NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
                       JOINT MEETING OF THE BILLFISH 
                          AND HMS ADVISORY PANELS
       
       
                           Friday, June 11, 1999
       
                                 8:30 a.m.
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
                            NOAA Science Center
                           1301 East-West Highway
                          Silver Spring, Maryland
              
       PARTICIPANTS: 
       
       Irby Basco
       Nelson Beideman
       Randy Blankenship
       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
       
       Discussion:  Bluefin Tuna Purse Seine Cap                   4
       
       Discussion on Time/Area Closures (cont.)                  115                           P R O C E E D I N G S
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  -- question of the cap on the
       purse seine category for bluefin tuna.  The Billfish
       panel will join us along about 9:30 or 10 o'clock when
       we will go into the discussion about the time/area
       closures following up on what we heard yesterday.
                 What I would like to do is just set the stage
       a little bit as to where I think we are, and I may be
       wrong but just to sort of get it kicked off.  And then
       I think what we had for this morning is some open
       discussion.  I don't have any particular ideas about
       how to structure it beyond just opening the floor and
       see where you all feel.
                 What I would like to do though at probably
       about 9:15 or 9:20 is to sort of break off the
       discussion and the go around the table and let each
       individual advisory panel member state for the record
       where you are on this issue so that we have a very
       clear record after we've had some general discussion
       about what your advice back to the Service is.
                 So that's the process that we'll try to follow
       and see how it works.  Where are we on this issue?  If
       you look at the language that is in the Fishery
       Management Plan, it's written in there that the
       question of what the allocations among the various
       sectors of the bluefin tuna fishery should be was
       considered.  Some decisions were made.  
                 The question of a cap on the purse seine
       category is one that was left for further consideration
       and that is what the Service is coming back to us with
       at this meeting, trying to flesh out that issue some
       more and get some advice back as to where they ought to
       go with a potential framework action.
                 So that's where we are.  This is the bluefin
       tuna purse seine cap issue.  The floor is open for
       general discussion and I'll start with Rich Ruais.
                 MR. RUAIS:  Thank you, Jack.  I think I do
       have a little bit of a few things that I want to run by
       the committee but I'm going to use the overheads.  
                 But first I kind of have to disagree a little
       bit with your characterization.  The cap is in effect
       right now.  The rule becomes final on the 30th of June,
       or July 1, and we're living with this cap.  The
       question now is whether or not the National Marine
       Fisheries Service wants to consider a framework
       regulatory action to change the cap.  So that's a
       little bit different.
                 Can we get some power for the overhead?  
                 Yesterday I tried to distribute to HMS
       Advisory Panel members -- I didn't have enough copies
       for the Billfish Panel as well.  I tried to distribute
       a transcript of the February 24th meeting which also
       has a little cover memo from me to my fellow advisory
       panel members.  If you haven't gotten it, I still have
       some extra copies right here if anyone still needs one.
                 If this seems like a little bit of deja vu to
       a lot of you, it's because we did, contrary to what it
       says in the final Fishery Management Plan which I'm
       sure some of you will appreciate how surprised we were
       when we saw the final Fishery Management Plan -- this
       isn't coming out very well, but you'll notice that in
       the Fishery Management Plan it concludes that on this -
       - specifically on this cap issue that the AP has not
       had an opportunity to address this issue in light of
       the 1999 quota increase and NMFS would appreciate any
       insight the AP may provide.
                 Well, in fact, I think we did do that to the
       tune of about 25 pages on February 24th.  We knew about
       the quota increase in November of 1998, we knew about
       the proposed cap on January 20th, 1999, and on February
       24th we got together and clearly I was prepared and I
       think we had 25 pages of pretty good discussion with
       about 14 members of the advisory panel clearly stating
       their preference at that time, and the majority of
       those advisory panel members were advising the agency
       at that time that the cap was the wrong way to go. 
       Nonetheless, we ended up in the final Fishery
       Management Plan with the cap.
                 That also kind of ignored pretty much the
       weight of sentiment at the public hearings that were
       held in New England from Fairhaven to Gloucester, the
       two hearings in Maine, the public comment was
       demonstrably in favor of not putting a cap in place on
       the purse seiners but, nonetheless, we ended up with
       that.
                 We can look at the rationale for the cap for a
       minute and it's changed a little bit from the draft. 
       There were really three points back in February.  One
       was this point about, well, the cap might help reduce
       competition and conflict.  That's sort of been dropped
       in the final FMP and the scientific monitoring argument
       is clearly in the background.
                 But what remains is that the reason why we're
       putting this cap in place on the purse seiners is that
       because they have this IVQ (phonetic) system they're
       basically insulated from competition and therefore the
       cap at 250 is not going to hurt them.
                 Well, from our perspective, that totally
       misses the mark. The competition for the purse seiners
       is not just amongst themselves which, by the way, there
       is competition among themselves in terms of the timing
       of their catches.  They struggle quite a bit in their
       very short season to make sure that they're not putting
       fish on top of each other.
                 But the reality is where they're really in
       competition is that 60 percent of the United States
       quota coming from the general category, the longline
       category, the harpoon category, anything that's going
       into the export market is direct competition for the
       purse seine fleet.  So as long as that quota is
       increasing and their cap -- and they're frozen with
       some sort of a cap, they are at a disadvantage and
       eventually it's going to put them out of business. 
                 And to show you that, and I distributed this
       all around the table, there's a couple of tables that
       you'll see.  And it goes like this.  Basically, there
       is three scenarios for the future that we're looking at
       on this table, and the current one is that is the
       status quo.  
                 We've got a 2,500 ton quota and with the cap
       the seiners basically are losing 8 tons right now.  And
       even at this level, that's about $150,000 of gross
       stock.  You've heard from a lot of the crew members
       last night that they had a 40 percent reduction in
       their income last year just from the devaluation of the
       yen versus the dollar, and anything, whether it's
       hundreds of dollars or thousands of dollars that
       they're losing in income, they're certainly going to
       put them at a significant disadvantage.  And even at
       this current level there is a problem with that.
                 But where it really gets serious is as the
       recovery plan proceeds, and you'll notice in the
       Fishery Management Plan there's actually a new model by
       NMFS that hasn't been looked at by ICCAT or SERS or
       anybody, but it's a new once since the draft FMP and
       since the meeting last fall that basically says maybe
       BMSY's 3,400 metric tons rather than the 2,800 tons
       that SERS was talking about last year and that
       underlines the recovery plan.  
                 Well, and this is just theoretical of course,
       if we do get to the 3,400 ton level, the U.S. share is
       going to rise to 1,773, and here is what happens.  The
       general category will go to 835, the purse seiners
       would be capped at 250, the longline increase to 144,
       harpoon category at 69.  And at this level I think
       you've got to look seriously at whether or not you're
       putting the purse seiners right out of business.  
                 What happens is you're basically adding about
       200 tons to the general category but you're also up the
       reserve to 124 tons.  That amount of quota, almost 300
       tons, could very well see -- well, it's certainly going
       to see a significant increase in the amount of fishing
       by the general category in August and September, which
       is the prime season for the purse seiners to put their
       -- that's their window when typically they try to put
       fish on the market without hurting anybody else.  
                 If they don't have -- obviously, that
       increased quota in addition to the increased Canadian
       supply -- when our quota goes up, the Canadian quota is
       going to go up as well and that is going to be
       additional product on the market -- the price is going
       to come down and they're not going to have volume in
       order to be able to compete with the other user groups.
                 So I would suggest that even at the 3,400 ton
       level you have basically put the purse seiners out of
       business.  At BMSY according to the Beveridge & Holt
       model, 7,700, again the U.S. quota is going to go up to
       4,015, the general category is going to be at 1,891 and
       if you keep the seiners cap you can watch the
       longliners at 325, the harpoon category at 157.
                 Clearly you're going to keep a lot of the most
       efficient fishermen in the harpoon category tied up in
       the harpoon category.  There is going to be production
       coming throughout the traditional season that was the
       purse seiners and them stuck at the 250 ton level. 
       These are very expensive boats that they're operating. 
       They're not likely to be able to compete in that
       (inaudible).
                 I can't see.  Can you stand up?
                 MR. HUETER:  Can I ask a quick question, Rich? 
       Bob Hueter.  I'm not familiar with the rebuilding
       schedules on tuna.  What sort of time frame to the
       accepted models indicate that we might be getting these
       numbers because if we're talking 20 years away isn't
       this whole discussion rather academic?  You could
       modify the rule, you know, if it's years and years
       away.  
                 Are we talking about next year, you're talking
       about?  Are we talking about ten years, 20 years?
                 MR. RUAIS:  Number one, Bob, the cap is
       intended as a permanent feature.  There is no
       suggestion in there of a sunset at any point in time,
       so the time frame here is really irrelevant to that. 
       We're expecting that if a cap was in place it's not --
       it's simply not going to be removed.
                 In terms of the timing of the recovery plan,
       Dave and I could spend the rest of the day arguing
       about when we're going to get to any future level, and
       he might argue that at the current level we're never
       going to get any higher than the current level or 2,800
       tons.  
                 Our view, of course, is that if you look at
       Atlantic wide, if you look at even in the FMP which
       acknowledges all the uncertainty about stock structure,
       migration rate, how recruitment is being handled, I
       would argue that we're a lot closer to 3,400 right now
       than certainly Dave would expect we are.  And 7,700, I
       think that's within certainly the life span of most of
       the people in this room.  I hope to see that.  
                 Whether at that time there's a line in the
       middle of the Atlantic Ocean calling it a west and
       inland folder or whether it's an Atlantic wide folder,
       that the United States is sharing in some significant
       portion of that, I think that's really not the issue at
       this point in time.  
                 The point is that the cap is there and
       whatever increases as we move to the future, I don't
       think it's going to take a heck of a lot of increase to
       take the traditional fishery and put them at a great
       economic disadvantage and take them out of the fishery,
       basically.
                 So, anyways, the last point I wanted to make
       about this is you'll note that what happens is when you
       do cap the seiners and the quota goes up, you're not
       keeping them at 18.6 percent of the quota; you're
       reducing them to 14.1 under 3,400 and then they drop to
       6.2 percent of the historical share.
                 And one of the things that I find fairly funny
       about this, a little bit funny about this, is normally
       the agency is very encouraging of limited entry
       programs and IVQs, ITQs, and it's certainly for
       fisheries where they think it most appropriate.  
                 But here's a case -- and there are some other
       candidates in the bluefin fishery like the harpoon
       category, even certain aspects of the general category,
       Peter and I had talked about there might be some
       benefit to moving in certain directions there.
                 But here the message that the agency is
       sending is if you are -- if you do have a limited entry
       program, then certainly do not consider yourself a
       candidate for more quota as quota comes along because
       you're now insulated from competition and the only
       groups that are going to get quota are the derby
       fisheries.  So I think that's the wrong message that we
       want to send.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. RUAIS:  Go ahead.  I'm listening while I
       search here.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Corky Perett.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Yeah. Your first note there
       relative to the cap on the bottom -- I'm trying to read
       it.  But in essence, the cap on the purse seine -- can
       you pick it up a little?  Thank you.  The cap on the
       purse seine and if indeed you get any kind of increase
       and their proportionate share goes down to whatever
       those percentages are, I assume then likewise the other
       categories their percentages would all go up.  
                 Is that a correct assumption?
                 A PARTICIPANT:  That's correct.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  So that's the only user group
       or the only gear type that would be restrained?
                 A PARTICIPANT:  The percentage share wouldn't
       go up.  The absolute figure for the remaining
       categories would go up.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Would go up.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  The purse seine category's
       percentage share would go down and their absolute
       number would stay the same.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Thank you. 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Irby.
                 MR. BASCO:  Thank you.  One question I have,
       if the U.S. share or quota would happen to go down,
       would the cap remain the same?  The purse seiners still
       will get the 250 tons?
                 A PARTICIPANT:  No, that's the -- the way it's
       worded is the purse seiners's share was 18.6 percent of
       the quota or 250, whichever is less.  So if the quota
       drops to 2,000 they would get 18.6 of 2,000.  They
       would be required to take the reduction, take their
       proportional share of the reduction, but they get no
       proportional increase in any benefit -- recovery
       benefit.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Well, I just wanted to clarify
       that.  I've read that.  Thank you. 
                 MR. RUAIS:  Okay.  Now I'd like to turn a
       minute to the question of whether or not the cap is
       consistent with the objectives of the Fishery
       Management Plan that we now have in place.  And just
       coming back from an ICCAT meeting for the last four
       days that dealt with allocation criteria, I think I've
       got a handle at being able to pick out those objectives
       that have some obvious allocation criteria.  
                 And in this case, we're looking at basically
       three management objectives, as I see it, and aside
       from the question of the national standards that have
       direct implications on allocations.
                 One is to minimize to the extent practicable
       economic displacement and other adverse impacts on
       fishing communities.  And obviously, as I've said, if
       this is going to take the seiners completely out of the
       fishery then that's the maximum economic dislocation
       that you can do and that's not consistent with that
       objective at all.  
                 Before I leave this, just to show you, the
       corollary of that, if you will, is that if you don't
       have the cap in place you'll notice -- and leave the
       seiners in and let them have their proportional quota
       increase, it's pretty hard to argue that any other
       group would be displaced by the purse seiners.  They
       simply would get their equivalent share.  
                 You're not reducing the general category in
       any way.  The only thing you're doing, according to the
       NMFS plan, is you're reducing the total amount of fish
       that's in the reserve.  Instead of having 500 tons when
       you're up to 7,700, there's only 100 tons.  But the
       angling category retains its 791, the general category
       retains its 1,891.  
                 So the point is that without the cap you can't
       make the argument that anyone else is getting displaced
       from the fishery. 
                 Now back to the objectives.  The second
       objective talks about preserving traditional fisheries
       and, again, the cap, to the extent that it's going to
       take the purse seiners right out of the fishery it
       certainly is inconsistent with this objective.  
                 And in terms of looking at this fishery as a
       traditional fishery, from 1968 to 1981, beginning
       almost 30 years ago, the purse seine boats accounted
       for upwards of 70 percent of the U.S. total catch by
       weight, so that's a fairly dominant historical
       traditional fishery.
                 In addition to that -- you've heard this
       mentioned many times, we talked about this in January
       1998 -- back in 1982 when the western Atlantic quota
       was first being developed, you had the U.S. arguing for
       the base period for the allocation they wanted it to be
       -- this was Carmen Blonden (phonetic) at the time.
                 They argued -- we argued for 1970 through 1974
       as the base period, and basically we won that argument
       at that time and that resulted in the United States
       getting 52 percent of the western Atlantic allocation. 
       Clearly we got the dominant share.
                 And the point of this is that if you look at
       who was catching fish at that time in the '70s, early
       '70s when the fish was just starting to become
       valuable, you can see that the purse seiners from 1970
       out of a total U.S. catch of 3,700 the seiners were
       responsible for 3,127.  On and on to the extent that
       over that five-year period the traditional seine
       fishery had 59 percent of the U.S. catch, and it was
       that bulk of the catch that was getting us our 52
       percent. 
                 And I would also just point out, if you look
       at 1973 and '74, you see a declining purse seine catch. 
       That was their voluntary movement to reduce their
       catches because there was concern beginning to develop
       for the resource.  There was no statutory authority. 
       ATCA was in the works but it wasn't done.  ICCAT was up
       and just beginning to run.  
                 The concerns were becoming clear.  And the
       seiners voluntarily agreed, while their Canadian
       counterparts were running wild with big catches, the
       U.S. fleet agreed to voluntary quotas to begin the
       conservation program.
                 MR. McBRIDE:  Rich, may I ask a question on
       shark, please?
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Go ahead, Joe.
                 MR. McBRIDE:  In those years, '70 to '74, the
       purse seine catch consisted of giants or school fish?
                 MR. RUAIS:  I believe it was a combination at
       that time.  They didn't give up the small fish fishery
       entirely till 1982; '81 was the last year that they -- 
                 MR. McBRIDE:  Let me be more specific.  Was
       the bulk of the fish caught in the provided purse
       seiners in those years the school fish or the giants,
       and the giants almost being incidental; their gear was
       rigged, as I have been told and seen in many times, for
       skipjacks with an incidental catch of school bluefin
       tuna.  I'm not knocking it.  That's just the way it
       was.  They later on switched over to the giants, which
       is another story we can get into down the line.
                 My point being that you're only counting here
       landings and the only ones that really counted landings
       in those days for the most part were the purse seiners
       because they were selling them basically for
       inexpensive, whatever, type of food.  
                 So I'm glad they did and I'm glad we got a
       U.S. quota based on that, and I'm not knocking that per
       se, but let's get the history straight so everybody on
       the panel knows we weren't talking about 3,127, you
       know, fish or tons, whatever that may be, of giants. 
       We're talking about bluefin tuna.  
                 From that basis the U.S. in negotiations was
       able to get the breakdown for bluefin in general.  We
       transformed that from a fishery that had a value on the
       school fish into a value only on the giant fish or the
       general category fish.
                 Now, another factor here in this, I would
       assume that the reason we used the purse seine catches
       in those days, that's a traditional and long historical
       before 1970 sport fishing for bluefin schools and/or
       giants were never recorded either by the agency or had
       no proof of recording other than the sale of fish and
       including, by the way, up until probably the late '80s
       the sale of school bluefin, much of which was done
       without major recording whether it's back door sales to
       -- whatever the case may be because in those days it
       was perfectly legal to sell and feed and use school
       bluefin as well as giants and so forth and so on.  
                 So I don't know if I'm clear to everybody
       here, this fishery was historically not a giant tuna
       fishery; it was a school bluefin fishery in conjunction
       with the unrecorded and, in my opinion, far greater
       angling category fishery for school bluefin prior to
       1970 and prior to the purse seine boats coming to the
       east coast.
                 MR. RUAIS:  Just two quick points.  One, I
       don't know the answer to exactly what the breakdown was
       but there are some people in the audience who could
       probably tell you after exactly what they think, what
       they recall they were catching in terms of giant.  I
       would point out that in '70-'71-'72, that's when the
       giants were becoming very valuable and the seiners were
       beginning to focus a lot more on the large fish.  What
       the breakdown is, I don't know.
                 In terms of the recording of the sport fish
       catch, they were being recorded back then.  In fact, if
       you look, in 1973 and in particular in 1974, the
       difference between the purse seine catch and the total
       U.S. catch is basically sport fishing catch at that
       time, a combination of juvenile fish in the angling
       category and in terms of our harpoon fishery and the
       rod and reel fishery that was taking place.  Catches
       were recorded right back through the '60s and '50s on
       the recreational catch and you can see it operating
       anywhere, Joe, from 300 to 1,500 tons.  
                 We don't deny there is significant sport
       fishing catches of all sizes of billfish.  My only
       point is, Joe, the period that was used for the
       allocation breakdown in the western Atlantic was the
       period 1970 through 1974 and the catches that the U.S.
       had on record are reflected here.
                 MR. McBRIDE:  But another definition here too,
       Rich.  Let's take the year 1971.  You had a purse seine
       catch of 2,800 and some odd fish and you had a total
       U.S. catch of 4,100.  The difference there of
       approximately, what is that, 1,300 fish give or take,
       were fish sold even in the angling category, not fish
       that were caught and retained by the anglers in general
       who did not sell them.
                 Is that correct?
                 MR. RUAIS:  I don't know the breakdown
       (inaudible).
                 MR. McBRIDE:  Well, I'm not trying to -- what
       I'm trying to say is this, that the history here in
       figures is not necessarily the correct history.  If
       it's in sale of school fish in addition to the sale of
       the purse seine catches, whether they be school or
       giants, that figure of 4,119 could very well have been
       12,00 and what have you, depending on your assessment
       of what the -- because I remember those years.  
                 I remember what we caught in school fish that
       were a pest in those days.  You were trying to get past
       them to get out and get yellowfin tuna and you were
       hooking them up like you did bluefish when you're bass
       fishing.  And so but those fish were not sold to
       anybody.  A couple were taken home by the anglers or
       maybe many were taken home by the anglers.  It was not
       a salable fish, generally speaking, in my area
       geographically.  I don't know what went on in New
       England or any place else.  
                 But 4,119 were sold fish.  Is that correct?
                 MR. RUAIS:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. McBRIDE:  No?  Yes?
                 MR. RUAIS:  The answer is I have no idea what
       proportion.  I can only tell you there was no
       restriction on sale of any bluefin back then.
                 MR. McBRIDE:  I understand. 
                 MR. RUAIS:  If the angler wanted to sell his
       catch in any downtown fish market --
                 MR. McBRIDE:  I'm just trying to figure out
       where you got the figure 4,119.  Was it from
       (inaudible) surveys, was it from the landings as you
       were in purse seine?  Purse seine is sale.  Tagged fish
       or whatever, the landing figure?
                 MR. RUAIS:  These landings come straight off
       the ICCAT total catch of Atlantic bluefin tuna from 19
       -- the table that you'll see in the back of every stock
       assessment -- now it starts around 1975 but if you go
       back a few earlier stock assessments, it goes all the
       way back to '62 where you can just look at the U.S.
       catches and it breaks it down by purse seine gear, by
       rod and reel, and then there is another unclassified
       category as well that there's a few hundred tons in. 
       Straight, ICCAT NMFS-produced documents.  Nothing that
       I maintain, no database that I maintain.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  I think we need to let Rich
       finish up his presentation and then, Ray, you'll be the
       first commenter.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Well, you'll get your -- why
       don't you take the chance to do that when he finishes,
       please.  Thank you. 
                 MR. RUAIS:  Okay.  The final objective that I
       think has implications from the allocation perspective
       is the one that talks about the better coordinate
       (inaudible) is a little fuzzy but the concerns are in
       there about historical fishing pattern and
       participation.
                 And, frankly, I think this protects the
       angling category and it protects all of us in the
       United States.  And as you heard from my president
       yesterday, we support all of the U.S. historical
       fishing categories.  
                 And the fishing pattern when, for example, the
       Canadians might argue that the United States ought to
       give up its small fish fishery in the interests of a
       faster conservation program, the answer is no, that's
       part of our objective, that's part of the ICCAT
       objectives and maintain traditional fisheries and to
       maintain the historical fishing pattern, just as
       recreational and commercial catches of small fish are
       part of the historical fishing pattern, so is the
       commercial purse seine net fishing for billfish tuna.  
                 And that's one of the reasons why we want to
       keep it.  And, again, we show if you cap the seiners
       you are not going to be preserving that historical
       fishing pattern.  In fact, as Elden Greenberg mentioned
       in his comments yesterday, you're going to be grossly
       distorting that pattern and eventually eliminating that
       pattern, changing that pattern.
                 So, anyway, that's the point about the
       objectives.  The only other point I'd make about the
       objectives is that you'll notice that there is no
       objective in there that talks about excessive share. 
       If you want to go to the national standards on that,
       that's fine, and we discussed that.  If you look at the
       transcript of the last meeting we discussed quite a bit
       the issue of excessive share or fair share, and Peter
       always refer to what is in the Magnuson Act the
       equitable requirement or mandate, if you will.
                 And the point I would make about equitable
       that allocations have to be equitable, fair and
       equitable, is that I think Congress chose the word
       equitable very carefully.  And we had this discussion
       in Spain recently again on the allocation criteria
       meeting.  Equitable doesn't mean equal, and it was
       chosen very carefully.  It talks about reasonable in
       judgment.  That is what equitable is all about.  
                 And we would argue that in 1982 when the
       agency established the purse seine category at 386 tons
       that was equitable.  It was reasonable in judgment at
       that time looking at the volume, the proportionate
       share that they had of the overall U.S. quota at that
       time, and clearly they've been reduced substantially
       since that time down to 301 and 250.
                 And this equitable concept protects highliners
       in all U.S. fishing categories, not just the purse
       seiners.  It's why in the general category we can see a
       range from anywhere in some years from 40 fish a boat
       down to 1 fish a boat.  In the harpoon category we can
       see highliners catching 62 fish a year and we can see
       people on the lower end as well.  In the charter boat
       category I suspect we're seeing the same thing.  The
       private recreational boat fisheries.
                 Clearly it's not equal fish per person, it's
       equitable share.  It's what you get under the rules,
       and that's the context that we would ask the advisory
       panel to keep this issue in mind. 
                 I have more but I know I've taken up a lot of
       time so I'm going to stop right there.  But I would
       point out that the objectives do not support this cap
       and I think the objectives support a framework
       regulatory action to eliminate the cap.  I think this
       advisory panel made that case to the agency back in
       February.  
