       builders, there is quite  bit of activity there that
       lends to the economy.  Billfishing is for recreational
       for also catch-and-release is a lot of fun, but there
       is also a lot of -- there's a lot of money spent and
       there's a lot of work involved in that.
                 There is an organization that we belong to
       called IGFA.  I'm sure you all have heard of it.  It's
       the world's recordkeepers.  With the implementation of
       the length of the billfish, the blue marlin especially
       for 99 inches, the light-line anglers, which I am real
       close to one of them, I've followed her around all over
       the world trying to catch some world records, will be
       affected by this.  
                 In other words, any fish that's 99 inches, a
       blue marlin, will probably weigh close to 300 pounds so
       that eliminates the two-four pound -- six -- two, four,
       six, eight, and possibly the 12-pound test effort to
       try to get a world's record.  And in 11 years of world
       record fishing, the person I'm speaking of has killed
       two blue marlin.  One of them was in the Pacific and
       one was in the Atlantic.  
                 So at any rate, I just want everybody to
       consider that the recreational angler is actually
       taking a hit as well on the proposed billfish amendment
       as well as some of the other items in the other HMS
       plans.  So at any rate, I just want to, you know, make
       people aware that we are taking a hit too as well, as
       you all are, and I just want you to consider that in
       your thoughts.
                 Thank you. 
                 MS. LENT:  Thank you very much, Irby.  And
       recreational billfish fisherman are also very good
       singers, as I discovered when I was in Texas recently. 
       Okay.
                 Rusty Hudson.
                 MR. HUDSON:  Rusty Hudson with directed shark. 
       Basically I just want to touch on a couple of the many
       points that I'm concerned about on shark.  I'm going to
       read from page 29,130 of the final rule that went out
       May 28th.  The paragraph on the bottom left-hand side
       starts, "In summary, the final regulatory flexibility
       analysis found that overall the final actions for
       bluefin tuna and swordfish rebuilding in the bluefin
       tuna time/area closure may have some negative economic
       impact."  And if I may ad lib, any quotas associated
       with those two fisheries are under the perusal of a lot
       of international scientists.
                 In addition, the combination of final actions
       for sharks, quota reductions, minimum sizes, retention
       limits, and counting dead discards in state landings
       after federal closures against federal quotas may
       result in the elimination of the directed commercial
       fisheries for large coastal sharks and may
       substantially impact commercial fisheries for pelagic
       sharks and small coastal sharks in the U.S. EEZ.  In
       addition because these regs will have a significant
       impact on commercial fishermen, the HMS FMP will likely
       also impact related parties and communities such as
       processors, bait and gear suppliers. 
                 Basically speaking, that science is generated
       solely by NMFS chosen scientists and no international
       or independent scientists are basically involved in
       this process at this time when they need to be.  We
       have put duskie on the protected species category in
       '96 and '97.  I just received the three texts on
       Monday, but I found the reference that 14,000 duskies
       are killed by the recreational in '96 and in '97.  Now
       that those are protected species, you're basically
       creating a bald eagle for the recreational to become
       criminals.
                 Furthermore, 20 percent of those duskies
       tagged off the northeast have been returned from
       Mexico, but if you read the essential fish habitat's
       conclusions and documentation that was conducted by
       Jose Castro, duskies, sandbars, nursery grounds, none
       of the above exists in the western Gulf of Mexico nor
       do adult black tips.  I find this a problem.  
                 I pointed it out to Dr. Matlock two --
       actually three AP meetings ago, the EFH people.  They
       never bothered to take some of Stewart Springer's
       stuff, Compagnio's stuff or anything else, and include
       it.
                 Now, the other thing I am going to touch on
       without going into all that other stuff is on page
       29,144.  Under sharks, section (e), it says that the
       minimum size for the three allowable sharks under the
       ridgeback category, which is sandbar, silky, and tiger,
       will be 54 inches, 137 centimeter fork length.  
                 But if the head and the fins have been
       removed, they have now created a new measurement, 30
       inches, 76 centimeters, from the first dorsal fin or
       cartilage int the spine of the dorsal ridge mount
       that's left to either thee precaudal pit or to the
       posterior edge of the carcass. 