                 I think more of us were supportive of that
       than were not.  You can look at the transcript yourself
       and do your own count if you want.  I hope that again
       today we can maintain the same message to the agency
       that we do not want this cap in place and if they need
       to put a framework regulatory action in place as soon
       as possible. 
                 That concludes what I wanted to tell you, but
       I did want to also point out that one other failing in
       the FMP that I've noticed is that in doing anywhere --
       in doing any fishery management plan for highly
       migratory species, one section of the Magnuson Act
       requires -- if you could turn the lights on -- requires
       that the agency do a consultation with ICCAT
       commissioners, among other groups including this
       advisory panel.  And when we negotiated this agreement
       last year and came away with 43 additional metric tons,
       obviously our commissioners were greatly involved in
       that whole process of negotiating it.  
                 And I don't think that NMFS has ever formally
       consulted with the commissioners as to their view about
       what that 43 tons is all about.  I think we have one
       commissioner, Glen Delaney, that's in the room.  I
       would like to ask him in the form of that consultation
       what he thinks about the 43 tons.  If you wouldn't mind
       giving an answer.  I thought I'd put him on the spot.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Do you want to do that right
       now, Glen, or do you want to -- 
                 MR. DELANEY:  (Inaudible.) 
                 (Laughter.)
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Rich, why don't you tell Glen
       what you want.  Let's go back to Rich.  Rich.
                 MR. RUAIS:  Okay.  I have asked you for a
       consultation on what you thought the intention of the
       commissioners were, at least -- 
                 MR. DELANEY:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  You're prepared?  Ray, is that
       okay?  Thank you.  Go ahead, Glen.
                 MR. DELANEY:  (Inaudible.)  I just want to say
       that I am here as a U.S. commissioner to ICCAT
       responsible for the commercial fishing industry
       perspective.  And I want to say I am very, very,
       appreciative of having this opportunity to say
       something about this issue and some others I think.
                 And the only reason I want to do this is
       because I think they have some very direct bearing on
       my job as a commissioner.  And for what it's worth, I
       would like to have the opportunity to share with this
       group how what you are considering and what NMFS has
       proposed has some bearing on my job as a commissioner.
                 You have other responsibilities here and to
       the best of considerations that are not necessarily the
       point of my issue here, but I do think it has some
       bearing on the institution of the U.S. commissioner
       position and responsibility, and so that's why I ask
       you to bear with me and consider it.  I think it's
       relevant and, you know, not to make a point of it, I
       guess I would also point out the law does require that
       you have to consult with me.  Like it or not, maybe
       this is the best chance to do that.
                 As a U.S. commissioner my job is to negotiate
       fishery agreements on behalf of the U.S. which become -
       - and this is for Miriam's benefit -- if not the law of
       the land in the sense of a treaty, it certainly becomes
       an international obligation of the United States, at
       least in my understanding.  I feel I am also certainly
       responsible -- I have a dual role -- to insure that the
       interests and perspectives of U.S. commercial fishing
       interests are fully considered in such negotiations.  I
       just put a cough drop in my mouth so I'm juggling that.
                 In November 1998, I and one of my colleague
       U.S. commissioners, Rawley Smitten, at a delegation
       negotiated with Japan and Canada and ultimately all
       parties at ICCAT a 20-year rebuilding plan for billfish
       tuna.  And as in most, if not all, ICCAT agreements we
       negotiate, there are always domestic implications and
       considerations which are fundamental to our U.S.
       position and objectives.  I know that all nations have
       this.  
                 I mean, we're always thinking about what are
       the domestic ramifications of the position that we
       advance at ICCAT.  Of course, all nations have that
       responsibility.  In fact, in many ways, the underlying
       domestic considerations drive much of the negotiation.
                 However, because ICCAT is an international
       body, such nation-specific domestic considerations
       shared by all nations are not reflected in writing in
       ICCAT documents.  And they are agreements, they are
       resolutions, and there are recommendations. 
       Nevertheless, understandings within the U.S. delegation
       are reached and are, in my opinion, every bit as real
       and valid as a U.S. obligation as the written text
       itself.
                 So was the case with the 20-year rebuilding
       plan for billfish tuna in 1998.  It contained
       provisions which had several profound domestic
       implications and considerations and these implications
       were quite fully and openly discussed, certainly by
       myself and Mr. Smitten as another commissioner, the two
       of which negotiated this particular agreement with
       Canada and Japan.
                 And two of these domestic implications or
       considerations that we very fully discussed at ICCAT
       and which were therefore part of our considerations in
       negotiating the specific terms of that agreement, are
       the following.  
                 The first I would like to mention involved the
       issue that I think you're talking about now, which was
       the domestic distribution of the 43 tons of additional
       U.S. quota that was negotiated as part of that
       agreement with Japan and Canada.  
                 And then the second one was the distribution
       of what I believe were 68 tons of the U.S. dead discard
       quota.  Did I get that number right?  I think it's 68
       tons also negotiated as part of that agreement.  I know
       you're not here to talk about the dead discard quota
       but it was part of the same discussion so I bring it up
       and point it out.
                 But in both cases it was my unambiguous
       understanding that the conclusion of the two
       commissioners who negotiated this agreement was that
       such quotas in both cases should be distributed
       proportionately to the various U.S. sectors according
       to the current percent distribution of direct quota. 
       Maybe I didn't say that quite right, but you know what
       I'm thinking.  You understand what I'm saying.
                 I'm not here to argue whose understanding was
       what.  I'm just here as one U.S. commissioner to
       reflect what my understanding was.
                 I was also advised that this intent and
       understanding of at least those two commissioners,
       including myself, was directly communicated to the
       National Marine Fisheries Service Highly Migratory
       Species Division, and those responsible for writing
       this proposal before us.  And I do believe that was in
       fact the case.  Perhaps I'm wrong.
                 Therefore, the question that sort of plagued
       me last night kind of reflecting on the day was, among
       other things, was actually on this particular issue why
       we are here.  Why did NMFS specifically reject the
       express intent and understanding of the commissioners
       that negotiations this particular agreement?  
                 Again, it's not reflected in writing, of
       course.  It can not be in an ICCAT document.  But the
       question further was, you know, what profound
       conservation and policy considerations or concerns
       should cause the agency to so directly and specifically
       reject or override what the commissioners intended, and
       apparently according to some testimony I heard
       yesterday, rejecting what the Magnuson Act requires.
                 This is important and important to me.  It's
       important, of course, as we heard to the purse seiners,
       but very important to me as a U.S. commissioner and the
       institution of the commissioner position.  
                 We are asked as commissioners to negotiate
       agreements which not only advance conservation
       objectives first and foremost, but also advance and
       protect U.S. domestic interests.  Because we can not
       put into ICCAT written documents what our
       understandings are with respect to such domestic
       interests, we have to rely on the trust and the good
       faith of the implementing agency to try to faithfully
       reflect in their regulations what the U.S.
       commissioners intended as a basis for their negotiation
       and agreements.  
                 If we can not rely on that good faith from the
       agency this commissioner will find it extremely
       difficult to effectively function in the future because
       I don't have an ability to ensure that the domestic
       considerations which are a basis of what I negotiate
       will ever be reflected faithfully by the agency.  
                 Now, again, if there is some profound
       overriding policy or conservation consideration or
       concern that would justify rejecting our intent, that
       may be very appropriate.  I'm not trying to suggest
       that -- and I'm sure I feel Gary over here starting to
       -- I'm not trying to suggest what the commissioners say
       or intend at ICCAT is the obligation of NMFS to
       implement.  Of course not.  
                 But I would hope that it would be something
       that they would seriously consider since we have to go
       -- we have the obligation of going and negotiating on
       behalf of the agency and negotiating on behalf of the
       people in this room.  
                 And if it's our understanding that something
       will be implemented in a certain way in the United
       States and having that confidence that that will be the
       case, therefore I can go forward with a position and
       negotiate it with other countries and put that into
       writing, if I can't rely on that I'm going to be very
       hesitant to put my neck out and commit to anything.  So
       I don't know what's it's going to do to our people.
                 But again, there may be an overriding
       conservation concern which would certainly justify
       overriding what our intent was.  We may not have
       reflected on something.  We may not have thought of
       something.  As negotiations are intense and heated and
       fast-paced, we're not thinking of everything and, sure,
       we may have not considered something very important
       from a conservation or policy standpoint.
                 But if there is that overriding policy or
       conservation concern that would cause the agency to
       reject what we thought we intended and what I thought
       was communicated to the agency, then I'd like, just as
       one U.S. commissioner, to know what that was so that I
       understand that in the future it was only because of
       some extraordinary circumstance that our intent was
       specifically rejected.  If there is no overriding
       consideration then I'd like to know why the agency even
       went down this road in the first place.
                 The last thing I'd like to mention, and I kind
       of heard through my third ear that perhaps Rich Ruais
       mentioned, was that I just returned -- several of us
       just returned from an important ICCAT intercessional
       meeting to negotiate an ICCAT-wide set of criteria for
       allocating ICCAT species among ICCAT nations.  This is
       sort of the same -- this is a microcosm on a larger
       scale.
                 The results of these we're now going to be
       continuing negotiations as well recognized by the
       representatives of many ICCAT nations at our meeting
       last week, I believe, will set a powerful precedent for
       other international fishery management fora.  I think
       it was well understood what whatever we do at ICCAT on
       international allocation criteria is going to be
       something that sets the stage for fishery management
       fora worldwide.  This is important stuff.
                 Among the three top priorities for the United
       States as articulated by the head of our delegation was
       historical catch.  In fact, the theme of virtually all
       of the major developed fishing nations at ICCAT
       advanced as either their number one or one of their top
       criteria the consideration of their historical
       participation in the fishery as a basis for determining
       what their future allocations or quota shares should
       be.
                 And I guess it is at least troubling to me as
       a U.S. commissioner to be asked by our government to
       advance a position, policy, internationally, in this
       context historical catch, only to have the same
       government agency advance what would appear to be or
       apparently a contrary policy position at home.  
                 You know, my only concern is that it certainly
       would tend to undermine our credibility at ICCAT if we
       have conflicting policies at the domestic and
       international level, and again that sort of reflects on
       my job.
                 So those two issues I bring up are really
       selfishly motivated from the perspective of being a
       U.S. commissioner and I appreciate you at least taking
       that into consideration.  I know this is a very
       different issue and a different consideration for you
       to make and I appreciate you bearing with me to go
       through this.  Maybe it's not important but I'd like to
       have the opportunity to share my views.
                 Thank you very much.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Thank you, Glen.  Other
       comments from advisory panel members on what we've
       heard so far this morning?  Peter Weiss.
                 MR. WEISS:  You know, the issue here has been
       the issue right along, notwithstanding the cap or quota
       share or anything else.  I think the issue is what some
       people consider fairness.  And when you know some of
       the facts of, or when you think about some of the facts
       of how the fishery is structured today and how it got
       to where it is, maybe you can think about the problem
       differently or maybe you can't.  It isn't really that
       critical.
                 I think the reason there was a cap put on here
       was the fact that, in talking about a limited entry, we
       have several categories in this fishery that have
       unlimited entry.  We have over 10,000 permit holders in
       the general category today.  Tomorrow we could have
       15,000 permit holders in the general category.  I don't
       know how many permit holders are in the angling
       category.  I think there's 18,000 or something like
       that.  And they keep on growing.
                 And I guess with the inability of NMFS to want
       to, and I don't know whether we want to or not and
       that's not -- we're not making a comment on limited
       entry -- of limiting the entry in these categories, I
       guess they've taken the tack of limiting the growth of
       the one category that has a limited entry, and that's
       the purse seine category.  There are five boats that
       fish that category and I don't know if there are three
       permit holders, four permit holders, or how many but
       there certainly aren't more then five who are getting a
       pretty fair share of the fishery and make a pretty good
       living at it, I would suppose, in the time frame of
       four weeks or three weeks or five weeks of fishing.
                 So you've got 10,000 permit holders who are
       fishing, you've got a fishery where -- and they're all
       considered commercial by the way because if you own the
       general category you've got a commercial permit and
       you're considered a commercial fisherman, who I'd say
       95 percent of them are having a hard time making a
       living at this game because of the limited quota versus
       a purse seine fishery which, granted last year was not
       as lucrative as it was the previous years due to the
       prices of fish in Japan, but the same thing goes for
       the general category fishermen.  I can well attest to
       that.
                 So I think that's the reasoning behind, I
       guess, this purse seine cap.  I would like to ask Rich,
       you know, as far as your numbers here under U.S. share
       in the general category of 1,891 tons at 7,700 metric
       tons, and then you say it doesn't change if the purse
       seine category gets taken off.  
                 Is that correct, the general category doesn't
       change?
                 MR. RUAIS:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. WEISS:  But -- yeah, I'm sorry.  Go ahead.
                 MR. RUAIS:  Thank you.  The 1,891 doesn't
       change if you don't have the cap in place.  It just
       comes out of the reserve which is what the cap policy
       does right now is whenever there is an increase in
       quota it sends what would be the purse seine category
       share, about 250, it sends it into the reserve, so to
       that extent.
                 Now, if you want to take it out of the reserve
       and put it in the general, then -- 
                 MR. WEISS:  That's right.  I mean, that's the
       point that you didn't make.  I mean, that reserve does
       not stay in NMFS' pocket, I would suppose.  I would
       suppose they are going to distribute it to somebody,
       possibly even the seiners.  You know, I mean we don't
       know who they're going to distribute it to.
                 But I'd like to make the point that there is a
       500 ton reserve that's going to go someplace so it
       isn't like it's just going to disappear.
                 Anyway, I think that's, in a nutshell, why
       there is a cap.  Whether you want to call it equity,
       fairness, or whatever else.  You've got all fisheries
       being unlimited in entry except one, and I would
       suppose that's the reason why there was a cap put on
       that one.  And I would also suppose if there was an
       unlimited entry in the purse seine category then by all
       rights there shouldn't be a cap in the purse seine
       category. 
                 Thank you. 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Steve Loga.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Robert Fitzpatrick and then
       (inaudible).
                 MR. LOGA:  Is sounded like Peter was answering
       Glen's question on behalf of the agency.  I was
       wondering if Gary could speak to Glen's quotas because,
       frankly, I think Peter's rationale is straight out of
       the FMP and it's very much full of holes and isn't
       really supported by facts.  
                 And I was wondering if Gary could answer
       Glen's questions maybe in a more -- if there is some
       overriding concern.
                 And the problem with one of the conservation
       issues that would tend to tilt things the other way is
       when the -- the seiners typically have the largest size
       composition in their catch.  If they remain static and
       the quota goes elsewhere, the recovery will be slowed. 
       There will be more mortality for every ton that goes to
       the other categories.  Aside from the issue of
       fairness, there is a conservation issue.
                 So, Gary, could you perhaps answer Glen's
       questions?
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  I think if Gary wants to do
       that briefly that's okay but, you know, what I don't
       want us to waste our time on is to get into a lot of
       back-and-forth debate over the issue.  We want to get
       your reaction back to them.
                 So, I mean, that's appropriate but let's not
       go too far down that road.
                 MR. LOGA:  Okay.  I would just like to hear it
       from them.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Thank you.  Gary, do you want
       to take a second for that?
                 MR. MATLOCK:  I'll try to do it briefly.  The
       basis upon which we proposed and finalized having a cap
       on the purse seine category is in the FMP.  I don't
       have anything to add to that reasons.  It's stated
       there.  It's very clear, I think, because it's been
       restated and I think understood.
                 It also is our desire, has been our desire and
       is today, to see whether or not that reasoning is
       supported by the advisory panel or if there is a
       different position the advisory panel would like to
       take.  
                 We do not think, and we did not think, that
       the discussion that went on in February was adequate to
       lead us down a path of doing something differently than
       what we thought the advisory panel wanted done.  
                 But we recognize that we could be wrong about
       our interpretation so we put in the Register what we
       put.  We're here to get your opinion.  If you don't
       agree with it, if you think there is a different
       approach that should be taken, we want to hear from
       you.
                 So I don't have anything to add to what we put
       in the Register and is officially out there.  I do have
       something to add though to Glen's comments but I'll
       wait till he's back and do that at a later time.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Charlie Moore and then Corky
       Perett.  (Inaudible), do you want to follow up?  Go
       ahead.
                 MR. FITZPATRICK:  Yeah.  So the rationale that
       you're referring to is that in Volume I, Chapter 3,
       page 32, there is a paragraph and a half or two? 
       That's the extent of the rationale?  There's no hidden
       other stuff somewhere in the document?  I mean, because
       this is a big document.  I didn't read the whole thing. 
       So it is Chapter 3 in Volume I, page 32.
                 MS. LENT:  It starts on page 30, Robert.  And
       also I would ask you to refer to the comments and
       responses section.  I think there's a lot of
       (inaudible).  That's the final rule and in the appendix
       to the FMP.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Charlie Moore, Corky Perett,
       Mau Claverie.
                 MR. MOORE:  I just had a quick question. 
       Exactly how does the reserve work?  In other words, I
       would think that that would be for overages of the
       various quotas of the division -- or the various
       categories.  
                 But is the fact of taking all this out, is
       that sufficient -- is there a sufficient reserve left
       to cover the overages and so forth?  When is that
       redistributed?  Is that after the fact or during the
       seasons, or how?
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Rebecca.
                 MS. LENT:  Right now, and if everything goes
       as planned for the next 20 years, the purse seine cap
       only adds 8 metric tons to the reserve.  But the
       reserve is sufficiently large to cover what we think
       we'll need for overages.
                 One of the things we have to be concerned
       about now is that we have an allowance for dead
       discards of 68 metric tons.  If we're over that amount
       that has to be taken off of our landing quota in the
       following year so we're going to be very conservative.
                 Also as laid out in the plan and in the final
       rule, there are guidelines that we must follow before
       we reallocate through the categories, including taking
       quota out of the reserve.  So we have to take into
       account a lot of different factors, including the
       impact on the rebuilding of stock.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Corky.
                 MR. PERETT:  Thank you.  Corky Perett,
       Mississippi.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Thank you for stating your
       name.
                 MR. PERETT:  Probably it's been asked for AP
       input and since Gary and I have not agreed on anything
       for about 20 or 25 years, at least I'm being consistent
       I guess responding.  
                 First off, I'll just say this.  As an AP
       member when you've got several categories in a fishery
       and I don't care what the specific category is, I think
       it's unfair to place a cap on only one segment of the
       fishery when you've got several.  Fair, equity, so on
       and so forth, we can discuss this all day but one group
       is being selected and I personally think that's not
       equitable.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Mau Claverie.
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  A side issue.  Glen mentioned
       that the negotiations that started just this week and
       will continue to go on about allocations will
       eventually lead to a worldwide adoption of some sort of
       policies or allocation issues.  
                 And since the councils are daily involved in
       allocation issues and since the law provides that
       councils shall be consulted by NMFS on ICCAT issues --
       and this is an issue that will come home to live with
       us -- could you please include the councils in the
       ongoing what's going on for comments and what not and
       also to educate us on this particular area of interest?
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Rich Ruais.
                 MR. RUAIS:  To Peter's earlier comment about
       the fish will go into the reserve, and I think Charlie
       might have been referring to this a little bit as well,
       I'll go way out on a limb and suggest that the purse
       seine category has never gotten a pound out of the
       reserve since it's been in existence, which is probably
       since 1982 or '83, and I certainly wouldn't warm our
       hearts to think that if you put the fish in the reserve
       maybe we'll get a piece of it someday.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Robert Fitzpatrick.
                 MR. FITZPATRICK:  Some of this is going to be
       repetitive, as Rich's initial statement is a pretty
       hard act to follow.  But if everybody could actually
       turn and look at page 32 in Volume I in Chapter 3 it
       might be -- okay, NMFS maintains that limiting the
       purse seine category to its quota level of recent years
       would not unduly impact that category with its limited
       entry IVQ system and limited participants, especially
       when compared to the intense competition and increased
       participation in the hand gear fishery, the IVQ system,
       et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
                 The statements and the rationale simply are
       not supported by any facts.  Where is the documentation
       for this?  There is none.  There are a few comments
       made by individuals but how is it that they are not
       unduly affected by this?  I can assure you that
       competition on the water and, more importantly, in the
       international marketplace is intense.  And the
       marketplace, Rebecca, for your side of this thing, is
       the most important part.
                 With each increase afforded the U.S. -- and
       there will be, we believe, more increases -- the net
       economic value of the seine category's production will
       decrease because, as the supply goes up the price will
       go down.  Japan is a very finite marketplace for this
       wonderful fish we've got.
                 As the world market gears up for tuna ranching
       operations, you will see our window of opportunity in
       the fresh market shrink to be smaller and smaller and
       smaller.  In addition, within increases in the western
       Atlantic's quota or whatever quota we may call it
       sometime soon, the value of the fish will simply
       decrease for everybody.  It already has.  
                 If you look at yen, yen per kilogram values in
       Japan since the early '90s, in my business in 1991 we
       averaged 6,400 yen a kilo.  Last year we averaged under
       4,000.  Throw in currency, throw in regulatory stuff,
       derby fishing for everybody.  It's not just a derby for
       the general category, it's a derby for everybody. 
                 The bottom line is they will be attritted over
       the course of time with this cap, and I really believe
       that there is nothing to support -- I don't see any --
       I haven't heard any rationale that really supports that
       they will be unduly affected.  
                 If federal employees at HMS, if their salaries
       were capped permanently and other federal employees
       received their cost of living increases on a yearly
       basis, do you think that over the course of 20 years
       you would not be unduly affected?  I think that you
       might and I think that you may feel that you were being
       discriminated against if you were singled out in such a
       fashion.
                 The most important thing in this is the
       marketplace and the value of the fish.  It's not going
       to go up.  It's going to go down.  And the idea that
       they're not affected, I mean -- you know, I promised
       some people I wouldn't say this but -- well, I was
       going to say something about the Bill Clinton school of
       truthfulness and people graduating with high honors or
       failing Economics 101.  But, so I guess I said it. 
       It's just basically a bunch of bunk and it sounds like
       a political issue that's driven by a few individuals in
       our fishery.  
                 And as advisory panel members here, we can put
       an end maybe if Rebecca and Gary do the right thing. 
       We could put an end to this sort of thing here today
       perhaps and send a message that says this is America
       and fairness is fairness and right is right.  So, guys,
       could you do the right thing, maybe?
                 MS. LENT:  (Inaudible.)  We do have quite a
       bit of analysis in here.  It's based on a 20-year
       rebuilding program at 250 metric tons.  At 200 -- I'm
       sorry, at the 2,500 metric ton allowance.  That is our
       -- that is the horizon that we're looking at, a 2,500
       tons, the purse seine capped at 250.  
                 Basically, with the scenario we're looking at,
       everybody is capped because we've kept the constant --
       wait a minute, Robert.  We kept the constant quota for
       the 20-year rebuilding program and that's our horizon. 
       When we get beyond 20 years then there can be increases
       when we reach MSY.  So that's why it basically works
       out to one and a half metric ton per purse seiner on
       average and that's why we have this rationale and those
       numbers in there.
                 If indeed in five years there is a change in
       horizon because the MSY has gone up -- 
                 (End of Tape 3, Side B.)
                 MS. LENT:  All right.  Well, the scenario that
       we're looking at standing here today is a 20-year
       rebuilding program at 2,500 metric tons.  If that
       changes you're absolutely right, we'll have to go back
       and modify the analysis if we get numbers such as the
       one that Rich presents, and we will redo those analyses
       at the time.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Robert, can you get your
       microphone on, please?  Thank you. 
                 MR. FITZPATRICK:  You just said basically the
       rationale is that there aren't going to be any quota
       increases so therefore it's no problem.
                 MS. LENT:  Maybe rationale is the wrong word. 
       What I'm saying is we have a rebuilding program from
       ICCAT -- I don't know if Glen is here.  There are a lot
       of people here who went to ICCAT with us.  And it says
       the United States and all these other countries will
       have this quota for the next 20 years.  Under certain
       circumstances, we might change that quota but right now
       standing here today writing this document, that's what
       we based our numbers on.  It might change.  You're
       right, Robert.  And if it does change we'll go back and
       review the analysis.