                 I have asked -- I have not received --
       documentation of where that 30 inch measure comes from. 
       Does it accurately correlate with the 137-centimeter
       length for the fork length measurement for live animal
       and, if so, is that true in all three cases of the
       sandbar, the silky, and the tiger, or are we going to
       make more criminals out of people that are a half inch
       off or something?  
                 Thank you. 
                 MS. LENT:  Okay, thank you, Rusty.  Anybody
       else on the panel who would like to intervene?  Bob.
                 MR. SPAETH:  Bob Spaeth, Southern Offshore
       Fishing Association.  I guess Rusty brought up the
       point and it's been a big stickler in my craw.  I think
       in the swordfish, tuna, and anybody in highly migratory
       species why is the United States of America
       disadvantaging, and i.e., I say its fishermen, while
       other countries are allowed to harvest the same species
       unabated?  
                 And I use Mexico and Cuba on sharks and the
       only thing that we were told here is that we should
       lead the way.  Well, I'm tired of leading the way and I
       think a lot of other people are tired of leading the
       way.  
                 I think there is a provision in the Magnuson
       Act somewhere that says that our U.S. fishermen should
       not be more disadvantaged than foreign fishermen, and I
       would hope somebody would look into that if we continue
       on this process of disadvantaging our people here on
       the highly migratory species.
                 Thank you. 
                 MS. LENT:  Thank you, Bob.  Nelson.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  Nelson Beideman, Blue Water
       Fisherman's Association.  A couple of things, Rebecca. 
       For one thing, I would like to reflect on some of the
       remarks that Vince Pyle had made.  At the recent Blue
       Water annual meeting we had two and a half days of
       absolute gut-wrenching deliberations on everything
       that's been taking place.  I was very, very proud of
       the group.  In the end, there was a unanimous vote as
       far as the closed area buyout proposal to move forward.
       Not everybody in this fishery agrees with that vote and
       that position, but an organization representing the
       majority of the participants is moving in that
       direction.  I'm very proud of that.
                 Another thing, Rebecca, I do have the full
       runs now of the live versus dead bait and I'll give you
       a copy of those runs so that we can have copies for
       discussions tomorrow.  And Ellen may want a copy
       tonight.  I only have two copies but -- 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.)
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  Yeah, and have Bill get some
       copies and anyone that wants to look at it tonight. 
                 And last thing, I would like to go on record
       once again in opposition to the purse seine cap.
                 MS. LENT:  Thank you, Nelson.  We have a few
       more minutes.  Anybody in the back of the room that
       wants to speak that didn't get a chance?  
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MS. LENT:  Leonard.  Go ahead and introduce
       yourself, Leonard.
                 MR. INGRANDE:  Yes, my name is Leonard
       Ingrande.  I have been fishing for quite a while.  I
       started in 1943 and I want to find out why it is that
       the National Marine Fisheries Service keeps attacking
       us the way they do.  I'm just having a hard time with
       it.  
                 And my question is to you, Rebecca.  What is
       the position of your opinion on how this should run?  I
       mean, we talked to the advisory panel, they give their
       opinions.  And the first I heard about a cap was a few
       months ago.  We never discussed it at the scoping
       meetings.  We've never done any of this.
                 I'm a very poor speaker at public speaking. 
       That's why I prefer to write.  I just never had a thing
       for it.
                 In 1943 I started fishing during World War II
       and then in 1950 I volunteered for the armed services
       during the Korean conflict.  I've fished every year
       since then.  I've made my livelihood from it.  And I
       volunteered for the armed services because I figured
       that was the right thing to do for my country.
                 When I attended the meetings at ICCAT I
       watched NMFS manipulate, take cheap shots at us, and
       embarrass the American government by rulemaking in the
       weird places.  I was invited to Washington more than
       once to talk on a one-on-one and the director walked
       out of the meeting to interview a secretary.  Being
       Bill Gordon, Bob Ahrens (phonetic) at the time.
                 Enough is enough.  I've been abused, attacked,
       and in this document called a secondhand citizen. 