                 MR. FITZPATRICK:  But I don't see what you're
       putting the horse before the -- the cart before the
       horse.  Why cap them if there aren't going to be any
       changes?  How about don't cap them and what's the
       difference?  It only makes sense.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  We have John Wingard, Bob
       Spaeth, Peter Weiss.  Gail, was your hand up?  
                 MR. WINGARD:  Yeah, just in short based on how
       I'm understanding what's being said here, what's the
       difference between capping nobody and capping
       everybody?  What's the rationale for capping one?  I
       just am totally at a loss here.
                 MS. LENT:  John, if we could just go back and
       read the pages with the different arguments relative,
       we feel that relative to the objectives of the
       management plan, relative to the national standards in
       the Magnuson-Stevens Act, that this fair and equitable
       and other objectives that this is the way we should go.
                 But again, as Gary said, if you think we've
       wrongly interpreted the objectives of the fishery
       management plan or the national standards, we're
       listening.  Bring in those objectives and tell us why
       the cap doesn't match the objectives, just as Rich did. 
       And we're listening.
                 MR. WINGARD:  Well, I mean I have read the --
       I mean, I've read the comments and I've read -- I mean,
       I've heard what's just been said here.  And rather than
       just referring to the rationale which I have read which
       doesn't seem to support what's being done nor listening
       to what's being said here doesn't seem to make any
       sense, just a simple answer given how you just
       responded to Robert, what's the difference between
       capping nobody, capping everybody, and capping one
       group?
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Gary.
                 MR. MATLOCK:  I'm going to take a stab at it. 
       When we meeting and developed the FMP to begin with,
       everyone was expecting, I believe, that ICCAT would
       probably reduce the quota available to the U.S. for
       billfish tuna, so the discussion that went on was in
       that context.  
                 When we went to ICCAT and came back, we
       actually got an increase in the quota from ICCAT.  That
       increase results in, if you don't cap the purse seine
       quota, in an 8 metric ton increase in the purse seine
       quota if you treat that category as every other
       category.  
                 The AP did not address that potential.  They,
       in effect, said if it goes down you want everybody to
       go down proportionately the same.  Given that there was
       an increase from ICCAT, what we did was to put in the
       final FMP and the rule that we were not going to
       increase the purse seine quota by 8 metric tons, which
       would have been the result of increasing everybody
       proportionately given the increase we got from ICCAT.  
                 You okay so far?  
                 MR. RUAIS:  I don't agree with your
       characterization.
                 MR. MATLOCK:  It doesn't matter whether you
       agree or not.  What matters is that that's what we, the
       Agency, did.  Whether you agree with it or not, Rich,
       is not the point.  I'm trying to explain what it is -- 
                 MR. RUAIS:  I don't agree with your
       characterization of the advisory panel's prior
       discussion of either status quo or either -- on this
       issue.
                 MR. MATLOCK:  You're welcome to disagree.  I'm
       telling you what our interpretation was.  You can
       disagree with it all day long and that's fine.  I'm
       trying to answer John's question so that he understands
       what we did and why we did it.
                 So given that there was an increase and a
       potential 8 metric ton increase to the purse seine
       quota, and given that the purse seine quota is the only
       category with a limited access program, and that if you
       increase the total quota to the purse seine by 8 metric
       tons it will decrease the quota available to all of the
       other unlimited access quota categories, we were not
       sure that that was something the AP wanted to do or did
       not want to do. 
                 So we put in the final rule what it was we
       thought should be done from an agency perspective and
       are now here asking you if you don't agree with that
       tell us why not so that we can consider that in
       potentially doing a framework action to change what is
       in the current rules.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  I think that we've been asking
       the National Marine Fisheries Service why they did what
       we did.  I think we've gotten that answer so I don't
       know that, you know, continuing to ask Gary and Rebecca
       why did you do this is going to further our discussion. 
                 We've got Bob Spaeth, Peter Weiss, Bob Hueter,
       Pete Jensen and Mau Claverie.  Then I would like to
       wrap this up and give everybody an opportunity to put
       themselves on the record.  Bob Spaeth.
                 MR. SPAETH:  Thank you.  Looking this over,
       you know, and going through the years and some of those
       purse seiners are located down in Pinelles County and I
       think some of them have been built down there, but I've
       seen a number of those guys run out of business over
       the years through regulation, economics, whatever.
                 And now we're here.  I don't see anything,
       compelling science, that says by capping these tuna
       purse seiners we're going to save one fish.  And if
       it's the job to save fish, I can see the Agency doing
       that, but what bothers me is when the agency comes in
       and tries to put a business plan in for a user group. 
       And I'm so tired of it.  You know, trip limits, all of
       these kind of methods I think are not really sound
       scientific environmental management tools.  I think
       that if you put a size limit, a quota, on a species is
       a way to manage it.  I think by capping people and
       restricting people, save the fish.  A dead fish is a
       dead fish.  If you go ahead and increase 20 the tuna,
       and I don't care who kills them, that tuna is dead and
       I don't think it's fair to cap the tuna purse seiners. 
                 And that's about all I have to say is a dead
       fish is a dead fish.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Peter Weiss.
                 MR. WEISS:  I've just got a question for
       Rebecca.  I didn't quite understand, you know, Rich's
       feeling, I guess, is once the cap is in place is it's
       in place forever.  
                 Is that correct, Rich, I mean, basically?
                 MR. RUAIS:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. WEISS:  Yeah, but I mean -- and you're
       saying, Rebecca, that the cap is basically in place
       until we get a new -- if we ever get an increase it can
       be looked at again.  I get mixed up there.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Go ahead, Rebecca.
                 MS. LENT:  Thanks for the chance to try and
       clear that up.  I was trying to address Bob's question
       about -- Robert Fitzpatrick, sorry -- about the impact.
                 Basically, we did present value economic
       analyses for both gross and net revenues over a 38-year
       horizon.  That was based on the assumption for the
       first 20 years we stay at status quo both in terms of
       the total quota and the allocation of it with the purse
       seiners capped.  
                 And if you look in Chapter 7 at the present
       value analyses at the difference in the present value
       between the 20-year rebuilding program with the cap and
       without the cap.  There is not a really big difference
       if you spread it over 38 years particularly.  It's not
       a big difference.  That's why we came up with the undue
       -- would not unduly impact.
                 Now, somewhere between now and the next 20
       years there may indeed be a change in the U.S. quota,
       in which case the purse seiners under the status quo
       would be capped and other categories' allocation would
       go up, so that could change.  
                 But under the analyses that we did here for 20
       years everybody stays where they are right now, and
       then 20 years out there is an increase in other
       categories, not the purse seiners.  But if you know
       about present value analyses, anything that's beyond 25
       years or so is practically a zero present value by the
       time you bring it back.  That's why there is no undue
       effect.
                 Does that answer your question as well as
       yours, Robert, Peter?
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Robert.
                 MR. FITZPATRICK:  Then cap everybody.  It's
       simple.  You cap nobody or you cap everybody. 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Bob Hueter.
                 MR. HUETER:  Bob Hueter.  In the response to
       public comment in the Federal Register, NMFS referred
       to the lack of catch per unit effort time series data
       in this fishery.  Can you comment on the significance
       of that point in this decision?
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Rebecca.
                 MS. LENT:  In both the objectives of the
       fishery management plan and in the recommendation we
       had from ICCAT, we do want to pay attention to the
       quality of data that we provide for the stock
       assessments.  We do not get CPUE data from the purse
       seine category.  We get other science but we don't get
       CPUE data.  That is one of the factors.
                 MR. HUETER:  Then that factor did enter into
       this decision to cap?
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Pete Jensen.
                 MR. JENSEN:  Jack, my question was one of
       procedure.  I've been saving my comments thinking we
       were going to go around the table but we seem to have
       gotten into everybody commenting.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  I would like to start that. 
       Gail and John have your hands up.  Can you hold on to
       your comment as we go around the table and everybody
       will get -- and we'll try to wrap this up so we can get
       on to the time/area closures issue.  
                 Let's go ahead and do that, and we'll start
       over in this corner.  Ray Bogan.  And each of you, you
       know, tell Rebecca and Gary where you are on this issue
       and why.  Ray.
                 MR. BOGAN:  Ray Bogan.  I don't support the
       purse seine cap.  A couple of comments are necessary,
       however.  This is not -- the domestic allocation is not
       a reflection of the historical billfish tuna fishery. 
       It's not -- and when we get up and testify that it is,
       it's simply not true.
                 History in the sense of the regulatory process
       that we often engage in is very different than real
       history.  I think everybody will acknowledge that. 
       There is only one true historical fishery is we go on
       real history, and that's the one that's been eliminated
       and that's the angling category for school billfish
       tuna.  I represent inspected vessels.  We have no more
       fishery any more.  We've not lost 40 percent of our
       revenues.  We lost 100 percent of our revenues. 
       They're gone.
                 Having said that, I think one of the reasons
       that -- I know one of the reasons why I feel that this
       cap is not appropriate now, is that as Elden mentioned,
       I think there is a problem in the context of Magnuson
       and I think NMFS is going to be hit with enough
       lawsuits right now that this is just another one.  
                 I'm not being facetious.  I'm just saying that
       it's a consideration, I think, because you don't want
       to just vote on something and support something that's
       just going to result in another lawsuit.
                 And the second component of it is that from
       all of our perspectives in the recreational fishery we
       see some very, very, dark clouds in the context of
       yellowfin tuna.  Glen just confirmed our worst fears,
       which all of us know was coming, but he confirmed the
       fact that we are now talking about in the international
       context creating nation quotas based -- and nation
       allocations based upon historical catches. 
                 No one here, no one here except for -- I
       shouldn't say.  No one from here in that direction
       doesn't think that we're not in bad trouble right now
       on yellowfin.  We're in real bad trouble.
                 So from a selfish standpoint, what I am
       hopeful is that for some time if it's an additional 8
       tons in the context of the purse seiners catching
       bluefin tuna, I'm hoping very selfishly that this is
       something of an incentive to keep them off of yellowfin
       to some degree because the disaster that's waiting to
       happen and that will occur in the context of yellowfin
       might be lessened if the purse seiners can continue to
       share in any benefits derived in the increases in the
       catches and the increases in the allocation of bluefin
       and stay a little bit off the yellowfin.  That's what
       I'm hoping.
                 So, again, I could go into a lot more detail
       on the historical component of this fishery.  I've done
       it in the past and it has fallen on deaf ears.  But is
       it important in the context of those fishermen who have
       been doing this for a long time because, like my family
       that's been doing this for over seven decades and the
       folks in the purse seine fishery who have been doing it
       for almost four decades, we know what it means to try
       to protect our historical participation in a fishery.
                 I no longer can protect that because it's been
       taken away from us.  You folks can and that's what
       you're doing.  So I don't support it.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Thank you.  Remember as we are
       going around if there are any members who are only
       Billfish AP members, please pass.  This is an issue
       right now for the HMS Advisory Panel.
                 Randy.
                 MR. BLANKINSHIP:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Okay.  Mau.
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  Mau Claverie.  I'm from the
       Gulf Council on their HMS and because this fishery does
       not occur in the Council and it's an allocation issue
       my instructions are to keep out of it.  So if there is
       a vote I am going to abstain and if you want comments
       I'm going to keep my mouth shut, believe it or not.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Thank you.  Bob Zales.
                 MR. ZALES:  Bob Zales.  I am opposed to this
       cap for a lot of what Ray said.  I have a lot of fears
       too about yellowfin and what's going on with that.  I
       don't think it's fair and equitable to cap these
       people.  
                 The limited entry situation that they're under
       with every other fishery that we're dealing with,
       especially in the Gulf of Mexico right now, limited
       entry may be something that you're going to need to
       look at in all these bluefin categories including the
       angling and everything else. 
                 We're getting to the point to where you've got
       a finite number of fish that you're trying to
       distribute amongst ever-growing populations of
       fishermen, so this is going to be a continuing problem. 
       But any increase that this country is able to get in
       its allocation should be allocated fairly and equitably
       amongst all of them.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Thank you.  Ellen Peel.
                 MS. PEEL:  We have grave concerns about
       bluefin tuna rebuilding whether, in fact, it's going to
       occur in light -- particularly in light of acceptance
       and use of the two-line approach, which we opposed
       adoption and use of back at the fall meeting and still
       have serious problems with it.
                 However, I do not support the cap.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Charlie Moore.
                 MR. MOORE:  If I understand much of what has
       been said particularly concerning the 20-year
       rebuilding program, I see no overriding reason to cap
       the fishery at this point.  But I'm going to sustain
       (sic).
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Peter Weiss.
                 MR. WEISS:  I'd like to come back after you
       get done.  I mean, take my comment when you're around
       the table.  Is that all right?
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Peter, go ahead.  We're going
       around the table and this is your turn.
                 MR. WEISS:  I just wanted the last word.
                 (Laughter.)
                 MR. WEISS:  I think I've made my comments and
       that's all I'm going to stay with, really.  If you can
       read into my comments that's fine.  If you can't,
       that's fine too.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Okay, thank you.  I'm Billfish
       AP.  I'll pass.
                 MR. PERETT:  Corky Perett, Mississippi.  I'll
       state again any fishery where you have several
       categories, several type methods for take, I do not
       think it's fair, I do not think it's equitable, to
       place a cap on only one or some of the segments of that
       fishery unless there is some really compelling
       biological reason.  
                 And I read in Volume 1 under social and
       economic impacts, I was thinking, well, if you put a
       cap on this one category perhaps these fish go into
       reserve and there's some sort of -- there's a
       conservation rationale there.  But I read that the
       extra tonnage that would go in the reserve would most
       likely be allocated to other user groups.  That's
       totally unfair. 
                 Thank you. 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Pete Jensen.
                 MR. JENSEN:  Several comments.  One, as others
       have commented, I find a rationale would not unduly
       impact a very awkward, counter-intuitive kind of reason
       for the government to regulate.  My attitude, if I were
       in this position, would be if that's the case then
       don't do it.  That's a difference of how you approach
       problems. 
                 I also disagree, Gary, with your
       characterization of the context of the discussion we
       had.  And it's not just disagreeing with you.  I just
       think it's wrong.  And that leads me to make another
       comment, and I disagree in principle with putting caps
       on the purse seine fishery. 
                 But you may remember at our first meeting we
       talked about the role of this advisory panel, and I
       think there was a lot of discussion at the time that it
       was tantamount to being an eighth council.  And I think
       you agreed with that.
                 Yet here we have a situation where I think the
       discussion of the AP was pretty clear on where we were,
       yet we have a situation where we really did not vote
       and a lot of people around this table have said I'm
       going to vote this way or I'm going to vote that way. 
       The fact is, the way the panel has been run is we don't
       have clear opportunity to vote or make recommendations
       and so there is no record of the real clear
       recommendations that this panel made.
                 And so I also don't see any connection with
       the rebuilding schedule or the ICCAT or the national
       standards in this decision.  It almost takes on the
       flavor of a predetermined determination looking for a
       justification.  And if I'm wrong -- perhaps I am wrong,
       but that's the impression that comes out in reading the
       rationale for why you did it.
                 Thanks.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Joe McBride.
                 MR. McBRIDE:  Yes, thank you.  Joe McBride,
       New York State.  I won't go into the whole history.  I
       disagree in a historical context and as a retired
       historian, I guess, with the synopsis of traditional
       fisheries and the history of the purse seine fisheries
       as being criteria for consideration any more so than
       amongst other fish.  I think I pointed out that the
       history is not exactly the way it was inferred at last
       night's public comment period.  So be it.  That's not
       important.  It's just factual.
                 I was going to ask, and I think Gary answered
       it, where this cap came from, why we discussed it back
       and forth at the last AP meeting.  Is it political or
       is it scientific?  I think Gary, in essence, said it's
       political, you know, based on the fact of the ITQs for
       the five purse seiners.  
                 Now, in many business scenarios and certainly
       it's a great business scenario for five purse seiners
       to have X amount of a public resource, and God bless
       them for their skills and ability to do that in years
       past for whatever reason.  And I think Glen Delaney
       pointed out one of the reasons our category, the
       angling category with all its economic value -- and I
       won't go into that of the $4 billion in New York State
       alone, et cetera, and the 10,000 jobs -- have no
       fishery left due to ICCAT and due to the National
       Marine Fisheries Service implementation to the letter
       of the 8 percent rule.
                 Now, perhaps we could talk to the purse
       seiners.  Maybe they would want to go back.  I'm sure
       Rich would agree to something like half of the
       historical quota they had and put it in percentage,
       like 8 percent, and we'll do as he said to Ray last
       night, it's not a cap, it's a percentage.  
                 Somehow I don't think you want to do that, but
       perhaps maybe this is in the offering.  I have five
       charter boats and is there any possibility of the
       Agency or ICCAT allowing my five charter boats in ITQ
       for the charter boat industry on bluefin tuna school
       fish?  I mean, think about it.  It's (inaudible).
                 With all that nonsense, I don't think it's
       fair, as do some of my colleagues, that one group be
       capped.  If I'm against the purse seiners' percentage,
       let's go against the purse seiners' percentage, get rid
       of the ITQs.  All of that can be done, I'm sure,
       legally if such a thing is an offense or it's wrong or
       it offends the panel or offends the public.
                 So I'm against the cap basically on I don't
       like to single out one group even though I don't concur
       with certainly all the historical past when they had a
       great role, not only they but the whole general
       category, in destroying the charter and party boats
       bluefin school fishing on the east coast, certainly in
       New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Rhode Island, of
       which I represent.
                 But what's right is right, what's fair is
       fair, and I don't think it's fair to single out one
       group without having an overall -- there is other ways
       to deal with the inequity that Gary mentioned with the
       ITQs.  That's my feeling.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Thank you.  Robert Fitzpatrick.
                 MR. FITZPATRICK:  I'm clearly opposed to the
       cap.  And Joe keeps bringing this up and Ray touched on
       it, and I agree with you entirely that the historical
       record is incomplete.  Thanks.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Nelson Beideman.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  Blue Water opposes the cap.  I
       would like to comment on a few things.  I don't think
       enough time has been spent on what Glen brought up, and
       I hope that the powers that be in the administration,
       the powers that be in the Congress, I know there is the
       Senate's subcommittee is represented here, will take
       serious time to reflect on some of the issues that Glen
       raised. 
                  NMFS' actions, unless they are very serious,
       you know, conservation reasons, tend to undermine the
       credibility of the U.S. delegation, not only on things
       of the cap but also on the discard provisions.  As soon
       as the discard provisions came up, the issue was
       raised, discussions were made with the U.S.
       commissioner.  After the meeting discussions were made
       with the U.S. commissioner.  
                 NMFS' actions have gone in the opposite
       direction.  We strongly support East Coast Tuna's
       position, Ray's position, Elden Greenberg's position
       that this is illegal, Corky's position on the
       unfairness, and we would recommend that NMFS withdraw
       the cap and avoid an unnecessary lawsuit.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Gail Johnson.  Thank you for
       being patient.
                 MS. JOHNSON:  Gail Johnson.  One of the buzz
       phrases around here is a dog in this fight.  Well,
       we're a puppy in this fight.  
                 An aside.  Some people are worried about the
       seiners going after yellowfin.  Well, if I had a cap
       that effectively reduces my allowed catch, I'd be
       looking for something else to do to keep the boats
       busy.  Boats are unhappy when they're idle.
                 My opinion is that there is a cap in terms of
       a quota on all of us, and forgive me if I've missed
       something along the way but I don't know why we're not
       capped in terms of percentages.  We all rise and fall
       with that rising and falling overall quota tide.
                 Thank you. 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  John Wingard.  Thank you, too.
                 MR. WINGARD:  John Wingard.  If I understand
       correctly, I think some of the rationale here based on
       net present value in essence amounts to allocating the
       fish to that sector that can make the most money off of
       it.  
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. WINGARD:  Okay -- sure.
                 MS. LENT:  No, I was just asked by Robert to
       explain where the "does not unduly affect" comes from
       but that was not economic allocations.  
                 MR. WINGARD:  Okay.  My position is, I mean,
       yesterday and today we've heard direct references to
       how this isn't in concordance with the Magnuson-Stevens
       Act and I agree with those rationales.  I support -- I
       think this is inequitable.  I think to put a
       quantitative cap on one group while others are
       operating under a percentage basis is treating one
       group fundamentally different than the other groups.
                 To argue that because they have limited entry
       that they're insulated from competition I think only
       makes sense if their market is also somehow sequestered
       from the markets of other groups.  Otherwise, just as
       Robert pointed out, they are still under competition
       from these other groups.
                 And just in response to Gary's response to me,
       which I appreciate, I just want to make explicitly
       clear that when I support status quo that's status quo
       whether it's going down or status quo whether it's
       going up.  
                 I strongly support that if we want to dicker
       about percentages, that's one argument; but to separate
       one group out and put them under quantitative
       restrictions and not under percentage restrictions I
       think is unfair treatment of that particular group.
                 So I am categorically against the cap, 250
       metric ton cap.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Bob Spaeth.
                 MR. SPAETH:  Bob Spaeth, SOFA.  I'm against
       the cap.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Bob Hueter.  
                 MR. HUETER:  Bob Hueter.  As an independent
       scientist I'm only an advocate for healthy resource and
       sustainable optimally productive fisheries.  And I'm
       finding myself in a very strange situation in this
       issue and being more judgmental in the weight of the
       evidence than advisory.  So I've looked at those
       criteria that I use and applied the test of judgment, I
       guess.  
                 When I look at whether this affects stock
       rebuilding and the health of the stock, I don't see
       anything compelling in that category.  When I look at
       bi-catch issues, I haven't heard anything there or read
       anything.  When I look even outside of the resource to
       other areas that we deal with all the time such as gear
       conflicts, I haven't heard anything.  
                 And it seems to me -- well, we heard about the
       data issue but it seems that that could be worked out. 
       It seems to me this is an economic allocation issue and
       I would, in my role, I would be looking for strenuous
       objectives coming from the other user groups in the
       fishery and I haven't heard that.  I found Peter's
       comments to be obtuse at best.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 (Laughter.)
                 MR. HUETER:  Precisely.  So not as an advisor
       but as sort of an independent judge, if you will, I
       find the evidence not compelling so I would be opposed
       to this move.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Sonja.
                 MS. FORDHAM:  Sonja Fordham, Center for Marine
       Conservation.  I agree with a lot of what Dr. Hueter
       has said.  I'm at a loss.  I don't work on tuna issues
       and I missed the Baltimore fiasco.
                 But there does appear to be very little --
       there's no conservation argument for a cap and it seems
       to be an allocation issue so I couldn't support it.  I
       would just say on the face of it just coming into this
       issue, it's rather puzzling how and why this got so
       far.  
                 The document says that the public comment has
       been mixed and the AP has been mixed, and last night
       there wasn't a single person that testified in support
       of this, and we've had very little in the way of
       rationale supporting a cap.
                 And I also question whether it's a good
       precedent to set to penalize the only sector that has
       adopted a limited entry program.  And I'm not an expert
       on limited entry, but I know one of the fundamental
       reasons for employing the limited entry system is to
       provide, theoretically provide, the users of some sense
       of ownership of the resource.  
                 And it seems, again theoretically, that if you
       take -- if you insure that the quota for that sector
       never increases that you would take away some of that
       incentive for them to be good stewards of the resource. 
       So I can't support it.
                 Thank you. 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  David Wilmot.
                 MR. WILMOT:  Well, my dog was killed in the
       bluefin fight so when it comes to allocation there is
       not much for me to say.  I do want to follow up on what
       Bob Hueter had to say, however.  I will defend NMFS'
       right here to look for other reasons why one might
       single out a user group.  I think there are a couple of
       arguments here that deserve discussion and could have
       been followed up on.  The data is certainly one.
                 But I think Bob is right that the case wasn't
       made, and my advice would not be on this particular
       issue but a little broader.  Don't stop doing this but
       look maybe a little more closely when trying to justify
       so that these things can be defended.  I think there
       are going to be times where there is good reason to
       single out a particular user group and, say, due to bi-
       catch or other factors we should reduce, cap, et
       cetera.
                 So, unfortunately, in this case there is not a
       compelling conservation issue here so I don't have a
       strong position.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Russ Dunn.
                 MR. DUNN:  Russ Dunn, Ocean Wildlife Campaign. 
       I would just reiterate what Dave said but I do have a
       question, a peripherally related question which I can
       wait and ask later for Commissioner Delaney on
       something he stated while he was at the table.  So I
       can wait now or -- 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Let's hold off.  Thank you. 
       Rusty Hudson.
                 MR. HUDSON:  Rusty Hudson, directed shark.  I
       oppose the cap.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Steve Loga.
                 MR. LOGA:  Steve Loga.  I'm opposed to the cap
       also.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  John Graves.
                 MR. GRAVES:  Well, fortunately, ICCAT doesn't
       have a dog in this one at least, and I'm very happy
       that this panel is taking on the domestic allocation
       issue because it's made my job on the ICCAT Advisory
       Committee infinitely easier.  However, I will take off
       my ICCAT hat and become Citizen Graves, and at this
       point I don't support a cap.  I don't think it is
       equitable.  I think that the competition is within the
       market place.
                 Furthermore, in terms of the conservation
       issues, if you look at that fishery they're maximizing
       the yield per recruit relative to the other fisheries. 
       It's a cleaner fishery.  And also in terms of
       enforcement and regulation, it's a very easy one to
       take care of relative to the other fisheries.  
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  (Inaudible.) 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  I'm tempted to pass since I'm
       -- I'm so gratified by the comments around the room.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  But there are a couple of
       comments that I wanted to make.  One, I can't help but
       think about what Nelson was talking about yesterday in
       terms of trying to get those people that aren't
       participating at the ICCAT level in Madrid to be
       thinking about the psyche.  And he used the bullfight
       analogy.
                 In this case I can't imagine if there were a
       couple of Spanish fishermen, an Italian fisherman in
       the back of the room listening to the amount of time
       we've spent on this 8 tons, it's really sad and I thank
       everybody for their patience on that.  It's a terrible
       waste of talent in this room to be focused on this
       issue for so long.
                 There are just a couple of specific comments,
       though.  One Bob Hueter was raising the stock
       assessment issue.  I would point out that the purse
       seine fishery from the Mediterranean for bluefin is
       used in the stock assessment in the eastern Atlantic
       and there is no objection to that by U.S. scientists
       and we've pleaded with them to use the very long-time
       history of purse seine catches in the western Atlantic
       as a CPUE for the stock assessment, but for some reason
       it isn't there.  
                 The other argument that we've made time and
       time again is there is only so much quota that you need
       to dedicate towards scientific monitoring, and more is
       better.  We acknowledge that.  But we've got over a
       thousand tons of the U.S. quota alone and originally it
       was thought that about 600 tons was what was required
       to truly monitor the stock.  In the U.S. alone it's
       putting 1,000 tons into the CPUEs and you've got the
       Canadian end of season, you've got the Japanese end of
       season, the west Atlantic, so it's hard to use that as
       the criteria.
                 Well, I'm going to stop there.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Thank you.  Jim Donofrio.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  You better go on record with
       that.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  I'm opposed to the cap.  Thank
       you.
                 MR. DONOFRIO:  Thank you, Jack.  I don't see
       any conservation to this cap here.  As far as I'm
       concerned, the entire United States tuna industry, both
       recreational and commercial, were capped already in a
       very tight and restrictive rebuilding plan that, in my
       opinion, is far too restrictive.  I would have liked to
       seen to get us get a little more quota last year but we
       just don't have consensus among the whole recreational
       community so there's nothing we can do about that.
                 Also for the other reasons that Raymond Bogan
       had mentioned before, my feeling is -- and I've seen
       this in other fisheries -- the Agency will make some
       restrictions on, say, this purse seine industry and
       then, lo and behold, they will be targeting -- it's no-
       brainer economics -- they'll be targeting yellowfin
       tuna, which is the mainstay of our industry for our
       boat industry for our tackle industry and, you know, we
       don't want to see that happen.  We don't want to see
       that redirected effort on yellowfin tuna.  So for a
       selfish reason also.  Thank you. 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Thank you, Jim, and thank you
       all very much.  We need to move ahead so that we can
       take a break and then get back into the time/area
       closures issue. 
                 Russ Dunn said that there was a quick question
       that he wanted to ask our ICCAT commissioner that would
       merit a quick response, so let's go ahead and do that
       and then we'll take our break.  Russ.
                 MR. DUNN:  I was just interested in one thing
       you said when you were sitting over in Randy's seat
       that it undermines us credibility at ICCAT if we have
       conflicting domestic and international policy stances,
       which I agree with wholeheartedly.  
                 And I just want to make sure that that means
       that you, as a commissioner, will do your utmost at
       ICCAT to secure the ten-year swordfish rebuilding as
       proposed in that final FMP and the deduction of dead
       discards from the international quota as put forward in
       the FMP.  And that to me seems like the consistent step
       between U.S. and domestic and international policy.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Glen Delaney.
                 MR. DELANEY:  I don't know if I'm genetically
       capable of a short answer, but I'll try my best.
                 (Laughter.)
                 MR. DELANEY:  No, I'm kidding.  We don't have
       a U.S. position formulated yet.  There is a very
       deliberate process which Mr. Graves is partially
       responsible for, so I hesitate to say what the U.S.
       position will be with regard to swordfish.  
                 If I could take off my U.S. commissioner hat
       and just say personally I am very motivated to develop
       as aggressive a swordfish rebuilding plan as can be
       achieved at ICCAT.  I think we will have very stiff
       challenges to an aggressive plan, but I personally will
       be advocating within the process of developing a U.S.
       position which, as you know, is a very elaborate and
       lengthy one, for an aggressive rebuilding plan.  
                 How many years that will be I can't say for
       sure, but I want to get as aggressive a one as I can,
       personally.
                 Is that a fair answer?
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Thank you, Glen, very much. 
       Housekeeping issue.  We're going to take a break.  The
       other members of the Billfish panel will be joining us. 
       We need more space around the table so we're going to
       add some tables down at this end.  You can leave your
       things in place but sort of move away from the table to
       give staff an opportunity to add some more space.  
                 And those of you that are looking for seats,
       try to head down towards this part of the room.  At
       10:15 we're coming back so don't get lost.  Thank you 
                 (Recess.)
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  -- has some travel
       reimbursement information so if you want to get paid,
       pay close attention.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  I have a travel packet for all
       of you and it has instructions and it has a travel
       voucher for you to sign.  And if you didn't submit
       anything from last meeting you can still do that and
       you can still be paid for that one.
                 And if you do everything on here you'll get
       your money, and this time it should be faster because
       you've already filled out this CAMS form and put in the
       electronic deposit.  And if you don't know whether you
       were paid from the last time because of the electronic
       deposit, if you give me your name I'll call finance for
       you and find out when you were paid and what amount,
       and then I'll call you up and tell you.
                 I included this CAMS form again but you don't
       need to fill it out if you already did.  I just put
       that -- 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Well, they say they paid you. 
       I'll have to find out the date and the amount.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  That has happened to a lot of
       people and almost everyone was paid between August -- I
       mean, April 19th and 22nd and almost everyone thinks
       that they weren't paid.  So -- 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  I'll put your name on the
       list, Corky.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  No, but seriously, anybody
       that doesn't know if they were paid or not I'll check
       on it with finance because -- 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  I asked them to notify you and
       they said no, they couldn't do that.  And then I asked
       them to notify me and they said no, they couldn't do
       that.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Okay.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Oh, okay, yeah.  I just got
       your receipts recently.  Yeah, that's why you haven't
       been paid yet.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Yes.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Yes, and they're originals. 
       Yeah, you're okay.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Yours isn't there yet.  That's
       the reason you weren't paid yet.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  And if anybody has questions
       you can call me and I'll try to figure it out.  And
       like I said, if you didn't do it last time I'll just
       give you two packages and you can do it now for last
       time.
                 And I'm sorry about this electronic deposit
       confusion because that's their new system and they
       won't make any exceptions.  So if you have any
       questions on -- I'd be happy to help you.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Thank you. 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Thank you. 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Thank you, Pat.  Now that we've
       got both panels sitting together, Gary wanted to take a
       couple of minutes to bring you up to date on some
       things from his perspective.  So with both panels
       together, Gary, why don't you go ahead.
                 MR. MATLOCK:  Thank you very much, Jack.  Let
       me first begin by apologizing for not being able to be
       here yesterday.  I wanted very much to attend the
       meeting and have the opportunity to hear the public
       comments last evening as well as the comments from the
       panel on our presentations yesterday during the day.
                 Unfortunately, I was not able to be here
       because I was busy representing the Secretary of
       Commerce in a contempt hearing in Boston,
       Massachusetts.  We have been charged, have ben accused,
       of being in contempt of a court order concerning
       spotter planes in the bluefin tuna fishery.  And the
       contempt motion was filed in response to an accusation
       that we had not one what the court ordered us to do.
                 We successfully defended ourselves, thank
       goodness, because had we not I could have been faced
       with staying in Boston against my will for some amount
       of time, which -- 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. MATLOCK:  Yeah, I had a toothbrush, thanks
       to Miriam.  But in any event, we ended up winning in
       that particular motion.
                 One of the most disturbing things relative to
       the advisory panel though that I thought I would bring
       back to you that occurred during the process of the
       last three days is that there were two statements or
       affidavits filed relative to that motion for finding us
       in contempt.  
                 What I wanted to do to start is to read you a
       portion of one of those affidavits because it concerns
       very directly the advisory panel and try to convey to
       you the importance and the basis upon which we try very
       much to maintain as much order as possible during the
       advisory panel and the public hearing process through
       which we go.
                 So I'll just take the liberty to read a bit of
       this for you.  It says, "Based on my attendance and
       participation in these public processes, I believe that
       the defendant's designees," or in other words, the
       National Marine Fisheries Service, "sought to foment
       and encourage efforts by longstanding spotter plane ban
       opponents to resurrect the spotter plane ban that this
       court invalidated in June of '98.  
                 "For instance, the HMS AP held a meeting in
       Warwick, Rhode Island, on August 26-28, 1998.  The
       Agency did not maintain order at the August 26th, 1998,
       meeting.  Spotter pilots and their supporters were
       threatened and shouted down at the public meeting.  One
       spotter pilot was `rushed' by a plane opponent when the
       pilot attempted to speak on the issue.  Matters got so
       out of hand at the Warwick AP meeting that certain
       supporters of spotter planes came to fear for their
       safety if they expressed an opinion supporting the
       planes.  
                 "Others have stated that they have opted to
       cease attended subsequent meetings because of their
       concern that the process had gotten so biased and
       because of concerns about their personal safety.  The
       Warwick meeting was not the only time that matters were
       let to slip out of control.  I witnessed a similar
       effort to `rush' an individual speaking on behalf of
       spotter planes at a NMFS meeting in Alexandria,
       Virginia."
                 And it's my opinion, having been at the
       Warwick meeting in August, that this is not quite an
       accurate description of what transpired but,
       nonetheless, it is what someone perceives to have
       transpired because they signed an affidavit under oath
       that that did happen.  
                 What I want to convey to you today is that in
       order to correct that perception we will do everything
       in our power to make these meetings controlled,
       courteous, responsible, and everyone has an opportunity
       to participate to the extent that they want.
                 If we are unable to do that, we will end these
       meetings.  And I want to make sure everyone understands
       that's our position and that's how we're going to
       conduct ourselves.
                 Now, it is a responsibility on the part of the
       Agency to make sure that the meetings get conducted and
       people have an opportunity to participate as they so
       choose -- 
                 (End of Tape 4, Side A.)
                 MR. MATLOCK:  -- responsibility to help us
       accomplish that because when we have a meeting, whether
       it be a public meeting or a meeting of the advisory
       panel, it's to obtain input from the public in an
       unbiased and comprehensive and complete way so that
       people can say what they want to say no matter what it
       is they want to be able to say.
                 So I want to make sure you know there is this
       perception and that we've got to make sure that we go
       beyond what is absolutely necessary, minimally
       necessary, in order to make sure that this perception
       gets undone and corrected, even though it may not be
       corrected at this point.
                 I'll entertain, Jack, if you like, a question
       from Bob but I have a few other comments I want to make
       as well.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Bob Spaeth.
                 MR. SPAETH:  Gary, I would like to point out
       that the panel that was, if I remember, both of the
       times that this happened was the same guy and it was
       during public hearing and this panel was just there to
       sit there and I don't think any of the panel members
       were ever involved in any of these altercations.  
                 So I think that, you know, I just wanted to
       point out it was during the public hearing process that
       these broke out and I don't think it's the fault of the
       panel.
                 MR. MATLOCK:  No, and I'm not in any way
       trying to indicate that it is the fault of the panel. 
       What I'm doing is asking for your help because you were
       there, at least in Warwick when I was there, it took
       Rebecca stepping between the two individuals with no
       help from anyone.
                 MS. LENT:  Including you, Gary.
                 MR. MATLOCK:  I was against the wall and
       making a move, I guarantee.  But you're right.
                 MS. LENT:  It was on the other side of the
       (inaudible).
                 MR. MATLOCK:  So my point is that we can not
       allow that kind of behavior to occur and, if it does
       occur and we can't stop it effective in a way that it
       does not occur, we'll end the meetings no matter where
       it's an AP meeting or a public hearing process.
                 MS. LENT:  I might just add that we redid the
       ground rules yesterday before our public comment period
       and everybody behaved very well and stayed within the
       time limit, and I do appreciate that.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Corky and then Robert.  Corky
       Perett.
                 MR. PERETT:  Thank you.  Corky Perett.  Gary,
       I'm a little bit disappointed to hear you say you're
       going to end the meetings.  It seems to me we need to
       take some precautionary measures, if you will.  You
       coming out of a state, you know some of the issues that
       have been involved with public hearings.  
                 In the states we have, if we think it's going
       to be a really controversial knock-down drag-out, we
       have officers in uniform.  Now, if a state agency can
       afford to do it, big NMFS like my friend Mr. Claverie
       calls you up here, can certainly look into that.
                 Two examples come to mind.  The TED issue in
       Thibodeau and T. John Mialovich (phonetic) fill the
       coliseum up in Thibodeau, Louisiana, Andy and some of
       your buddies were afraid to even show up.  We had all
       these uniformed people.  So there are other
       alternatives to just end the meeting, and hopefully we
       will not have that type of activity but on some issues,
       you know, some people may get a little bit out of hand
       and hopefully we'll be able to handle it a little
       better.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Robert Fitzpatrick.
                 MR. FITZPATRICK:  To the same issue.  In
       bluefin I think that the problem has been pretty much
       tied to a few individuals and their behavior has
       improved at the last few meetings and a bunch of us
       spoke to them.  If they were read the riot act and
       informed that they would no longer be allowed should
       this sort of incident occur again, it might not ever
       happen again.  Certainly it could happen with somebody
       else but, I mean, the three incidents that I can think
       of in bluefin issues I think is the same guy all three
       times.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Mau.
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  I was going to make the same
       suggestion Corky made which is uniformed bouncers, but
       you can't deny somebody the right to speak without a
       hearing so that would get to be a complicated process. 
       So just get big uniformed bouncers.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Okay.  Peter and then Bob
       Zales.  And we want to let Gary get on to his other
       points.
                 MR. WEISS:  Peter Weiss.  It has been one
       individual, and that's true.  We have a meeting coming
       up in -- I think the 15th of this month and it could be
       a hectic meeting.  I'm not quite sure.  It depends if
       the other side shows up or not.  But certainly I think
       the idea of having some NMFS enforcement people there
       is -- I think that's one of the answers, Gary.  I don't
       think the idea of not having a meeting is really the
       right solution.  I mean, we've got to have meetings and
       that's what enforcement people are there for.
                 And I suggest that the meeting is in
       Gloucester and enforcement headquarters in Gloucester,
       and certainly we would hope to see a couple of them
       there.
                 MR. ZALES:  Bob Zales.  I'm not going to
       belabor the point.  I just agree with the last several
       comments about having some type of officer at these
       meetings. 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. MATLOCK:  Yes, thank you.  Let me respond
       to your comments and tell you first NMFS enforcement
       agents are not there to control crowds.  They are not
       there to deal with the public.  They are there to
       protect government employees, so it is not within our
       purview to have them there to control the public.
                 The second thing is that we do have uniformed
       individuals to the extent that we can from the agencies
       that are responsible for that kind of thing. 
                 Finally, we are taking additional steps
       proactively like this one today to deal with this
       topic.  We also have published in our Federal Register
       notice, if you had an opportunity to look at it,
       reminding the public of the kind of behavior that's
       acceptable and that that's not.  
                 So we will do, and continue to do, all of the
       kinds of things proactively that we can do.  We need
       your help though to do I think, Robert, as you just
       said, and that is to make it very clear to those
       individuals that we know our responsible in part for
       some of this behavior it's not going to be tolerated.
                 Now, we don't have the ability -- we, the
       government employees sitting here holding meetings --
       the ability or the authority to remove someone.  We can
       ask somebody else to do that but we are not going to
       put ourselves or the public in jeopardy when we have
       this kind of situation and this kind of an affidavit
       going before a federal judge to the extent that we can
       prevent that.  
                 So that's what we're going to do.  If we find
       ourselves in a position where this kind of thing is
       going on and it doesn't stop, we're not going to
       subject ourselves to being the cops.  I'm not a cop. 
       We need your help to make sure it doesn't happen.
                 Okay.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  (Inaudible) real quick.
                 MR. PERETT:  Yes, Gary, I agree.  None of us
       are all cops but one point you brought out I want to --
       I just want to add to that.  As examples, the Gulf
       Council holds public meetings, public hearings.  If
       it's an issue that they think there could be a rowdy
       crowd, so on and so forth, they call us state directors
       and ask for state wildlife agents to be present, and we
       supply it.  I've done it in two states and I know the
       others have also.  That's a possible solution too or a
       possible way to assist it.
                 But our agents in the state aren't bodyguards
       either, but that's just part of the duties if it's
       necessary.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Go ahead, Gary.
                 MR. MATLOCK:  Thank you, Jack.  The second
       thing that is a bit off the topic today but I wanted to
       make sure that you know we've done this because we've
       managed, I think, to get it filed or it will be filed
       very soon, and that is in the case of bluefin tuna we
       are adjusting the bag limit this year and setting a
       time period within which the bag limit can occur.  
                 And this deals very specifically with the 8
       percent issue and the small school fish, and we're
       doing this in response to requests that we've received
       to try to have a season that's fixed with as high a bag
       limit as we can have in a given year so that people can
       plan their charter boat operations in particular.  It's
       not the only reason but that's one of the major ones.
                 What this may mean if the take, if the harvest
       this year, is in excess of, say, the harvest this year
       because we're not able to shut it down or effect it --
       we don't plan to shut it down, we plan to take the
       overages, for example, if there are over this year out
       of next year's.  
                 It could mean that there would be no harvest
       of those size fish next year, and I want to make sure
       that as a group involved in this particular fishery
       everyone knows that's a possible outcome.  I'm not
       telling you that it will be, but it is a possible
       outcome of our having to try to be responsive within
       the ICCAT provisions of the requests we've received
       this year.  
                 That's the second point.  Jack.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Anybody have a question on
       that?  Joe McBride.
                 MR. McBRIDE:  Joe McBride, Montauk Boatmen and
       Charters Association as well as New York State.  Gary,
       I'm sure you're aware if you weren't here at the last
       AP meeting that we had requested for two years
       straight, meaning the New York State and the MBCA
       specifically, that there be subdivisions within the
       northern zone for the angling category of approximately
       40 to 45 metric tons divided between school, large
       school, and small and medium.
                 At the last meeting I think it was voted
       unanimously that this be done for the 1999 season. 
       Furthermore, Congressman Forbes had written to you
       requesting support of that particular scenario and
       asked that you would specifically give him any
       rationale and reasons as to why you wouldn't do it. 
       Now, I'm not saying there's anything wrong or bad about
       your plan per se, but it sure as heck isn't the plan
       that this committee met on.
                 Now, gentlemen, I'm going to say something to
       all of the board members here.  It is a big sacrifice
       for myself and many others here.  I don't get employed
       -- I'm not employed by an association.  It comes out of
       my pocket other than what the government pays.  I have
       to hire a captain for my boat to represent my people in
       New York which can not afford to pay lobbyists, to be
       very specific. 
                 If I'm coming here and we all agree on
       something, whether it's that issue or any other issue,
       that I think that the Agency owes this panel a
       rationale as to why they don't conform to it and try
       it, or give us a reason as to why it's not practical or
       illegal.
                 Let me give you an analogy.  I belong to the
       New York State MRAC which is an advisory board very
       similar to this made up of 14 to 15 -- 14 people, half
       commercial have recreational, if you want to use that
       term -- and overseen by an academic from the State
       University of New York.  
                 When we vote on something the New York State
       DEC, analogous to the National Marine Fisheries
       Service, has to either accept it and implement it or
       tell us why it's not legal or why it's not feasible and
       et cetera, et cetera.  
                 I mean, to have a panel like this and to put
       the burdens on these people that we do coming down
       here, you know, I find it hard that our input is not
       more adhered to, to be very specific. 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Okay.
                 MR. MATLOCK:  I think that allows for the
       opportunity to link to the response to one of the
       issues that I think Pete Jensen raised a bit earlier
       and to state again what I thought I had done pretty
       well at the outset of the advisory panel discussions
       back in '97.  
                 And it is that the advisory panel is not --
       let me say again -- it is not tantamount to an eighth
       council.  It is an advisory panel.  And until the law
       is changed -- and it may be, I have no way to predict
       that -- but until it is changed the advisory panel is
       not tantamount to council.
                 It is a panel that does give us advice.  We
       are responsible, I believe, Joe, to respond to what the
       panel gives us as advice, and I believe in the specific
       case that you're addressing you'll find a response to
       that particular proposal in our comments and response
       section in the preamble to the final rule.  
                 We're not in the business -- and I'll be very
       honest with you in that I'm not sure we're going to get
       in the business -- of sending some sort of detailed
       response to everything the advisory panel recommends
       outside of the processes that we already have to
       follow.  We do give some responses to the extent that
       we can to the panel, but we do it through the other
       available mechanisms as well and make those responses
       available to the panel.
                 So I don't envision us sitting down and
       writing a letter, for example, after every advisory
       panel with every comment, every recommendation, every
       discussion, saying here's what we have to say about
       that.  We try to do that to the extent we can here but
       we use other mechanisms as well.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Joe.
                 MR. McBRIDE:  If I may, Gary, I think that you
       have to make a distinction about a general
       conversational recommendation and something we ask for
       and receive a unanimous vote on after a discussion of
       the philosophy, the injustice, et cetera, et cetera,
       just similar to what we had with the cap.
                 Now, I know you responded to the cap scenario
       for Rich Ruais because it was important for the purse
       seiners.  Nothing wrong in that.  It should be that
       way.  But just as important to our industry, the sport
       fishing industry in Long Island was that subdivision up
       and down the northern zone.  We have not had a fishery
       probably for six or seven years, for whatever reason. 
       Maybe we'll succeed this year.  
                 I hate to tell you, Gary, I've heard this
       story before in the past and I'm not looking forward to
       going back and telling my constituents that there is a
       new plan out this year up and down -- whatever it may
       be, I haven't seen the final form yet -- that's
       different from what we asked for and we agreed upon.
                 If we had a floor in our plan, just as there
       might have been a floor in the cap proposal, I think in
       due courtesy you could have either brought it to the
       floor, defended your position, and say you couldn't do
       it because it's just something we're doing in
       conversation.  It's something that we feel is very
       critical and equity and fairness to our industry, which
       is hurting.  
                 And I think Ray Bogan put it very mildly to
       have 3 metric tons for a season is no season.  We have
       no fishery.  We're out of the bluefin school fishery on
       the northeast section with the exclusion perhaps of New
       England.  Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, and New
       Jersey, for all practical purpose, has no fishery
       because we have no set time and no set quota that we
       can tell people we're going to be able to fish upon.  I
       don't think that's a big request because it's all
       within your quota guidelines.  It's just a matter of
       allocation and fairness.
                 I don't want to belabor it to death.  I think
       you get the gist of it and I'm sure everybody else
       does.  But it's important, even if it's only important
       to Long Island and New Jersey and Connecticut and Rhode
       Island.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Thank you very much, Joe. 
       Gary, did you want to go ahead?
                 MR. MATLOCK:  Yes, I do.  A few more comments
       that I'd like to offer.  In the course of dealing with
       the development and the implementation now of the
       Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan and
       the Billfish Plan Amendment 1, we have as individuals I
       think, not necessarily as Agency representatives but as
       individuals have been pretty well attacked.  And I for
       one don't find that particularly disturbing because
       I've been attacked individually in many different ways.