       That's what I was called.  Anybody here fishing more
       than 55 years?  Stand up, please.  You're pretty close
       to my age, maybe a little younger.  All right.  There's
       one back there.  Fine.  He deserves to be heard.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. INGRANDE:  Okay, fine.  So I'm just saying
       that these (inaudible).  
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. INGRANDE:  Okay.  You've been fishing, so
       you have an opinion to speak.  I have my opinion to
       speak here.  I am tired, sick and tired, of the abuse
       against the seiners.  I was hoping that this cap I hope
       stops.
                 And I'll put it in a letter form to you or in
       another form.
                 Yes, Jimmy.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. INGRANDE:  I know your question.  Go
       ahead.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Leonard, I asked Joey this
       question before I know he's not directly involved with
       the purse seine.  Being that you're the owner of a
       purse seine vessel, do you feel if this cap was
       implemented would your effort increase on the yellowfin
       fishery? 
                 MR. INGRANDE:  Do I feel that?  No.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  No.
                 MR. INGRANDE:  I think this cap was put in by
       -- wait, maybe I don't quite understand the question. 
       But the yellowfin, Jimmy, is not the primary thing to
       me because right now the price of yellowfin tuna on the
       world market is next to nothing except on the domestic
       market you get a nice dollar for it.
                 I have restrained from fishing yellowfin tuna
       but I have no guarantee from that lady sitting two
       seats over from you that next year or the year after
       this they implement laws because I didn't participate
       in the fishery I'm out.  I left the yellowfin alone and
       I gave -- I told you I would.  It didn't pay to go.  I
       try to keep the peace.  I've always tried to keep the
       peace.
                 Roger Hillhouse behind me, we donated our time
       and our effort in the time when Bob Ahrens was the
       director of some kind.  This watch here was given to me
       by the Canadian Tuna Company.  It's a gold watch.  And
       they told me if I would steal fish and send them back
       to Canada they'd give me a gold Cadillac.  Well, the
       Canadian tuna boats got just that, golden Cadillacs. 
       And they stole that fish off the coast of New Jersey. 
       This young fellow here was a baby at the time.
                 When did you start, Nelson?
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  I was seven years old.
                 MR. INGRANDE:  Who was Jum-jum (phonetic)?
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. INGRANDE:  Who was Jum-jum?  Do you
       remember the names of the boats?  Okay, and they took
       this fish and took it to Canada.  They had a 350-ton
       quota.  They took 5,000 tons.  I gave those numbers to
       Steve Turner eight years ago on 16th Avenue.  It was
       never brought to the records.
                 I listed little scraps up on the wall of the
       National Marine Fisheries Service.  It's all bogus. 
       Those are not factual.  The Canadian government which
       went into the record as 350 tons was 5,000.  But blame
       the small seiners.  We got blamed for everything.  And
       we sat back and live and let live, help and try to
       help.
                 National Marine Fishery failed me.  I went to
       war, received these scars, and then they fail me today.
                 MS. LENT:  Leonard, can you take about another
       minute and wrap it up?  Thank you. 
                 MR. INGRANDE:  I'm through.  I've been done
       for years.
                 MS. LENT:  Thank you.  Just quickly one more
       comment.  Gail, then we're going to have to wrap up for
       the day and get ready for tomorrow.
                 MR. JOHNSON:  Thank you.  Leonard is a hard
       act to follow here.  I just wanted to say that not
       particularly at this advisory panel meeting but from
       things like Dewey passed around, it's getting difficult
       to be made to feel like less than a human for using a
       particular gear type, and I sympathize with the seiners
       here.
                 And I repeat again, once more, that it isn't
       necessary the gear but the operator that determines the
       catch and the disposition of that catch.  Longliners
       are about as bashed as the purse seiners.  I appreciate
       what the purse seiners have done.  I do not want to see
       a cap on them and I wish us all luck tomorrow in our
       discussions. 
                 MS. LENT:  Okay, thank you very much, Gail. 
       And on that note, I will remind everybody we start
       tomorrow morning at 8 o'clock with a discussion on the
       purse seine cap.
                 HMS AP members here at 8:00 a.m.  Billfish, if
       you want, you can join us.  Otherwise, we'll see you at
       the coffee break at 9:30.  Have a nice evening.
                 (The meeting was adjourned.)
                          * * * * *