                 But I do find it very, very, disturbing from
       the standpoint of the staff that works for us who have
       very deliberately tried to respond and to address
       everything that everyone has raised.  
                 My comment to you today is that I would like
       to make sure that you know that there are no underlying
       motives that these individuals have in carrying out the
       work that they do with the Agency.  There is no hidden
       agenda that they're trying to carry through.  We are
       trying to be as open, as transparent, as responsive to
       you, as we possibly can be.  
                 The quota cap is one example of that where the
       status quo would have meant that there would have been
       a cap that would have remained in place, and that's
       what the panel recommended to us.  We brought this
       issue to you to get your comments, not to shove
       something down your throat but to get your comments on
       what you thought about it.  
                 You very, very, politely and very courteously
       and very thoroughly responded to that for us today, but
       injected in that are still some accusations about us
       being everything from a dead rock to the devil
       incarnate.  I don't mind that.  If you address it and
       attack me, that's fine.  But I would sure appreciate it
       as individuals if you would not do it to our staff. 
       They don't deserve it, it's not true, and it's simply
       discourteous and it's wrong.  
                 So anything you can do to correct that both by
       anyone on the panel who may participate in it or by any
       of the public with whom you represent or interact, I
       would very much appreciate that because the staff here
       don't deserve it, guys.
                 That's all I have to say, Jack.  Thank you. 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Thank you, Gary.  
                 MR. McBRIDE:  Can I just answer Gary on that
       too because maybe some things he missed.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Quickly, please.
                 MR. McBRIDE:  Yeah, I will be quick.  I'm a
       retired administrator and a civil service position is
       irrelevant similar to, analogous to what you ladies and
       gentlemen are doing up there.  And I think all of us,
       and I certainly know I have, using that analogy before
       I say anything, telling people we're not attacking the
       individuals.  We understand the politics.  We
       understand that the officer on the beat carries out the
       regulations made by the legislature and so forth and so
       on.  
                 We might disagree with you.  We might become
       angry at the issues involved, but we're not angry in
       any way, shape or form, nor is the public or should
       they be, at the individual.  But this group -- and I've
       seen it done many times -- let's everybody know we're
       not attacking them personally.  I certainly have done
       it almost every time I speak just so, you know, to
       rectify what you say.  I hope that was carried to you
       in the past.  If there's other issues behind the scenes
       that are not public I don't know anything about them.
                 All right, Gary?
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Okay.  Thank you all.  We're
       going to move into the time/area closures discussion. 
       It's about ten minutes until 11:00.  We have a lunch
       break scheduled and I don't know whether we're going to
       be able to, like, go straight through and get this done
       and get out early, whether we're going to want to spend
       a lot of time talking.  For the moment, my assumption
       is that we're going to want to take a lunch break and
       come back but we can re-evaluate that in about an hour
       or so.
                 Now, yesterday we had a series of
       presentations from the staff and from some -- from an
       ICCAT commissioner and a representative from Capitol
       Hill and from the Billfish Foundation, and a lot of
       information was given to you. 
                  And we asked you to make sure that you, you
       know, take that back to your rooms last night, look at
       it, see what your reactions to it were and whether or
       not there were further clarifications or questions that
       you wanted to ask.
                 The issues, I think, are fairly similar
       perhaps to what we talked about this morning in terms
       of the plans in place the National Marine Fisheries
       Service has given us the general topic of time/area
       closures and some approaches to it.  And, basically,
       they're looking for guidance from the advisory panels
       as to where they ought to be going next with this kind
       of an issue as they decide how to develop down the road
       a proposed rule.
                 So I suspect that there are still some
       questions around the table or clarifications or further
       explanations that you'd like to have, but beyond that I
       don't have any particular issues, order, or structuring
       of the discussion to go through.  
                 But I would suggest that we start by keeping
       our questions focused on continuing to flesh out and
       understand the various issues that were presented to us
       yesterday and we'll move ahead.
                 Let's start with Nelson Beideman.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  Nelson Beideman, Blue Water.  A
       couple of things, if I could.  One on the process. 
       When we get to the discussions I would like, I would
       request very much, that Glen Delaney be included
       because he's been the chief negotiator between the
       parties that have been working on the legislative
       proposal.  
                 I would also like to draw everyone's attention
       to a handout that came out this morning, okay.  This
       comes from Dr. John Hoey (phonetic) who could not be
       here today.  I am not a scientist but what I read from
       John's work here is that there has been 223 observed
       trips in this area, you know, this subset of 223
       observed trips that used live bait out of a total of
       1,277 observed trips in the Gulf, and that live bait
       versus dead bait used CPUE comes out to a 1.6 increase
       on blue marlin, 2.97 on sailfish, 2.17 on white marlin.
                 These increases in bi-catch for only 1.43
       increase in targeted yellowfin tuna catches.  And
       again, I'm not a scientist.  Perhaps John Graves or
       Phil, you know, could explain this to you more clear,
       but thus far I've gotten indications from the industry
       perspective that this may well be a more overall more
       protective way to take into consideration for billfish
       protection in the Gulf of Mexico for less of an impact
       on the targeted fishery.  And one, two, three, extra
       yellowfin tuna per day for this amount of bi-catch, you
       know, should be looked at.
                 And when we get into the discussions on the
       Gulf of Mexico also I'd like everyone to make sure they
       have the one-degree squares that I passed out
       yesterday, the average annual catches, both pluses and
       minuses, targeted catch and, you know, what we're
       trying to avoid, so that we can discuss that.
                 Is there any problem as far as Glen
       participating in the discussions as a negotiator?
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Gary.
                 MR. MATLOCK:  Nelson, I don't have any problem
       at all with Glen participating but I have a question
       for you relative to the material that you've given us
       from John. 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Before you -- my approach to
       this would be that if Glen or any of the other ICCAT
       commissioners would want to be with us I'm sure that
       would help the discussion.  So, Glen, please feel free.
                 Thank you.  Gary.
                 MR. MATLOCK:  With respect to this material,
       is this material being presented from John as an
       employee of National Marine Fisheries Service or in
       some other capacity?
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  This is preliminary segments
       from a grant that Blue Water is part of, John was, you
       know, the -- what do they call it, the chief person,
       you know, for the grant prior to his employment with
       National Marine Fisheries Service.  And, you know,
       yesterday I had spoke of a subset that included live
       bait and tending and it was very interesting
       information and, you know, John run this fuller, you
       know, all live bait information so that we could take a
       look at it.
                 I don't know how to answer your question.  I
       would think that, no, it's not an official from
       National Marine Fisheries Service.  It is a preliminary
       from this grant work that's being done by a NMFS
       employee.  I think it's very valid that we consider it
       and perhaps evaluate how to get a fuller analysis so
       that we can make proper decisions.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Gary.
                 MR. MATLOCK:  Let me just make sure that
       everyone knows that as far as National Marine Fisheries
       Service is aware, this is not from the Agency.  We have
       no information relative to it, its validity, the
       details or anything else associated with it, so this is
       not a National Marine Fisheries Service set of
       information or presentation nor any relationship with
       us.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Joe McBride, I haven't lost you
       but we're going to spend a minute or two first just
       talking about the -- 
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  Could I finish first, Jack?
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Well, there are a couple of
       people that had some clarifications, Nelson, but if you
       want to finish, go ahead.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  Okay.  Well, I think Gary
       brings up a very valid and very accurate point, and
       what we're basically looking at here is we've got three
       different sets of data and, obviously, some of it is
       not compatible.  And, you know, the National Marine
       Fisheries Service data is quite complex and we've just,
       just, gotten it.  
                 One of the things that we need to think about
       here is that, you know, why can't we come together and
       come down to one set of data because it all originates
       from the same place.  I'm sure it's all valid, you
       know, information.  But one set of data is one of the
       considerations.
                 One other thing, Jack, I'd like to mention is
       that the groups that have been working on the
       legislative effort, you know, have agreed to caucus
       during the lunch period which could be quite important
       discussions.  
                 Thank you. 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Mau, did you have a quick
       clarification, too?
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  Yeah.  Nelson, Mau Claverie. 
       The 1.6, 2.97 and those numbers on the right-hand
       column that you referred to, the handwritten-in
       numbers, is that percentages or multiples?
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  So it's a multiple?
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  It's live bait -- 
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  It's 1.6 times?  It's not 1.6
       percent, right?
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Nelson.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  Nelson Beideman, Blue Water. 
       It's live bait CPUE to dead bait CPUE.  What they call
       whole bait.  
                 A PARTICIPANT:  So 1.6 times more with live
       bait than dead bait.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  It's a multiple.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Yes.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  Yes.  From what I understand,
       Mau, the average, you know, in the fleet in the other
       areas is .6.
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  You mean live bait doesn't do
       as well?
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Nelson.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  .6 for dead bait, you know,
       throughout.  So that's the type of increase we're
       looking at.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  David.
                 MR. WILMOT:  This is ridiculous.  I have a
       major objection to have information presented in such a
       poor form with no time to prepare for it, and then
       we're going to have a discussion?  This is completely
       unacceptable.  
                 If we are going to have a discussion about an
       issue, I would like to have it prepared properly.  I
       would like to have a presentation with background
       material, et cetera.  I am a scientist and I don't know
       what the hell this represents.  
            I would like to ask that this discussion be
       terminated and we move back to the agenda.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Well, the agenda is a
       discussion of time/area closures and I think that any
       advisory panel members got the opportunity to bring
       forward whatever they want to that would be relevant 
       to -- 
                 MR. WILMOT:  Well, then let me just follow up
       directly on this.  If anyone can bring something
       forward, I request that the organization that's
       controlling this meeting have the ability to say, no,
       it's inappropriate, the AP members have not had
       adequate time to review it, they don't know what
       they're discussing, we'll discuss this at the next AP
       meeting.  
                 How am I to respond intelligently about this
       when it was just handed to me?  And I don't even know
       what it represents.  There's not even a heading.  Let's
       see, pelagic longline data.  I'm asking Rebecca to make
       a decision here directing this meeting. 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  We have John Graves and then
       Jim Donofrio an then Bob Hayes -- Bob Zales.  And we
       still never got to Joe McBride.  We've got to let Joe
       McBride in, too.
                 MR. GRAVES:  Joe, go ahead.
                 MR. McBRIDE:  No, I mean (inaudible).  Joe
       McBride for New York, whatever.  There is a problem
       with the time and area closures and their ancillary
       scenario with the buyout.  After a discussion with some
       of my colleagues a concern has arisen, and someone
       mentioned it yesterday.  I think someone over here from
       the commercial side, regarding the New England
       fisheries. 
                 We do not want -- or I certainly do not want,
       I should say -- a buyout program that takes surplus
       boats off swordfish in the southern zones or any zone
       and transfers them to yellowfin up in northeast.  So a
       buyout program, my feeling is, should include just as a
       New England buyout to the ground fisheries, a
       termination of those boats in the fishery, just
       philosophically. 
                 Thank you. 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  John Graves.
                 MR. GRAVES:  John Graves.  In response to
       David's comment, I would note that the information that
       the National Marine Fisheries Service presented
       yesterday was also dropped on us in a similar fashion
       and, furthermore, that there was probably not a proper
       explanation of the experimental design when the charts
       were put up.  So it's not unprecedented.  I think maybe
       the advisory panel would like to consider, you know,
       getting the stuff with better presentations and
       beforehand, but I would also like them to ask Nelson to
       clarify a few points.
                 As I understand that this is preliminary data
       that John has gleaned from his SK grant, okay.  Then I
       would like to ask you whether these represent observed
       sets in terms of live bait -- there are a couple of
       questions.  
                 Whether this represents observed sets of live
       versus dead bait, and then relative to the log books
       what the actual ratio of live bait to dead bait sets
       is, because here in the observed one it's between 20
       and 10 percent and if there is going to be an effect
       here we really want to know what's occurring in the
       area in terms of the actual numbers of live bait and
       dead bait sets.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Jim Donofrio.
                 MR. DONOFRIO:  Just to clear the record a
       little bit.  I have no objection, of course, to having
       Glen speak on behalf of Nelson's plan here.  But I
       would like for the record, is Glen speaking as the
       commissioner or is he speaking as a lobbyist for Blue
       Water, if we could get that on the record.
                 Thanks.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Well, if Glen participates I'm
       sure he'll indicate that at the time.  Thank you. 
                 Bob Hayes.
                 MR. HAYES:  I have actually two comments. 
       One, I think it would be a reasonably good idea for the
       Agency to clarify the status of one of their employees
       with respect to any events that he may be engaged in
       outside of his normal scope of employment.  
                 I'm not pointing fingers and I'm not
       suggesting that there is anything improper, but I am
       suggesting that if I took Nelson's interpretation -- I
       haven't been an conflicts advisor for 15 years -- but
       I'd be nervous.  And so I would suggest the Agency look
       into that, only to clarify.  Only to clarify.
                 The second thing I would suggest is, you know,
       I think David's point and John Graves' points are good
       points.  What we have gotten here in the last couple of
       days is an enormous amount of information which every
       scientist in this room has come up to me and said I
       don't understand the modeling, I don't understand how
       they did this, I don't understand the assumptions, I
       can't determine what the variables are in the analysis. 
       And that's not to say that it isn't good work.  You
       know, I'm a lawyer.  I don't know.  It might be very
       good work.
                 But what I would suggest both from moving
       forward in the process that Gary has begun here and
       moving forward, frankly, in the process that Nelson has
       talked about, that a uniform set of data and a uniform
       set of facts and understandings and the implications of
       moving, you know, gear our or vessels out, and I mean
       by that a uniform, open, and transparent discussion of
       those things, I think is a useful thing for all
       parties.
                 I believe that there will be decisions made in
       the next three months and certainly in the next six
       months about closed areas in the United States,
       implications for longline fisheries, implications for
       recreational fisheries, and implications for stocks
       that are caught as part of the bi-catch which will be
       pretty significant decisions.  
                 And I think what we have at the moment is a
       very good start towards some analysis but we don't have
       a uniform understanding and a transparent understanding
       of the facts.
                 And so what I would suggest is that really
       move to a debate not so much on whether, you know, SWO-
       3 is a nifty idea or whether the billfish idea in the
       Gulf is a great idea but, rather, a debate around two
       central themes.  
                 The first central theme would be:  What is the
       objective?  I think David rose this yesterday.  What
       are we trying to get done here?  Are we trying to
       reduce bi-catch with the minimum impact on the directed
       fishery so that there is a correlation here between
       what happens in the directed fishery and what happens
       in bi-catch?  I kind of thought that's what we were
       trying to do but, you know, is that the overall
       objective?  Is that the one people want to focus on?
                 And then the second thing I would suggest is a
       discussion -- and I invite the scientists in particular
       to participate in this -- a discussion of, all right,
       then what kind of data, what kinds of understandings do
       we need to make that policy decision?  I would suggest
       that as a framework for the debate.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Thank you.  Bob Zales, Rebecca,
       and Russ Nelson.
                 MR. ZALES:  Bob Zales.  I for one want to see
       some of this information on the live bait versus dead
       bait on these longlines because anecdotal information
       that I get from people that I know that longline in the
       Gulf of Mexico indicate to me that live bait is a
       tremendous problem, and especially when it comes to the
       bi-catch.  
                 And talking about how information is laid on
       this panel when we just get here, until yesterday I
       never saw anything on this buyout program so this is
       all brand new to me and I'm still not fully up to speed
       on it and right now currently tend not to support a
       buyout for various reasons.  One is because of the
       precedent that it's going to set, especially in the
       Gulf of Mexico.  
                 As an example with my red snapper fishery.  I
       mean, currently I've got a serious problem with that. 
       We get into buying people out of business because they
       can't make money for one reason or another to me is a
       problem with me spending my tax money to do that.  So I
       want to see all the information we can get if it's just
       laid on me in the last five minutes.  That's where I
       stand.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Thank you.  Rebecca.
                 MS. LENT:  Thanks.  Just in partial response,
       in scheduling this advisory panel meeting we had to
       balance two factors.  One was we wanted to address
       time/area closures and other means for dealing with bi-
       catch as quickly as possible.  The second thing is we
       wanted to do as much analysis as possible so that we
       could really get the discussion going.
                 Because of that trade-off, yes, indeed you got
       the materials when you walked in the door and that's
       the result of the trade-off.  We want to try and get
       these materials reviewed by you and get the discussion
       going, so that was the trade-off that we decided to
       have.
                 We did allocate the greatest part of this
       meeting, and we can stay here until 6 o'clock tonight,
       to a discussion of time/area closures.  That's the
       biggest time we gave.  We tried to give a presentation
       yesterday.  I understand some people weren't satisfied
       with the presentation.  We're happy to get back up and
       explain some more.  
                 Jack did ask you all to take another look at
       it last night.  I admit it took me a couple hours to
       get this stuff really assimilated to what does it mean
       and how to interpret it, but we're happy to spend as
       much time as necessary.
                 Now, we did invite advisory panel members who
       expressed an interest to have their folks come and give
       presentations as well.  The focus was on time/area
       closures.  There is some new information here today
       relative to live bait/dead bait and Stevie brought that
       up yesterday.  I think it's relevant.
                 But, again, all of these materials that are
       coming in are not NMFS materials.  In some cases we had
       presentations which helped elucidate what was going on. 
       So I just encourage you to continue the discussion.  I
       think Bob's ideas are good as well.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  I think, and as I said at the
       beginning, this is going to be an ongoing process and
       we're certainly interested in seeing where we can go
       today.  And important part of what we're going to be
       able to tell the National Marine Fisheries Service is
       what more analytical work does the group want to see
       for next time we come back.
                 We've got Russ, then Steve, Bob Spaeth and
       Corky, and John.  Russell Nelson.
                 MR. NELSON:  In that vein, Jack, I think, you
       know, the Service knew the importance of the bi-catch
       reduction issue and I think that's probably one of the
       reasons that we've got this meeting and have it at this
       time, and I would tend to look at the analysis that
       were presented to us as very preliminary.
                 There has not been a controversial fisheries
       management decision made in this country in my career
       where the data did not undergo the most intense debate
       and scrutiny, and I think we need to -- HMS office
       needs to avail themselves of the same process that we
       use at the councils or that ICCAT uses.  I think that
       I'm interested in the analysis that was presented
       yesterday.  I'm interested in more detail of that
       analysis.
                 And in response to your comments, Rebecca, I
       mean, I came prepared to offer a whole bunch of
       alternatives for looking at different scenarios for
       effort shifting and the like, but I don't really think
       that this is the forum to do that.  
                 I think that perhaps as we do in the
       northeast, as we do in the southeast, that a stock
       assessment workshop should be held wherein the NMFS
       folks come in and other interested parties can come
       and, if not participate, at least observe, and that we
       try to come to some sort of peer, you know, concurrence
       on how the analysis is done and what some of these
       assumptions should be and what sort of scenarios should
       be made.  
                 I mean, we do this routinely with all our
       fishery, you know, annual assessments and updates, and
       I think we need to do this.  There is no way that we're
       going to be able to come through this with the kind of
       analysis that have been presented thus far and get to a
       successful conclusion.  I think we need to have a
       larger, if not just a peer review of your assessment
       techniques, I mean that would be one approach.  
                 I would tend to recommend that there be a
       stock assessment workshop where qualified scientists
       come and participate -- no, I'm not talking about -- I
       wasn't casting an allusion.  I mean qualified
       scientists from within the Service and from without the
       Service.  I've never participated in one of these in
       which the inclusion of a more diverse range of
       experience has not resulted in an improved product.  I
       was not impugning the science.  I'm just saying that
       it's been my experience that whenever you get a larger
       group of scientists together who have faced similar
       problems in other contexts that you can gain from that.
                 I think we should move to that.  I agree with
       Bob.  I think we should -- at this time we would
       benefit from trying to look into setting some kind of
       goal or some advice as to what the goal ought to be in
       terms of achieving bi-catch.  
                 But I would strongly suggest that either a
       peer review or some sort of open assessment workshop be
       conducted so we can all come to grips with the
       information that NMFS has presented, with the
       information that Blue Water has presented, with the
       information that TBF has presented, and try to unify
       it, you know, in a single context that we can all
       understand so that the next time the data is presented
       to the advisory panel there will be a lot more
       essential confidences, particularly among the lay
       folks, you know, that it's the best data we have and
       it's the best way to approach and analyze the problem. 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  The last couple of comments
       have been taking us away from process and more towards
       some of the substance.  So I would ask you as we
       continue to go through this discussion try to focus on
       some of those issues of what is it we're really trying
       to do here and what further analytical work or
       information do you think you would want to see in order
       to have a good discussion about this.  
                 Our list is long.  We've got Steve, Bob,
       Corky, John, Randy, Ray, Nelson, and Ellen.  That's the
       way they came up.  And then Mau.  Steve Loga.
                 MR. LOGA:  One of the reasons that we looked
       at live bait is that in the areas or the times of the
       year that we had the most, I guess, interaction with
       billfish is during the summertime, and those times of
       the year are the times that we use live bait the most. 
       I think some of this data that we present is probably
       incomplete because I think there was a lot more live
       baiting than with the data -- the observed log book
       data -- suggested, which would mean that possibly live
       bait would be even more of a -- I guess more numbers of
       fish are caught with live bait than we probably show in
       here.  
                 In our discussions with TBF and CCA I think
       that's one of the things we looked at.  Live bait is
       possibly a way to reduce bi-catch of billfish rather
       than closing down a multi-million dollar fishery for
       four months out of the year in the Gulf of Mexico.  
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Bob Spaeth.
                 MR. SPAETH:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Right on the mike, Bob.  
                 MR. SPAETH:  This is kind of maybe a question
       for Nelson.  On these closed areas when we're talking
       about the buyback, is that all tied together in your
       proposal.  
                 I guess what I see as Nelson is doing is
       bringing a suggestion to the table about closed areas
       and how to minimize the negative impact on his people. 
       And, you know, whether the buyback goes through or not
       I just wanted to know is some of your suggestions that
       are going to come forth as far as closed areas tied to
       a buyback?  
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Nelson, (inaudible).
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  A quick answer to that?  Yes,
       some of it is tied to the buyback.  Okay.  I think
       Senator Breaux's office made it very clear yesterday
       that, you know, we're looking at two different separate
       focuses as far as the legislative perspective of
       things, okay.  
                 In answer to John's previous question directly
       to me, John Graves, yes it is observer.  The only ratio
       that I would have is the ratio that's on this sheet and
       I do not know how much is in the log books.  But,
       overall, to try to ease some of the fears of, you know,
       the AP and Dave's anxiety in us having put this out, I
       don't for any intents or purpose think that this is
       anything that's complete.  I wouldn't say that the AP
       should be making any decisions on it.
                 What we attempted to do in bringing this out
       is to raise the issue that there may be an option for
       the particular billfish situation in the Gulf of Mexico
       that may be able to get more bang of bi-catch reduction
       for less directed targeted fishery impact.  
                 And I would certainly hope that the AP would
       strongly recommend to the Fisheries Service that they
       take this raising of the issue and analyze it and
       present that information to us so that we have concrete
       information to go by.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Corky Perett.
                 MR. PERETT:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
                 (End of Tape 4, Side B.)
                 MR. PERETT:  -- the point about data being
       brought up at the last minute and so on and so forth is
       good, but I mean if we're going to draw the line fair
       and consistent we've got to start somewhere, and that
       should be decided ahead of time.
                 Thanks.
                 MR. GRAVES:  My question is kind of shifting
       over to the NMFS proposals for closures in the Gulf,
       and I have already asked this question to Karyl but
       maybe somebody else can shed a little bit of light on
       this.
                 In the handouts that we got that showed the
       discards for billfish show a lot of the discards
       occurring in the Mexican EEZ and when these proposals
       were put together and the analysis was run it shows
       polygons that extend down into the Mexican EEZ.  And I
       understand that maybe the analysis was done just
       strictly based on discards and what this data shows.
                 Why do we have discards in the EEZ in this
       data?  Is that misreported information?  Are those guys
       fishing illegally down there?  And with the proposals
       here, how does that weigh into the Mexican EEZ and why
       are we showing polygons for fisheries management in the
       U.S. going all the way into Mexican waters.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Rebecca, can you answer that?
                 MS. LENT:  It's what the fishermen reported. 
       We're using log book data here and it could be an error
       in what they wrote in their log books, it could be that
       they were lost.  It could be -- I don't know.  I ask
       maybe Stevie (phonetic) and others to compare that.  
                 And yesterday we had the question, well, if
       you're really closing this big block then you're
       closing part of the Mexican EEZ.  And I think the legal
       counsel was that while we can't declare  a time/area
       closure in someone else's EEZ we could declare it for
       our boats even outside the U.S. EEZ as long as it's not
       in someone else's.  So these are the data as reported. 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Ray Bogan.
                 MR. BOGAN:  Thanks, Jack.  Ray Bogan.  Just
       from a procedural standpoint, I hope we would just move
       on and start debating this stuff and get into it
       because I don't know, I've come to a lot of meetings
       over many years and not just in the context of highly
       migratory species but in everything that I've addressed
       before councils, commissions, et cetera, and I have
       always been handed stuff the day of the meeting.  It's
       no big deal.  Dave has a different experience than I do
       but just in however many years, 20 years or whatever
       I've been doing this, that's my experience.
                 I thought Ellen's presentation yesterday was
       top notch.  It was -- 
                 MS. PEEL:  -- Dr. Goodyear's.
                 MR. BOGAN:  It was Dr. Goodyear's.  Whatever. 
       I mean, the point is the stuff was put upon us.  I
       didn't feel particularly burdened, probably because I
       don't understand it as well as a scientist would, but I
       would suggest that we be given an opportunity to just
       debate it.  
                 If I don't agree with Nelson's data, I'm going
       to tell Nelson I don't agree with your data.  I
       recognize it's preliminary, and I'm a lay person.  I
       already know it is.  
                 And I think with Tom, I think the more
       scientifically knowledgeable people are going to
       recognize it's preliminary also and we'll be able to go
       somewhere.  But let's get the process going.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  That's what we're doing.  We're
       sort of beyond that first issue and we are on to talk
       about some issues.
                 John Wingard.
                 MR. WINGARD:  John Wingard.  In terms of
       substance the type of data, I mean, but it's been
       presented obviously at the last minute or whatever, as
       Corky has already mentioned.  I think the types of data
       I would like to see in response to Bob Hale's
       suggestion that express what we need is definitely
       social and economic information.  
                 What I see totally missing and from my
       perspective is essential for being able to make
       rational decisions about the trade-offs are things like
       the number of fishermen impacted by different
       scenarios, the geographic and sectoral distribution of
       different scenarios, obviously the economic impacts of
       different scenarios.  
                 And I recognize a lot of this data doesn't
       currently exist.  I'm not sure what the logistics of
       collecting it are, but at least if we could look at
       some of the underlying assumptions and with these types
       of variables in mind do some sensitivity analysis would
       give us some idea of the social and economic impacts. 
       I think ultimately what people respond to are how it
       affects them personally and I think it's important that
       we need this kind of data so we can make these types of
       assessments in relation to the biological costs and
       benefits that are involved.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  We have Nelson, Ellen, Mau,
       Steve, and Russ Dunn.  Nelson Beideman.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  One of the points I would like
       to raise to NMFS HMS is that I think what we need is to
       get a format down to catch per unit of effort so that
       we can identify true concentrations where, you know,
       hot spots where, you know, bi-catch is as far as the
       closed area scenario.
                 And I agree entirely on the socioeconomic
       information that's necessary.  We don't know where the
       cutoff is, but if you take a substantial area and you
       close it, well, maybe you can put those guys out or one
       month and they can survive, maybe even two months,
       maybe in a year where they don't already have two
       months of closure of swordfish because of the quota. 
       Three months, you're looking at people going out of
       business.  
                 When you start broaching into three months,
       definitely by four months, you're putting people out of
       their livelihoods and their traditional way of life. 
       And I would strongly contend that that deserves
       compensation.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Ellen Peel.  I guess I was
       going back to the first part of this discussion
       following up what Russ Nelson said and but then Corky,
       I would not recommend waiting for a stock assessment
       because we have a stock assessment and we have another
       one scheduled for the year 2000.  
                 I was going to recommend perhaps a technical
       working group, not meaning ICCAT necessarily but a
       technical working group so that all this data, whether
       it's on live baits or the information that Dr. Goodyear
       presented in National Marine Fisheries Service that
       this could be put together and then brought to the next
       AP meeting.  
                 If we could get a technical group together
       this summer, maybe bring AP back the -- both groups in
       the fall, October maybe, and then move forward.  I
       mean, I don't know whether we can have a meaningful
       discussion with some of these questions unanswered this
       afternoon.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  I understand that, and I think
       that's what Russell was suggesting, some kind of a --
       not a stock assessment but a peer review like the ones
       we do in stock assessments.  Some kind of a peer review
       process.
                 MS. PEEL:  But a technical review of the
       different scientific information that's been presented
       on the different areas.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Right.  Mr. Claverie.
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  Thank you.  Mau Claverie. 
       Three things.  The first one is administrative.  This
       is an important subject.  I don't mind working late on
       it but, Rebecca, there are logistics involved with that
       so if we are going to work late I'd like to know soon
       enough to change airplanes and maybe find a place to
       spend the night here and all that soon enough to do
       that.
                 One of the problems involved with the bi-catch
       is, of course, the mortality that results from the bi-
       catch.  And all of the fish in the longline -- all of
       the billfish in the longline fishery need to be
       released whether they are alive or dead.  
                 And one of the complaints that we have heard
       in the Gulf since the live longline baiting started is
       that those fish that swallow those baits are deep-
       hooked and their survival after they swim off may be in
       question to a much greater extent than the fish that
       are hooked with frozen bait.  Apparently, a fish who is
       used to eating live fish, the first thing that fish
       does when he gets a frozen fish in his mouth is say,
       ick, and so that is a difference.
                 And, apparently, this data, the observer only
       reports that the fish swam off, and if we can get
       anything on ultimate survival as relative to live
       versus dead bait that might be important too.  
                 The historical data that shows the impact on
       the recreational fishery in the Gulf brought about by
       longlining activities is based on a longline fishery
       that used only frozen bait, so I don't know that the
       live -- getting real live bait would bring us back to
       where we want to be, but that's the historical thing. 
       So if changing back to only frozen bait gets us back to
       where we were historically, we haven't gotten there
       yet.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  We've got Steve Loga, Russ
       Dunn, John Graves, Randy, and then Nelson.  Steve Loga.
                 MR. LOGA:  I have to agree with Ellen about
       getting a technical group together to work through some
       of these things.  There is a lot of unanswered
       questions that I don't have on live bait.  I think we
       should look at those ideas also.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Russ Dunn.
                 MR. DUNN:  Russ Dunn, Ocean Wildlife Campaign. 
       I have two points to address.  First, I'm concerned
       about where we're going here with this discussion of
       live bait/dead bait.  We're hear to talk about closed
       areas and their role in reducing bi-catch of discards.
                 Certainly this live bait/dead bait discussion
       can at some point play a role in the reduction of bi-
       catch, but we are no here to discuss a new issue that
       is somewhat unrelated.  And I think we need to get back
       to what either Bob Hayes or Russ Nelson said which is
       what are our goals.  We need to establish what our goal
       is for this meeting.  Do we have a set number?
                 The OWC has suggested in the past a goal of 75
       percent bi-catch reduction.  Do we agree with that?  Do
       we not agree with that?  And how can we achieve that? 
       So I think we need to shift the focus away from this
       somewhat unrelated issue, which is great conversation
       for another meeting but is not relevant to this
       particular meeting. 
                 And on Ellen's suggestion of delaying the
       discussions until October, that's completely
       unacceptable.  We've got a commitment from Penny to put
       something forward by September 1st.  Delaying the
       discussions until October is completely unacceptable. 
       We can't afford a delay.  
                 We've been talking about closed areas -- NMFS
       has been talking about closed areas since 1984 in the
       first swordfish amendment.  It has now been 15 years
       since those discussions began.  In 1990 ICCAT
       recommended that closed areas be implemented as part of
       an overall scheme to reduce juvenile bi-catch.  It has
       been nine years since that recommendation came out and
       it's time to fish or cut bait.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Panel members, rather than
       continue to suggest that we get on to the issue that
       Bob Hayes and Russ Nelson talked about, can I suggest
       that you go ahead and do it?  And we've got John
       Graves, Randy, Nelson, Bob Hayes, Steve, Robert
       Fitzpatrick.  
                 MR. GRAVES:  I believe you are commissioned
       here to facilitate this discussion and I believe that a
       motion essentially was put forward by Bob Hayes that we
       focus on two specific things, the first being the
       objectives, what are the objectives, and then secondly
       the options to achieve those objectives and the kinds
       of data we would need.
                 I would suggest that you bring it forth to the
       committee that you follow this up and actually sit
       there with a white board or with a transparency and
       let's try and do something concrete rather than groping
       around here, a bunch of blind people trying to feel out
       the elephant.  I think it's your job here to facilitate
       this discussion and if it's the committee's pleasure to
       go ahead with -- and it seems to be from the comments
       I've heard to follow up on Bob's objectives, why don't
       we go ahead and do that?
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Panel members, is that how you
       want to proceed?  Can we go ahead and do that, focus
       our discussion around those two questions that Bob
       Hayes set out for us?  The first question that's in
       there is what is the objective.  
                 What is it we want the National Marine
       Fisheries Service to try to accomplish through a series
       of consideration of time/area closures  Is that -- now,
       that's what we're going to go talk about.  Is anybody
       objecting to that process?  Otherwise, I'm going to
       stick with the list that's on here already and, Robert,
       you're on it.
                 Process?  All right.  Nelson, is it a process
       question or do you want to get into the substance
       because there's only one before it's your turn anyway.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  Right.  I'm just saying that
       when my time comes up I would need to respond to some
       of the things that have been raised during the general
       discussions. 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Okay, briefly do that.  All
       right, so the focus of the discussion, Bob Zales, I
       have you, Mau, I have you.  But the focus of the
       discussion is on the issue of objectives, not so much
       the objectives of what we're trying to do here today
       but what are the objectives of having time/area
       closures and what is it we're trying to do as a couple
       of people actually spoke about yesterday.  
                 The list is Randy Blankinship, Nelson
       Beideman, Bob Hayes, Steve Loga, Robert Fitzpatrick,
       Bob Zales, and Mau Claverie.  Randy.
                 MR. BLANKINSHIP:  My comment and question is
       going to be more of a substance nature so I would delay
       that till later on.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Fine.  Nelson.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  Nelson Beideman, Blue Water. 
       First off, I think there has been very good ideas that
       have been raised around the table.  The idea of a
       technical working group I think would be absolutely
       wonderful.  
                 I think that we would, you know, inherent in
       that would, you know, would have to be that we have the
       opportunity for both commercial and recreational
       industry scientists' input and representatives in that
       process if that were to take place.
                 In response to some of the things that Russell
       had raised, the mandate in the law is to the extent
       practicable while minimizing negative economic impacts. 
       That's the guidance that we've been given in the law,
       that we don't necessarily have to set standards and an
       arbitrary 75 percent standard on reducing bi-catch. 
       How does that fit into the other fisheries?  
                 Mau raised some good points about the live
       bait, but take a look at that.  Those things need to be
       analyzed across all these fisheries, not just the
       pelagic longline fishery but all the fisheries in one
       context.  
                 And another thing to Russell is, you know,
       we're not dragging out feet.  The pelagic longline
       industry has stepped forward, we've come arm in arm
       with major components of the Mexican billfish fishery
       and we have got our sleeves up and we're working on
       this.  We've got some complications that need to be
       worked out but there is no way, shape, or form, that,
       you know, we're indicating any dragging this out.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Russ.  Russell.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  As far as objectives, I agree
       with Bob's suggestion that, you know, we need to more
       clearly focus our discussions here and exactly where
       we're going, and I would also agree on the wording of
       the first objectives that he had put up and he might
       have to repeat if I can't find it.  Reduce bi-catch
       with minimal impact on directed fishery.  
                 I think that's the first objective that has
       brought these different groups together under a very
       substantive initiative to exactly do that.  Reduce bi-
       catch with minimal impact on directed fishery. 
                 One of the second incentives, at least behind
       the industry perspective incentive behind this, is to
       find a way to deal with small fish protecteds, highly
       migratory species protecteds, not just necessarily just
       swordfish in the international arena.  
                 And, again, I would reiterate to the AP that
       minimal size is not going to work in ICCAT.  That is a
       measure that only comes against, you know, the
       fisheries being represented in this room.  That's it. 
       I doubt that we will ever have other countries force
       their fishermen, and even if they did they would only
       embellish the record, they would never actually discard
       as an incentive to avoid.  We have to find a better
       way.
                 In trying to do that, what we've done is we've
       come forward with some substantial hurt.  I mean, we're
       saying let's -- you know, let's not take, you know, the
       literal spot here on the east coast of Florida, let's
       take a good look at the science Jean Kramer put up, all
       the areas, eleven boxes with over 50 percent of the
       discards.  The fishermen took that and added to it,
       didn't subtract from it, we added to it from our
       knowledge of where these hot spots are.
                 But we are saying that's inextricably tied to
       compensating those boats.  I think that one of the
       strongest things I would like to see out of this AP is
       a strong recommendation to National Marine Fisheries
       Service that they work together with these groups in
       this cooperative effort to, you know, proceed it
       forward as quickly as possible so that in November we
       have something at least on the table that we can get
       started with in the international forum.  
                 We go to the international forum.  We say,
       look, you know, you guys have indicated that you would
       like to try this route in the Gulf of Guinea.  We think
       it's very important to protect small species, HMS
       species.  We are trying it at home here.  
                 We're taking it a step further by eliminating
       the effort the way Japan has taken steps in their
       buyout program.  It's a very positive thing if we walk
       in there.  This is an industry initiative, both
       recreational and commercial industry initiative,
       government cooperated, assisted, supported.  
                 I mean, we can move that slow ICCAT forum to
       its fullest potential in the next three or four years
       perhaps with this concept.  Otherwise, what I fear is
       that we're going to have a train wreck.  This fishery
       will turn on itself and legally challenge any
       substantial time/area closure that does not have
       compensation.  
                 We have no choice.  That is a corner that I
       hope that this group will not back us into, but it
       would give us no choice.  And then we go over to the
       international forum.  Here's the U.S. government
       decommercializing, cramming down the commercial
       industry's throat this concept and, you know, again
       whether this is right, wrong, or indifferent, there are
       people that import into this country and we will be
       asking them to assist us in that effort.  You know, not
       in the delegation format but every day buying and
       selling fish on the phone.
                 At some point, you know, I would like Glen to
       be able to speak to these issues but I believe focusing
       more toward the objectives -- 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Yeah, let's continue to keep
       focused on the objectives.  Bob Hayes, you started us
       down this road and I'm sure you have some ideas in mind
       as to what they ought to be.
                 MR. HAYES:  Let me express a couple objectives
       and I want to make a couple of comments with respect to
       something Nelson said.  I think Nelson is expression of
       their legal position with respect to their angst, if
       you will, over some kind of regulatory adoption of
       closed areas is a honest and fair expression of where
       they are.  
                 I might point out that there are some people
       sitting in this room, and I'm not speaking of myself
       but there are people in this room who have a firm
       belief that the agency has a statutory obligation to go
       ahead and proceed forward and address bi-catch and that
       these plans fail to do so.  I would also suggest that
       the reason we are here today is because the agency has
       adopted that position.  
                 So I hear what you're saying, Nelson, but I
       don't -- gosh, if we aren't all in a lawsuit here in a
       few weeks we're all going to be stunned.  So I hear
       what you're saying.
                 Let me go back to what I think we were trying
       to get to, which I think is a far more important thing. 
       I think the Magnuson Act very clearly says what Nelson
       characterizes of that.  It says, okay, you got a bi-
       catch problem and if you've got a bi-catch problem we
       want you to make efforts to reduce that bi-catch but we
       understand that when you do reduce bi-catch you may
       have an impact on folks that are in that fishery and
       the directed fishery and you ought to minimize those
       impacts to the extent you can, so long as you achieve
       your bi-catch objective.  I mean, that's how I read it. 
       Now, and I don't think that's an unfair reading of how
       the statute goes.
                 So then the question becomes, okay,
       essentially two things.  One, with respect to linkage,
       I don't think the Magnuson Act says minimize the impact
       on the directed fishery and if you can't minimize it by
       the measures taken go see what you can do to buy them
       out.  That's not my sense.  
                 I mean, I don't think the statute says that
       and I don't think it intended that because, frankly, if
       it had intended that we'd have been a lot better off
       writing it in way to make it say that and we'd actually
       not be talking about doing things on the Hill because
       we have an administrative mechanism to go get something
       done.  So, you know, my sense is it doesn't say that.
                 So the question then becomes, if what it does
       say and if I've characterized I think some people's
       view of the statute correctly, including the agency's,
       the question is, all right, how does the agency proceed
       here to develop a system which minimizes bi-catch --
       excuse me, which reduces bi-catch but minimizes the
       impact on the agency?  Now -- excuse me.  On the
       fishermen. 
                 MS. LENT:  I like that.  Thank you. 
                 MR. HAYES:  I was getting back to Gary's
       comments about beating up bureaucrats, you know. 
       That's where I was.  I was going to minimize the impact
       on these guys.  
                 Let me -- and let me suggest that I think you
       can not make that evaluation without some percentage of
       reduction because you can't figure out what minimizing
       means in the context of just simply saying let's reduce
       bi-catch.  
                 And I give you the obvious example.  If you
       are going to put the emphasis on minimizing the impact
       and less emphasis on reducing the bi-catch, well the
       way to do it is not to reduce the bi-catch.  You can't
       minimize an -- you can't minimize the impact any more
       than that.  I don't think that's a sustainable position
       and, frankly, I don't think that's the position that
       you and I have been talking about.
                 So what I would suggest is that as a way of
       creating a policy debate, if you will, which is I think
       in the context of this group what we ought to be
       talking about is, first, what percentage of reduction
       makes sense.  You know, is it 98 percent reduction of
       bi-catch?  There are groups in this room that would say
       it's 100 percent reduction.  Gee, do I think that's
       very practical?  No, and I think everybody knows I
       don't think that's very practical.
                 But it might be 25 percent, it might be 50
       percent.  It might be -- I think the plan says 75
       percent.  I don't know.  I think the debate we ought to
       be having so that we can frame the measures and then
       look at what I think you want to look at, Nelson, which
       is, okay, how do we mitigate the impact of these
       measures.  
                 If we say, okay, what's the percentage of
       reduction that makes some sense?  And I mean in the
       context of domestically and internationally,
       particularly with respect to billfish because we're
       going to move to another issue in the year 2000 about
       billfish so let's start thinking about where those
       things come together.
                 So, you know, my sense is the policy debate we
       ought to be having first is, in that context of what
       the statute says, what's the percentage of reduction
       that makes sense to solve the problem domestically and
       then in that context let's look at minimizing that
       impact.  I don't think 100 percent reduction of bi-
       catch -- I mean, there's a lot of people in this room
       would love to have it.  I don't think that's very
       practical.  I don't think it's likely and I don't think
       it's politically sustainable.
                 By the same token, I don't think 10 percent
       reduction in bi-catch is politically sustainable or
       acceptable.  It's somewhere in between and I think,
       frankly, there is interests in this room that can have
       a policy debate around what that is and what are the
       criteria which we determine that.  That's where I'd
       suggest we go.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Well, first of all, our list is
       Steve, Robert, Bob Zales, Mau, Pete, David, and Alan
       Weiss.  It will from now on -- listen carefully.  It
       will be out of order to use the words, "The debate we
       ought to be having is."  Don't tell us what we ought to
       be talking about.  Start talking about it.
                 Thank you.  Steve Loga.
                 MR. LOGA:  Okay, I'll get to the point of it. 
       The objective in the time/area closure for the Gulf of
       Mexico is to reduce bi-catch of billfish.  One of my
       concerns with this time/area closure is that we're not
       necessarily reducing bi-catch; what we're doing is
       going to divert 80 boats towards the eastern Gulf of
       Mexico which we may still have the same problem.  
                 And I think that's why -- that's one of the
       reasons why the live bait is such a key issue, Russ, is
       that we need to look at that.  We don't want to just
       divert 80 boats to the other side and have the same
       problem and all we're doing is whitewashing the
       problem. 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Robert Fitzpatrick.
                 MR. FITZPATRICK:  I think John spoke to this. 
       And I don't have a dog in this fight.  I know that's
       been used but there is a dog in it that tried to bit me
       for the last decade.  And I see some people, maybe 47
       boat owners and their families.  Are they all going to
       get bitten on September 1st?  
                 I mean, there is a lot of issues and I'm not
       really part of them.  But it seems like there's a train
       heading for September 1st.  Everybody is saying you
       need this, you need that.  I don't think it's going to
       be done by September 1st.  Are you going to put them
       out of business then?  Can somebody from the agency
       tell me, is September 1st some sort of drop dead date
       where there is going to be a time/area closure and
       those boats aren't going fishing regardless of a lack
       of a buyback program, regardless -- I mean, are the
       swordfish going to fall off the face of the earth on
       September 1st? 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Yeah, that isn't what Rebecca
       said to us yesterday.  She said yesterday that they
       have to address the question of bi-catch, they are
       looking now at the possibility of time/area closures,
       and their objective is to get that done by the 1st of
       September.  But that it's a planning -- 
                 MR. LOGA:  It's not a hard date?
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  That's right.  That's what
       they're trying to do.  That's what their commitment is
       to do.  Okay?
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  A commitment to implement by --
                 MR. LOGA:  I'm being told it is a commitment
       to implement by September 1st.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  That's where they are.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  -- in the Federal Register.
                 MR. LOGA:  Well, that sounds like it's a drop
       dead date.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  Where did it come from?  Is it
       arbitrary or is it under mandate?
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Do you want to comment to that,
       Rebecca? 
                 MS. LENT:  We tried to estimate the amount of
       time it would take to assemble the data, do the
       analysis, hold an AP meeting or two, have public
       hearings, proposed rule, et cetera.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Right.  It's not laid on them
       under the law.  Bob Zales.
                 MR. ZALES:  Bob Zales.  This is a problem of
       bi-catch and as a recreational fishermen myself and
       several people that I know, we're really getting
       frustrated and tired of our fisheries being directly
       affected as to whether we fish or don't fish or how we
       fish or what not in relation to bi-catch of other
       fisheries.  
                 And I'm going to broach a subject here that
       people may agree with me.  Some people may not.  But
       there is another way to stop or eliminate this bi-
       catch.  There's a bi-catch quota.  These people, they
       can bring their fish to the dock and once they've met
       their quota they stop fishing.  
                 I intend to talk about this at the Gulf level
       on red snapper and so I'm going to throw that out there
       for the debate to see what people think about bi-catch
       quotas.  Like I said, some people may agree with it.
       Everybody may hate it.  Some may like it. But it's
       another alternative that I think should be looked at.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Rebecca.
                 MS. LENT:  Just a clarification.  Do you mean
       billfish as well?
                 MR. ZALES:  Whatever their bi-catch --
       whatever bi-catch you're trying to eliminate, I would
       assume and that's why I say some people may not like
       this and some people may.  It's going to be
       reprehensible, I'm sure, to see a longliner bring a
       dead billfish to the dock, but if they can only bring
       two a year to the dock and they quit fishing for the
       rest of the year, some people may like that idea.  I
       don't know.  
                 But it's my fisheries by using the definition
       landings instead of mortality, I've already in my
       assumption of what I see, there was a tournament last
       weekend or two weekends ago in Mobile, Alabama.  There
       were 80 some-odd boats in that tournament.  
                 There was not the first blue marlin, billfish,
       period, brought to the dock.  Nine fish were tagged. 
       There were several fish hooked and let go, but there
       was not a legal fish.  Their minimum size is 99 inches. 
       There was not a fish brought to the dock in two days of
       fishing.  Excellent weekend.  The weather was
       absolutely perfect.
                 And my fishery is being affected now by bi-
       catch.  It's been affected in just about every
       recreational fishery I know of.  Bi-catch is directing
       what I can do, and in most fisheries that I'm playing
       in I'm an insignificant player in the overall scheme of
       the rebuilding of these fisheries and I'm tired of that
       happening to me.  Other people around me are tired of
       that happening to them.
                 So this is a radical way but it could be a way
       that might work.  You've set up a quota.  They catch it
       in a month, they don't fish for eleven months.  It may
       end the time/area closures.  It may change the buyout
       fisher, but it will do something.  If nothing else,
       create controversy.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  The issue is what should the
       objectives be considered as for the Service as it
       continues to talk about time/area closures.  The list
       is Mau Claverie, Pete Jensen.  We'll start there.  I've
       got about eight more on here, too.
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  Well, the two of us can handle
       it if you want for the rest of the day.  
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Mr. Claverie.
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  This thing is on.  Is it
       working?  I've got several things.  First is just to
       respond to Bob.  His suggestion may be appropriate in
       other fisheries but because of the provisions of this -
       - of the billfish plan, the conservation management
       provisions relate to no possession and sale in the
       United States that the -- allowing any to be brought to
       the dock would be a serious problem for this fishery.  
                 But Nelson proposed some language.  Dr. Graves
       who has some experience in how to get things done and
       made a suggestion that we put those kind of things on a
       piece of paper that we can all see on the wall or
       something.  
                 Can we do that?  Because I want to discuss
       what the criteria would be, which is what Bob Hayes
       suggests we do, but just to put it in words and have it
       evaporate in the air I don't think is going to get us
       to where we need to be if that's really our objective.
                 So is there some administrative way we can
       actually put words on a piece of something we can all
       see and say at the end of the day this -- hand it to
       NMFS and say this is what we came up with?
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Technologically we can do that
       but it will take us through the lunch period to get it
       set up.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  Well, why don't you do that?
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Well, I don't want to break for
       lunch when I promised about eight more people that they
       can talk.
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  Well, I want to go over the
       criteria but if it doesn't get written down what's
       going to happen to it?
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  I understand. 
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  Okay, all right.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  Nelson suggested and I wrote it
       down in basic -- that the criteria be to reduce bi-
       catch with minimal impact on the directed fisheries. 
       And I have some suggested changes or additions to that
       which cover a broader spectrum.
                 The first one is it should be to reduce bi-
       catch and bi-catch mortality because that's the way the
       Act sets it up, number one and, number two, we've
       already talked about the use of live bait or dead bait
       may have to do with bi-catch mortality more than it
       does with bi-catch in this particular fishery because
       the definition of bi-catch in this fishery is kind of
       not mortality, it is they're not allowed to bring any
       of them to the dock anyhow.  So I would like to add
       that to the -- just plain bi-catch to "and mortality."
                 Also, as I have mentioned yesterday and I'll
       have to state again today, I want to add as one of the
       criteria to attain objective eight of the billfish plan
       amendment by addressing problem one of the plan.  
                 In other words, introduce the idea of reducing
       the impact of the longline bi-catch fishery fishing in
       the Gulf which apparently is a yellowfin tuna fishery
       which, thank goodness, is represented here, on the
       success rate in the recreational fishery which is what
       we're supposed to be enhancing according to the
       billfish plan.  So I'd like to add that.
                 And then where Nelson said minimal impact on
       the directed fishery, I think based on what Hayes said
       that there has to be another catch word in there which
       is practical.  How do we say it?  Practicable or
       practical?  I forget.  Anyhow, we even had to define
       that in Louisiana in our fishery.  
                 But those were my comments relative to the
       criteria itself and not getting into percentages or
       anything like that but the criteria itself.  So I would
       like to just add those.  I've got them written down if
       you ever get a piece of paper to put them on.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Real quick.
                 MR. HAYES:  Just to speak to Mau's point, I
       think Mau has got a good point here.  You know,
       percentages tend to be, frankly, arbitrary and what I
       was talking about was coming up with a debate between
       how you determine those two consequences.  The
       consequence on one side of putting limitations on the
       directed fishery and the benefit to the bi-catch and
       how you -- you know, how you sort of make that equation
       and how you make that sort of deliberation.  
                 So the characterization of it, actually, that
       Mau just gave I thought was a pretty accurate thing of
       where I was trying to get to.
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  Jack, I've got more.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Real quick.
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  From a conceptual point of view
       it would seem to me that if we, NMFS, comes up with the
       time/area closure scenario, if the only way to minimize
       or avoid social economic impacts on communities or
       fisheries, whatever it is, is a buyout situation, then
       the buyout part of it obviously has to be handled by
       the legislative branch.  
                 But for the legislative branch to do both I'm
       a little hesitant about because once the conservation
       and management measures are set in stone instead of
       just concrete it gets pretty hard to change.  And,
       frankly, anything less than a total closure to the Gulf
       to longlining during the summer months is experimental.
                 The only data we have, at least for the
       (inaudible) to the recreational fishery part of it is
       that.  And that is not appropriate for legislation. 
       That is appropriate for the agency to work with and
       track and follow and see if it's doing what it's
       supposed to do.
                 But I think we have a very serious problem
       with the social economic impact end of it.  Obviously,
       in order to rebuild billfish Atlantic-wide, the
       longlining bi-catch issue has to be seriously
       addressed.  And I think the last SCRS told us was a 50
       percent reduction in mortality off the longlining
       operations on the billfish would be a rebuilding
       program.  
                 We've got less than 25 now and so we're going
       to have to do something, and the idea is that as long
       as you're going to have to have to cut them back that
       particular fishery operation, cut them back somewhere,
       why not also cut them back in mind with enhancing the
       other fishery if possible.  And that's the idea of
       addressing the conflict issue and enhancing the
       recreational fishery. 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Here's where our list is right
       now.  Pete Jensen, David Wilmot, Alan Weiss, Nelson
       Beideman, Jim Donofrio, Charlie Moore, Russ Nelson. 
       And we've got a couple of minutes until lunchtime.  I'm
       not going to put anybody else on the list for before
       lunch and let's see if we can make our comments short
       and to the point so that we can get our break underway. 
                 Pete Jensen.
                 MR. JENSEN:  I hope I won't be repeating or
       going over old ground, and I'll state some of what is
       obvious to me.  First of all, I need a benchmark and I
       think everybody needs a benchmark, whether it's 5
       percent or 10 percent or 50 percent or whatever it is,
       whether it's tied to some specific reduction or some
       criteria that accelerates the recovery.  
                 If I look at the information I see in the FMP
       that NMFS has stated a near-term and long-term goal of
       reduction, and I'm comfortable with that.  There are
       near-term and long-term.  Secondly, the statement in
       here is that pelagic longline fishermen have been
       unable to reduce discards sufficiently.  And if you
       look at the table that leads to that conclusion, an 18
       percent reduction in longline discards from 1995 to
       1997 is termed insufficient or inadequate.
                 If I look at the information that was passed
       out yesterday, I see some projections that with massive
       closures of large areas you might achieve 15 to 20
       percent reduction in swordfish discarded, I think it
       is, with other consequences.
                 And so I think we all know that fisheries
       management many times is trial and error, but to go
       back to my original statement I think we need a
       specific benchmark that is measurable that we can all
       see where we're going.  
                 But, secondly, so that people outside of this
       forum can look at it in a specific way and make some
       judgment.  Even though NMFS has made the agenda today
       time/area closures, it's obvious that there are a lot
       of other things that could reduce bi-catch and so
       perhaps for the short term, or near term as they call
       it, time/area closure might be a starting point.  But I
       agree wholeheartedly that somewhere along the line,
       quickly if September 1 is an absolute date and can't be
       modified, that we need a workshop on bi-catch reduction
       so that you can begin choosing some goal over the long
       term to get where everybody thinks we need to go.
                 So I would argue that we need to turn this
       discussion toward at least some range of specific
       targets that people think are practical, achievable,
       near term, long term, and then we have a benchmark and
       something that we can measure one against the other. 
       And I would go back to one of the roles of this AP, and
       that is to go back and discuss these problems and
       options with councils, with people that are affected,
       with state governments.  
                 And I'm very much attuned to the fact that we
       have been thrown this stuff and are expected to make
       some judgments today without having the opportunity to
       go back and talk to all the people that we ought to be
       talking to.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  David Wilmot.
                 MR. WILMOT:  Thank you.  I'd like to address
       three points:  one, the timing and the September 1st
       issue; two, the relationship of buyouts to the
       discussion on closed areas; and then, three, I have a
       number of points to get right at what Pete has just
       raised with specific goals that I would like to see in
       a bi-catch reduction plan, issues that I have raised
       for years around these tables.
                 First, the laws in my opinion was quite clear
       in the FMP should have included measures to reduce bi-
       catch.  They did not.  A discussion of how much longer
       they should delay is I think missing the point to some
       extent.  They should have been there.  I suspect NMFS
       feels they have a good argument for why they weren't
       there.  I would not want to see any delays beyond
       September 1st.  
                 I personally think it was unacceptable not to
       have these measures in place at the time considering
       that some of us raised the point that these were
       invalid area closures that you've been talking about
       for a very long time and the rationale you gave for why
       they were invalid was indeed the reasons that we gave.
                 The point is NMFS for a long time could have
       known they were going down a one-way street and needed
       to make some corrections.  Now we're having that
       discussion and I would hate to see this delayed at all. 
       Quicker than September 1st would be desirable.
                 Implementation of a time/area closure can not
       be linked in any form or fashion to a buyout.  There is
       absolutely no justification for doing that.  I hope I'm
       interpreting what the Service is doing correctly and
       that they also are not making that linkage.  
                 If, after a time/area closure is put in place,
       a discussion wants to be -- if we want to have a
       discussion about economic relief, that is appropriate. 
       That is completely appropriate and we would look
       forward to having it, but it absolutely can not be used
       to delay the actions that NMFS must take under the law.
                 Goals of a bi-catch reduction plan.  Time/area
       closures should only be a part of it.  We did have a
       lot of discussions last year, over the past couple of
       years, about other potential measures that could be
       used whether it's bait or changes in fishing practices,
       fishing gears, et cetera.  That should remain part of
       the discussion. 
                 However, it was pretty clear that the only
       thing that we could do quickly that we could have
       confidence would reduce bi-catch was the time/area
       closures.  That's what we should move on now.  These
       discussions should continue.  This is going to be an
       experimental process, a work in progress.  It should be
       evolving constantly.  I hope that we're all part of
       that as we move forward.  Now we have the opportunity
       to put time/area closures.  That's the piece we can put
       in place.  
                 What should they focus on?  Avoidance of bi-
       catch, first and foremost.  Where it can not be avoided
       then we should deal with reducing the mortality of what
       is encountered.  That would a top goal, the hard
       target.  
                 I agree completely without a hard target I
       have argued it will be impossible for us to, one, know
       where we want to go and, two, to actually get there. 
       We tossed out a number of 75 percent before.  When one
       looks at these figures we recognize that is a very
       idealistic number; 50 percent, however, with certain
       species is not unrealistic.  No one said that this was
       going to be painless.  If we're going to get rebuilding
       and we're going to speed up rebuilding, this is an
       absolute essential part of it.
                 So we're going to stick pretty hard.  We'd
       like to see -- I'd like to see at least 50 percent in
       all of the species.  It also has to be a multi-species
       approach.  We can't look at individual species and say,
       okay, a 25 percent reduction on swordfish is good
       enough when the impacts on other species may be in the
       negative direction.  We saw that yesterday with many of
       the figures.  Large coastal sharks and pelagic sharks
       didn't fare very well in a lot of the closed areas that
       were presented by NMFS.  In some of the other proposals
       they may do better.  
                 The key here is to look at all the different
       species so, therefore, the goal is going to have to be
       a multi-species approach.
                 The final thing -- I think I'll stop right
       there.  Those are my key points.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Alan Weiss.
                 MR. WEISS:  Thank you.  First of all with
       regard to the September 1st deadline, I think that when
       the Congress created the fisheries management system in
       its present form, not just created it but amended it
       over the years, the Congress didn't contemplate that we
       hurt our constituents and implement inadequate or
       improper management measures quickly.  
                 And I think the intention was that we do our
       best to protect our constituents and also develop
       measures that will be most effective.  
                 In light of the discussion I've heard around
       the table today and the concerns for a more thorough
       presentation and analysis of the information that will
       need to go into this decision, we would be better off
       having a good decision on this in October or December,
       not in three years but in a few more months, rather
       than have a bad decision no later than September 1st.
                 With regard to the goals of the plan or of
       this effort, I think we find them in the national
       standards.  And I know as a council member when I have
       any doubts or am at a loss to what direction to go on
       something I have generally found that the answers to
       all of my quotas are usually in the law, and I dig it
       out and review it very frequently.
                 So I think what we want to do here is to, to
       the extent practicable, minimize bi-catch and, to the
       extent it can not be avoided, minimize the mortality of
       such bi-catch, and minimize the adverse economic
       impacts on fishing communities.  And these things,
       especially in the context that we're speaking in here
       today, can be at odds with one another.  There is some
       amount of trade-off between the two.
                 My understanding of what I hear from people
       who are talking about a buyout in association with area
       closures is that you can reduce bi-catch to the extent
       practicable with no buyout but the extent practicable
       under those circumstances is limited.   You can get a
       more substantial reduction in bi-catch and still be
       practicable with a buyout that at the same time
       addresses the concerns of the economic impact in
       fishing communities.  
                 And I would also like to re-emphasize a point
       that Steve Loga made earlier and which was really the
       premise for the reason that the Mid-Atlantic Council
       commented negatively about the original proposed area
       closure in the FMP, and that is that it was really
       ineffective.  
                 When we saw the presentation by Jean Kramer,
       it indicated that there could be a significant
       reduction in bi-catch if the fishing ceased in that
       closed area and the vessels that were fishing that area
       just evaporated.  But when she went further and made
       the assumption that the vessels would not evaporate but
       would redeploy to other areas, the benefits rapidly
       began to recede.  
                 And whether the closed area is this or that or
       the other proposal, it will maximize the effectiveness
       of that effort if the effort from those areas won't be
       redirected but disappear altogether.  And the only
       means to obtain that conclusion is through a buyout,
       and the various perspectives that I've outlined here
       more or less bring me to the same conclusion.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Nelson.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  Regrettably, I feel like my
       fishery and myself have been directly slapped in the
       face for having stepped forward and tried to act
       responsible in reducing what we recognize as real
       problems.  I would remind David there are people as
       well as fish, and I would thank God that we've got
       legal laws in this country that recognize there are
       people as well as resources involved in these issues.
                 A few things.  What Bob and Pete raised, you
       know, I would like to say yes, I agree that, you know,
       we need some kind of benchmarks.  But I've been two or
       three years now requesting of the National Marine
       Fisheries Service, requesting of their scientists in
       every public forum that I possibly can that, hey, we
       need some standards here.  We need some consistency
       here.  
                 We need perhaps the Congress and the powers
       that be to debate on some, if you like, bi-catch
       reduction goals, et cetera, down the road.  But to
       arbitrarily set it on one fishery we're moving right
       back into the witch hunt that this process has been
       basically been in the past year and a half.  And I
       would hope that we don't go back into that, you know.
                 If the rest of the HMS fisheries can handle a
       75 percent reduction in their bi-catch, then my fishery
       will.  If you're going to apply it to this fishery and
       not apply it to the rest of the fisheries, then you've
       got a problem.  Now grow up.  Grow up.  David.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Nelson (inaudible.)
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  Going on.  Buyback is
       inextricably linked to any substantial closure.  How
       can you possibly, you know, put an area of fishermen
       out of business with the laws that we have without
       compensation.  I can't conceive of it. 
                 The September deadline is arbitrary.  What's
       been whispered in my ears may be a possible, you know,
       solution.  Apparently, you know, John Graves may have a
       suggestion as far as getting a technical team together
       with the swordfish species working group team before,
       you know, the fall meeting round starts so that perhaps
       we can take a look at, you know, what kind of analysis
       and what not would put one set of data onto the table.
                 And as far as objectives, what's been raised I
       think is very good but I think in addition we still
       need the very important objective of how to promote
       what we're doing here in the international forum
       because every step of the way of what we do here I
       think we should look in that context.  
                 And, again, that is one of the things that the
       groups that have come together have been looking at. 
       We haven't only been looking at, hey, we got a real
       problem here and we can come up with some real
       solutions to substantially reduce bi-catch without
       decimating, you know, the U.S. fishery.  
                 We've also looked at, you know, we've got a
       large international problem, a lot more than the 5
       percent that we are, that has to be resolved, and I
       think every step of the way we need to look at that end
       run, that horizon, and make sure that we're building
       programs that can be carried through in the
       international forum. 
                 Thank you. 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Jim Donofrio.
                 MR. DONOFRIO:  Thanks, Jack.  Jim Donofrio,
       RFA.  A couple things.  I agree, Nelson, that if
       anything there is going to be any reduction of your
       fleet there should be a compensation package.  
                 The thing that I don't like about this
       proposal right in front of this today, it was kind of
       shoved down our throats very rapidly here.  I feel the
       entire recreational industry was not involved in these
       decisions.  We were kind of left out of it in much of
       it so we need to look at this.  There needs to be time
       to really look at this.  
                 But I do agree you need to be compensated.  If
       your boats are leaving, you need to be compensated but
       I don't think we're going to make those decisions
       today.
                 But I have some questions.  Will the -- if
       there is a reduction, a percentage, say if it's just
       whatever the boats, the amount of boats are, whatever
       that percentage is, will that be a proportionate
       reduction in swordfish quota then, or will your vessels
       just be able to catch them somewhere else, which would
       mean more bi-catch, more interaction with other
       species?  That's one of my questions. 
                 The other is will the permit holders be
       allowed to enter any other commercial HMS species such
       as, hey, I just got compensated a couple of hundred
       thousand dollars, I can go buy a little duffy now and
       go general category fishing up there.  I really got a
       nice cushion of money so it doesn't matter if I'm a
       highliner or not but I can go compete with the guys
       like Joey Janovitz that really do it full time for a
       living now.  
                 So, I mean, is there going to be redirected
       effort into those other fisheries?  And if the harpoon
       fishery gets restored, am I going to go compete with
       the other harpooners in those fisheries? 
                 My feeling would be that once you're bought
       out you're out of HMS forever, go do something else. 
       Go run a party boat or a charter boat or take whale-
       watching but, you know, you're out of HMS.  And that
       would be my feeling.
                 The other thing is another question on one of
       your points here, Nelson.  Vessels of compensated
       permit holders may not reflag foreign, fish with
       pelagic longline gear in Atlantic or enter closed U.S.
       fisheries.  
                 But it doesn't say anything about the owner of
       that vessel getting another vessel and doing it.  It
       talks about the vessel that you're buying out.  I think
       that point needs to be cleared out.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Nelson, do you have some quick
       answers to Jim's questions, please?
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  As far as the reduction, we
       would not be breaking the law by unilaterally, you
       know, reducing the quota given to the U.S. by ICCAT.
                 But I would say it a little further.  We would
       not want to take that step also because what you would
       be doing is taking away from responsible fishermen that
       have complied with the international program and giving
       that quota to what basically is irresponsible countries
       that have not complied with the programs.  I think that
       would be a step backwards and we do expect that there
       is going to be a quota reduction in the upcoming ICCAT
       swordfish recovery program.
                 (End of Tape 5, Side A.)
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  -- way this buyout will help us
       to prepare for that.
                 On the permit in entering other fisheries, I
       think Glen should answer that question.  
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Glen Delaney.
                 MR. DELANEY:  I'm answering this question as
       Glen Delaney, if that's all right.  I'm not sure which
       hat you were attacking so I won't be either.
                 I think the issue of displacement of these
       particular fishing vessels into other fisheries is one
       that needs continued work.  Our initial attempts in
       some of the early drafts, certainly a work in progress,
       the spirit and intent is to prevent, first of all,
       these vessels from fishing under any pelagic longline
       permit.  And so that might answer some questions. 
                 It is our intent not to have these vessels be
       able to, for the first time, enter other fisheries
       which are fully capitalized and perhaps under limited
       access or, you know, closed in some other legal fashion
       that I might not be familiar with, and we don't want
       them to go overseas and lose complete control over them
       and flag out in the Caribbean dial-a-nation of their
       choice and become pirates.
                 The point was to not cause or exacerbate any
       economic stress in another fishery.  At the same time,
       if these vessels already possess and are actively
       participants in a permitted fishery that, you know,
       NMFS has issued them a permit to fish and they do fish
       -- and I don't know what would be a good example, Gary,
       so I'm looking at you -- snapper group or -- I don't
       want to say the wrong fishery because everybody will --
       not that, you know.  But some other fishery that is
       perfectly valid and they make a portion of their
       livelihood from.  
                 I don't know if that's what the point is.  The
       point is about minimizing bi-catch of highly migratory
       species, not in diminishing the economic capacity in
       some other fishery.  I mean, if we were to do that and
       consider that and that seems to add another issue to a
       buyback is what are the benefits to that other fishery
       by removing this vessels as well.  It wouldn't be just
       the economic loss to the highly migratory species that
       they participate in.
                 Let me just finish up on one last point
       because I think it's valid because I know other
       questions will come up on it because it did yesterday. 
       Should we buy a permit or should we buy a boat?  And
       that's a valid debate.  
                 We buy a fiberglass 42-foot, whoever makes
       them, not Viking, fishing boat, longline boat.  What do
       you do with it?  What is the government going to do
       with 47 40- or 50- or 60-foot fiberglass boats?  You
       can't burn them, you can't throw them in the garbage,
       you can't scrap them for steel, you can't sink them for
       artificial reefs.  It's just a practical consideration. 
       What the heck are we going to do with all these boats. 
       Whatever.  
                 So that was one consideration.  It was also a
       consideration if this guy wants to become a charter
       boat fishermen, why not?  That's the direction things
       are going.  Let the guy earn a living on the sea.  You
       know, does he have to go to work in McDonald's or can
       he still be a fishermen?  So those are the kind of
       things we thought about.  It's a valid debate and we're
       certainly open to whatever direction makes sense.
                 MR. DONOFRIO:  Glen, thanks.  The one question
       that I'm real concerned about here is the one about
       there's no quota reduction.  
                 And, Nelson, I know your point about not
       giving up something but you're going to encounter more
       and more bi-catch because you're going to try to catch
       that quota of swordfish so that means there is going to
       be more interaction in the Mid-Atlantic bite or
       wherever, okay, and there is going to be a lot more
       white marlin killed and blue marlin, but I guess some
       of the people just didn't care about the Mid-Atlantic
       bite when they put this together.  You know, what about
       that bite?  That's real important.  
                 And I don't care what the data shows.  I can
       tell you anecdotally because you know I was out there
       with your boats and we know what goes on out there. 
       The data doesn't mean anything to me.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Talk to Jim after we break
       here, if you could, and answer the question because
       we've got to get to other folks and take our break.  
                 Charlie Moore, then Russ Nelson.
                 MR. MOORE:  Just real quick.  Many of my
       comments have been made, particularly by Pete, Dave,
       and Nelson.  In terms of -- it seems to me it's
       absolutely essential to set a benchmark or a percentage
       reduction in bi-catch.  
                 Until you do that you've sort of got the cart
       before the horse.  You're looking at various closures
       and so forth and seeing what that does and is that
       significant or is that not significant.  It seems like
       the discussion needs to be basically what does it take. 
       What is a reasonable -- what can everyone decide on on
       a fishery-by-fishery basis, not a uniform.  I can't see
       how that would work.  
                 But on a fishery-by-fishery percentage, what
       is the percentage of reduction that we're after? 
       That's my comment.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Russell Nelson.
                 MR. NELSON:  Let's start at the top.  Federal
       law mandates that we prevent overfishing.  The ICCAT
       charter says we prevent overfishing.  Both domestically
       and internationally, we agree that that overfishing
       threshold essentially is the biomass in which maximum
       sustainable yield is produced.  We don't have to argue
       about those things.  Those are set.
                 I think Nelson is absolutely right.  We stand
       the best job of doing -- managing everything if we can
       go forward with our domestic commercial and
       recreational industry having agreed on a program to
       solve our problems, that we can then bring and advance
       internationally.  
                 So I tend to support -- I'm not real fond of
       buyouts but I've got no aversion to it.  And if a
       program that you all put together is going to get a
       significant -- do significant problem-solving, I'm
       prepared within Florida and go and solicit what help I
       can get from our delegation to support something like
       that.  I'm not adverse to it whatsoever.
                 We have the goal then.  Now, domestically most
       of the mortality is bi-catch.  Internationally, most of
       the mortality on billfish is longlines, a portion of it
       is recreational fisheries in other nations that we
       really have no tabs on.  But what we have domestically
       is longline and most of the mortality is bi-catch.  
                 So it would seem very simple what we do here,
       and I'm speaking right now of billfish.  I recognize
       the broader concerns but I'm trying to narrow things
       down to something I can grapple with logically.  What
       we want to do is prevent overfishing.  
                 If we can reduce our domestic bi-catch
       mortality by the percentage which, if applied stock-
       wide in the Atlantic would put that stock, those
       stocks, on a recovery track towards BMSY, I think
       that's a legitimate goal.  And having done that
       domestically, it would be legitimate if we could go
       together then to ICCAT and say we've come up with a way
       to do it domestically, now we've got to look
       internationally how do we get a percent reduction in
       mortality.  And internationally some of it will be bi-
       catch and some of it will be directed fishery, but how
       do we get a reduction of mortality to get us on the
       same track that we've already taken domestically?
                 And I know there has been numbers thrown out
       that could be 50 percent, that could be 40 percent. 
       We're going to see another stock assessment come up and
       that number could change, but I think our goal should
       be a reduction by the percentage necessary, if applied
       stock-wide, would get that stock on a trajectory
       towards BMSY.  
                 And I think we ought not to get frenetic about
       goals.  I think we should convene a working group, a
       technical group, to look at what we can do right now
       and come back and winnow down the choices to bring to
       this advisory panel.  
                 But you've got to recognize that, yeah, those
       goals have to be met and we have to look at what is
       practicable, and it's very possible that we might find
       that given the tools at hand the first cut we can go
       this far and then we go back and try to refine tools,
       and the next cut we can go this far.  I mean, it's
       always a step-wise progression.
                 That's all I have to offer, and I'm hungry.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Yes, thank you.  We are
       scheduled to go until 4 o'clock.  Based on the way the
       discussion is going I suspect we're going to use all of
       that time, so I suggest that we go ahead and take a
       lunch break.  Take 45 minutes though, 45 minutes and be
       ready to come back.  
                 And we'll set up an electronic thing here so
       we can do some writing if that's what you want to do. 
       Thank you.  
                 (Luncheon recess.)
                 MR. McBRIDE:  -- in, what is it, SOW-3 or
       whatever, SWO-3.  And in that you must have had a
       mortality percentage or rate of some kind affiliated
       with that particular preferred option.
                 Is that correct?  Well, can we have it?  I
       mean, do you want to defend it?  Should we vote on it
       or should we get out of here and just (inaudible) and
       keep going (inaudible).
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Rebecca.
                 MS. LENT:  Well, again, with all the caveats
       that I mentioned yesterday, Joe, these are preliminary
       analyses.
                 MR. McBRIDE:  Yeah.
                 MS. LENT:  And if we lay just this set in
       front of us for these four options for swordfish, it
       looks like SWO-3 had a good mix of balancing reduction
       in swordfish discards versus increases in other
       critters' discards and the impact on directed catch. 
       And you could do anywhere between 15 and 20 percent
       depending on how far you wanted to go, so we'd like to
       hear from you.
                 MR. McBRIDE:  Well, is that satisfactory with
       the agency?  Is 15 or 20 percent sufficient for an
       initial plan is really what I'm asking so we don't stay
       here and argue whether it should be 15, 20, 25.  
                 If you say hypothetically we'll accept 20 for
       a beginning plan and the environmentalists say, no, we
       need 50 and the longliners say, no, we need 10, we
       could sit down and at least discuss a set of figures
       and see if we can come up with a compromise, or do it
       later on if you have an ad hoc committee going to meet
       between now and the next meeting.  That's number one.
                 Number two, and again to address this bi-catch
       thing and again forgive my ignorance, there is
       legislation either underway from Senator Breaux's
       office regarding a bill for bi-catch which isn't
       necessarily tied in with your administrative duties in
       suggesting closures or not suggesting closures.  
                 Is that correct?  So that could come about. 
       The buyback could come about whether I liked it, you
       liked it, or no one liked it if that bill goes through
       to all of Congress.  Is that correct?
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  No.
                 MR. McBRIDE:  No, okay.
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  Because Breaux told us that
       unless the commercial and recreational groups got
       together and agreed to something he would not champion
       it.  So NMFS is not in that loop directly but the way
       you stated it that even if nobody agrees to it, no, it
       won't happen.
                 MR. McBRIDE:  Okay.  Well, I'm not stating it
       that way.  I'm assuming after the meeting that the, I
       guess the billfish committee and the longline committee
       met somewhere with Senator Breaux and you all came up
       with some sort of a ground rule -- whether it's 100
       percent polished or not I couldn't tell you -- which
       was reiterated yesterday by Senator Breaux's aid, and
       this is in the works.  
                 Now, I'm assuming that the Billfish Foundation
       and the longliners have sort of agreed on basic
       groundwork, which is the Breaux plan is basically what
       you agreed to.  Is that correct?  No, it's not.  Okay.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. McBRIDE:  Oh, okay.  Oh, you're not part
       of it?  Okay, I thought you were.  I'm sorry.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Yeah, they're still at lunch. 
       Robert Fitzpatrick, and then after Robert makes a
       comment let me put the other one up so that you've got
       the other sort of analysis to look at and compare.
                 Robert.
                 MR. FITZPATRICK:  I just wanted to clarify
       something.  So the SWO-3 which was the largest block --
       correct?
                 MS. LENT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. FITZPATRICK:  No?  Well, the largest
       block, whatever it was represented by, that was about
       18 percent reduction in undersized swordfish 
       discards -- 
                 MS. LENT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. FITZPATRICK:  I'm sorry?
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  She said depending on the
       number of months.
                 MR. FITZPATRICK:  Right.  If it was -- I'm
       looking at the entire -- if it was closed in its
       entirety.  However, that took the effort and displaced
       it into the next adjacent blocks?
                 MS. LENT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. FITZPATRICK:  And the net gain was an 18
       or so percent reduction?  
                 MS. LENT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  That's correct.
                 MR. FITZPATRICK:  So what would the -- if -- I
       mean, obviously they've been going back and forth about
       what the net gain would be because the quota would have
       to be caught somewhere else.  But if those boats were
       taken out in a buyback and none of the effort was
       displaced, where would the gain be?  
                 MS. LENT:  The buyback for the Blue Water
       proposal or this one, if this was a buyout?
                 MR. FITZPATRICK:  Well, isn't the largest area
       in your proposal similar to the size -- actually,
       theirs is larger.
                 MS. LENT:  No, I don't think it is.  Do you
       have the maps in front of you, Robert?
                 MR. FITZPATRICK:  Somewhere.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  That's Blue Water -- how about
       the maps?  This is -- that's Blue Water's.
                 MR. FITZPATRICK:  If you -- 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. FITZPATRICK:  Okay.  Well, they're
       similar.  They're a similar size.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  All right, similar size.
                 MR. FITZPATRICK:  Similar size.  I'm just
       wondering if there was a buyback with a similar sized
       block, because they are similar -- they're different
       but relatively close -- where would the net gain be?
                 Basically, if Blue Water's proposal was
       implemented with a buyback, and obviously there are
       some -- there's going to be catch whether it's on the
       Grand Banks or somewhere else where there will be some
       discards.  However, put that aside, and approximately
       what sort of gains would be made with the buyback from
       a similar-sized closure, permanent closure?  
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Gary, would you like to answer
       that?
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Yeah.  The best guess that I
       can give you, Robert, is that the amount of gain in
       reduction of swordfish would not change very much at
       all, if any, because there is sufficient capacity even
       after you were to eliminate the vessels in that closed
       area, by their moving to other areas to actually make
       up the loss in the buyback, depending on the size of
       the buyback because I'm assuming that the quota that
       would be available for the swordfish landings would
       still be filled.  I don't think anybody would argue
       that you're not going to be able to get that swordfish
       quota.
                 MR. FITZPATRICK:  I understand that, but I
       asked that you put that aside because you don't know if
       they're going to catch that quota on the Grand Banks or
       where they're going to catch that quota.  
                 So putting that aside, acknowledging that
       there will be discards elsewhere in the fishery whether
       it's from some of the not purchased-back boats, bought-
       back boats, or otherwise about what gain would be the
       maximum potential of that closure. 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  We don't know because I don't
       know where outside the four-degree quota -- four-degree
       area outside the closed area they would fish, so we
       can't tell you.
                 MR. FITZPATRICK:  What I'm asking is not
       speculating as to the additional -- if you just looked
       at, take a snapshot of closing the large -- the
       significant area and not displacing the effort into the
       blocks around it.  If it's 18 percent with the
       displacement, what is it without it?  Assuming no
       discards from the rest of the fishery.  
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. FITZPATRICK:  Ballpark?
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  We have Linda and then Russell.
                 MS. LUCAS:  Linda Lucas.  I have two questions
       for Karyl.  I'm looking at this SWO-3, this diagram,
       and these maps that have quarter one, quarter two. 
       Okay, I have a question about the maps first.  This is
       what I'm talking about.  Are the quarters chronological
       quarters so that quarter one is January, February, and
       March?
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEIZ:  Yes.
                 MS. LUCAS:  Okay.  Is this per unit effort?
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEIZ:  No.
                 MS. LUCAS:  So these two are not really
       comparable?
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEIZ:  Not really.  We just used
       the maps to try to figure out what areas we should look
       at.
                 MS. LUCAS:  Okay.  So -- okay.  Because on
       this one I get July, August, and September on the map
       as the months that pop up with the most action, and
       then on this it comes out to be October, August, and
       December.  
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEIZ:  Right.
                 MS. LUCAS:  Right.
                 MS. BREWSTER-GEIZ:  The graphs are based on
       per unit effort.
                 MS. LUCAS:  Okay.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Russell Nelson.  (Inaudible.) 
       This is another set of output from the discussions that
       we had this morning.  (Inaudible.)  Maumus and then
       Pete.
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  On the number one, wouldn't it
       be appropriate to say within what time frame?  Because
       the plan says, I think, within ten years, a ten-year
       rebuilding program, so without a time frame on the
       rebuilding you don't have a real benchmark, I don't
       think.  I may be wrong about that but I think that's an
       important component.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Time frame?
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  Yes.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Would need to be added to it?
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  Yeah, would result in recovery
       to BMSY within ten years, or whatever it is.  I think
       it's ten years in the plan.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Let's put that up just to see
       what it looks like.  
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  I'm pretty sure it is, just
       going from memory.  
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Well, that was one point.  The
       other was isn't the percentage going to be different
       for the different stocks?  So what does the percent
       stock-wide apply to?  Is that some average of, you
       know, blue marlin, white marlin, sailfish, billfish? 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Russell?
                 MR. NELSON:  I would assume that given the
       data you'd calculate that percentage and apply it to
       each of the three species, whichever was (inaudible).
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  You would apply it to the three
       species stock-wide but you would have to calculate
       that.  Yeah.  John Graves.
                 MR. GRAVES:  Thank you, Jack.  In my ICCAT
       position now I just want to point out that we have to
       have a benchmark in time where we're looking at the
       percent of reduction in mortality.  The United States
       has already done through a significant reduction in
       mortality for billfish in both the commercial and the
       recreational sectors, and we did this proactively. 
       When we got to ICCAT a couple years ago we were then
       forced to take another 25 percent reduction on top of
       what we had already taken.  
                 And as we do this domestically, it's
       imperative that when we go to the international forum
       that we have this incorporated into the hit that we've
       already taken, because if you look at that with the
       percentage reduction we took in the -- if you assume
       that everything released survives, so we've reduced 50
       percent commercially, 90 percent recreational.  
                 We've already taken a significant cut and yet
       stock-wide we need to have a reduction of mortality of
       50 percent.  Our share of that stock, or share of the
       mortality, is much smaller than that and we've already
       taken that step.  
                 And so we're setting up the position here
       where we're setting the U.S. up to be responsible for
       taking the reductions in mortality they are going to
       save in Atlantic-wide stock, and that is a point of
       diminishing returns which we'll never fulfill.
                 MR. GRAVES:  Just so I understand it
       (inaudible) not meant to go together.  This is an
       either/or situation.  It's number one option or number
       two option, correct?  I mean, these could be mutually
       exclusive.
                 MR. NELSON:  These are just discussion points
       at this point.
                 MR. GRAVES:  Okay.  
                 MR. NELSON:  I mean, if you can craft
       something that works them together, that would be fine
       too.
                 MR. GRAVES:  I can't imagine how you could. 
       One is calling for a very specific percentage that may,
       in fact, not have anything to do with minimizing
       economic displacement.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Nelson.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  One of the concerns that I have
       is how is this relevant to the Act?  How is this
       relevant to our legal mandates?  I don't see anything
       in the Act that says we have to reduce a directed
       fishery on, you know -- you know, on the bi-catch
       thing.  
                 But and I also agree with John Graves that
       we've already met that criteria and for us to be
       mandated to do more than our fair share of the
       international program, you know, would be
       disadvantaging and unfair.  
                 Now, we have volunteered to do more in order
       to set appropriate precedent to carry into the
       international forum to move it forward better.  I mean,
       that is something that we have volunteered. But to be
       mandated by regulation or legislation would be a
       different matter.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Okay.  For those of you that
       came in late, let me put the first one back up.  And as
       I said, this is what came out of Nelson and Maumus this
       morning doing some editing back and forth.
                 Mau Claverie.
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  I didn't understand what Nelson
       said just now.  I thought the Magnuson-Stevens Act did
       require bi-catch reduction and that it required that
       species be rebuilt within ten years or less or
       whatever, you know, all that time frame criteria to MSY
       or better, and it's obvious to me that the two go
       together.  
                 If you have to reduce bi-catch on a -- if you
       have to reduce the kill on a species, whether it's
       directed or bi-catch, you still have to bring that
       species up within the time frame to the criteria you
       have to bring it up to.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  As a rebuilding program goal?
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  As a what?
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  As a rebuilding program goal on
       a bi-catch species?  I don't think the Magnuson is
       going quite that far.
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  Magnuson says rebuild billfish
       within ten years to MSY.  Now, whether that billfish is
       caught as bi-catch or directed isn't discussed in the
       Act.  I mean, I don't see the Magnuson Act saying just
       because it's bi-catch you don't have a rebuilding
       program for it.  I think that's what I understood you
       were saying and that's what confuses me.  I didn't
       think you would say that.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  My concern stems from the
       international, you know, perspective of it though, Mau,
       is that, you know, for us to, you know, be bound by
       regulation, you know, a goal to do the impossible and
       to do more than our fair share in the international
       program, I mean that's something that we can volunteer
       for.
                 But the precedent that it would set in these
       fisheries to be in regulation, I don't think we could
       go with.  I perfectly agree with what me and you put
       down there.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  I'm having trouble identifying
       problem one.  What is it?  Where is it?
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  It's in your book, but that's
       why you're having trouble because there's a lot of
       pages.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  It's in the fishery management
       plan.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  I know.  I can't find it. 
       Where is it?
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  For billfish. 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Yes.  I'm looking at it.  What
       am I missing?
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  It's on page 1-3.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  That's billfish. 
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  Do you have the amendment to
       the billfish, 1-3.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Just tell me what problem one
       is.  What is it?
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  Problem one is the intense -- 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Mr. Claverie.
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  Okay, I'm sorry.  Problem one,
       I'll read it -- it's very short.  An intense
       competition for the available resource between the
       recreational fishery for billfish and other fisheries
       that have a bi-catch of billfish.  That's problem one.
                 And then number eight is on page 114, and that
       is consistent with other objectives of this amendment
       manage Atlantic billfish fisheries for the continuing
       optimum yield so as to provide the greatest overall
       benefit to the nation, particularly with respect to
       recreational opportunities and taking into account the
       protection of marine ecosystems.
                 In other words, it's supposed to be to enhance
       the availability of the fish to the recreational
       fishery and that is added as an additional criteria. 
       Other than just plain not killing the billfish because
       it's bi-catch or having bi-catch, it's also trying to
       enhance the availability of the fish to the
       recreational fishery.  I think basically that's what it
       says when you take it all together.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  I have two comments.  One is
       I'll comment on this and then I'll get to the larger
       picture.  I would say, you know,  you would have to add
       to the portion where you have "by addressing problem
       one," well, you'd have to add, "by addressing the
       severe overfishing or the size of the commercial bi-
       catch problem."  I mean, I don't have the exact
       language but I would want that general point in there.
                 But my second point is a larger one and it
       sort of -- isn't this sort of an exercise in redundancy
       in that National Standard Nine says minimize bi-catch
       to the extent practicable.  National Standard Eight
       discusses the need to take into account the economic
       consideration.  
                 Aren't we just rehashing those points over and
       over and over rather than getting toward a real goal? 
       So I feel like we're just spinning our wheels going
       over something that is already in front of us.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  You know, a number of you did
       this this morning too.  You kept talking about what we
       ought to be talking about and never got around to
       talking about it.  So let me be a little more pointed,
       Russ.  What goal?
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  You said 50 percent, David.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  50 percent. 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  50 percent of -- 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Yeah, and is that -- 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  David, use the -- David Wilmot.
                 MR. WILMOT:  David Wilmot.  I'm happy to
       debate.  I also would be happy to start with one of the
       areas proposed yesterday and discuss the pros and cons. 
       I think that may be a little premature since a lot of
       us are uncomfortable with the methods that we used,
       various assumptions.  
                 That's what Russ is getting at here.  We know
       National Standard Nine, National Standard Eight, One
       and Two, et cetera.  We may debate what they mean.  Our
       attorneys debate what they mean and the court is going
       to decide what they actually mean if the interpretation
       NMFS has used is correct.
                 But, in general, we know what they're telling
       us to do.  This is definitely trying to repackage
       national standards and things that we know we have to
       do.  Bottom line is how much are we going to hurt
       fishermen to accomplish the conservation gains that we
       must do under the law?  We all know where we're trying
       to go with this.  
                 I don't understand why we continue to run
       around in the circle.  It's why we tossed out 50
       percent.  It didn't say it had to be done in one year. 
       If we do phase-in, that's the type of discussion we can
       have.  The number -- if it can't be done, let's discuss
       that type.  Number, area, I don't care where we start,
       but this is ridiculous.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Nelson and then Mau Claverie.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  You know, with what science
       would we debate?  Right now we've got three different
       sets of science.  With what common knowledge, you know,
       on the data.  It's all the same data but with what
       science will we debate.  And I'm sorry for being late
       but was the technical scientific team discussed, you
       know, before I got back?
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  No.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  Okay.  Well, I thought one of
       the important things was to set that up so that
       ultimately this body has, you know, common best
       available information in formats that we can understand
       to go by.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  A reply, David?
                 MR. WILMOT:  I do think there is enough on the
       table for us to move forward with a very brief
       discussion.  We're running out of time.  And what I
       mean, Nelson, if you look at SWO-3 and you look at
       what's labeled Blue Water Fisherman's Association 1,
       there is a lot of overlap.  The numbers aren't
       dramatically different.  
                 That might be a starting point to discuss if
       the conservation gains for swordfish and other species
       are acceptable.  Then a discussion can be had regarding
       the impacts, the socioeconomic impacts.  You've made it
       clear that without a buyout you would find those
       impacts far too great.  I may find that I don't even
       think the conservation benefits are large enough
       independent of a buyout.  But even let's say there was
       a buyout.  The 20 percent gain might not be enough.
                 So I think that if we were to accept some of
       the numbers that are put in front of us for discussion
       purposes only, we can discuss this.  I'll tell you
       right now I don't think I'm comfortable when I look at
       the shark graph, the shark lines, on those figures. 
       The sharks don't get any benefit and, in many cases
       they do down.  Swordfish looks pretty good to me. 
       Sharks look pretty bad.  
                 That's where I would start the discussion, see
       what others think about just the conservation side
       putting on hold the socioeconomic impact for a second. 
       Would we be comfortable with the conservation gains
       here or not, as part one?
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Nelson, a reply before we go to
       models?
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  Okay.  One of the problems,
       Dave, is, you know, what we thought was the most
       appropriate is to have our percentages go to, you know,
       U.S. effort within the EEZ.  And, you know, it's 47.4,
       you know, the area one and area two from the Blue Water
       -- you know, the joint proposal, would reduce swordfish
       discards, dead discards, by 47.4 percent.  The numbers
       are there.  The individual numbers of animals.
                 I would caution everyone that this is all
       information taken from Jean Kramer's log book database,
       and we know that, you know, reporting fishermen, you
       know, have inaccuracies, you know, this way and that
       way.  I would pretty much presume that it's pretty
       standard that they have inaccuracies across species and
       across regions, et cetera.
                 But that gives you some basis there.  So,
       basically, what we're looking at a total of, you know,
       18,000 or 20,000 swordfish dead discards that this plan
       would reduce 8,444 of them.  
                 You know, not only did we take into
       consideration Jean and Jerry's 11 2-degree squares but
       also, you know, the knowledge of fishermen which they
       encouraged us to do, you know, when we began this
       program.  They said, look, go out to the fishermen. 
       They know where, you know, the primary areas of this
       are.  
                 And our objective in setting up those areas
       was strictly to be the most effective.  We did make one
       mistake on the northern end. You know, fishermen have
       since pointed out that from 33 to 34 really is not a
       problem.  And we went back into the data and we did the
       research and, indeed, from 33 to 34 is 377 dead
       swordfish discards over six years and eight marlins
       over six years; whereas, the next lower is 3,700 over
       six years.  So we agreed with them on that.
                 But, you know, these are basically the figures
       and I think if, you know, bear out the science from
       Jean Kramer that we were given that you'll find that
       it's as accurate as, you know, what we've been given. 
       And what's wrong with 24 percent of marlins and 47
       percent of swordfish?  
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Let's go to Maumus Claverie and
       then Russell Nelson and then back to David.
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  Thank you.  Maumus Claverie. 
       David, I appreciate what you're saying and the 50
       percent rings a bell in my mind because I thought
       that's what SCRS told us relative to billfish, to the
       marlins, that the marlin mortality in the Atlantic
       would have to be reduced by in order to rebuild them. 
       I don't remember if ICCAT SCRS set a ten-year time
       frame or what, but they did say to rebuild them.  So I
       assume that's where that number comes from.
                 But when we're talking about specific micro-
       areas, which is the time/area closures, the percentage,
       it seems to me, should be higher in that area in order
       to benefit from the fact that you are -- there's no
       sense in closing a time and area, I don't think, unless
       that time and area, if you allowed fishing in there,
       would produce an excessive amount of bi-catch that you
       are now saving.  
                 And so to say that the average -- the criteria
       averaged over the entire Atlantic would be the same
       criteria you're using for the closures, the time/area
       closures, to me seems to be self-defeating, that you
       wouldn't want to identify a particular area unless the
       area is large enough to, in itself, attain the 50
       percent.  In other words, let them kill everything they
       can catch elsewhere but you can't fish in here, which
       we don't have.  We don't have that circumstance.  
                 Or unless the percentage gain in relation to
       what the directed fishery is is so great that it's a
       better place to close than somewhere else, it's better
       for the directed fishery and it's better for the bi-
       catch fishery. 
                 So to be locked into a particular percentage
       which equals what the overall percentage is, to me,
       doesn't cut it for a time/area closure discussion. 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Russell Nelson.
                 MR. NELSON:  Mau, I think that's where we
       started.  What we did in starting is try to identify
       areas where the ratios of bi-catch to targeted catch
       were high.
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  Right.
                 MR. NELSON:  And I think that's where this
       exercise is going.  But again, David, I am hesitant
       about arguing about the utility of any of these
       particular areas given the information that we've got. 
       I mean, so much is dependent on what you do with this
       assumption of effort.  
                 Now, Nelson is giving us estimates which are
       sort of in one currency.  He'll say these squares we're
       proposing in these squares these many fish have been
       killed and they won't be killed any more.  And then
       Karyl has given us using another currency, which is
       looking at catch per effort and then the shift of
       effort.
                 Now, I can tell you I've had direct experience
       with a wide time/area closure to the harvest of
       amberjack which occurred from Cape Canavral, which is
       that little bump on the right side of Florida about
       half way down south.  We put that in place, a one-month
       closure during a spawning aggregation period which,
       actually, it's dense for three months but one month of
       that in the middle was closed.
                 One year after we looked at the first year,
       what had happened is that effort in the weeks prior to
       and the weeks after the closure increased to the extent
       that total effort in that three-month period was higher
       than it had been the year before when all three months
       were open.
                 So if you don't close -- so I think under some
       scenarios that Karyl has modeled effort shifting out of
       that.  In this month, the effort will spread out into
       four degrees in all directions.  
                 I think more likely what will happen if you're
       closing one month is that the effort would more or less
       catch -- it wouldn't fish anywhere else, it would stay
       in the hot spots, but it would fish more heavily a
       couple weeks prior to and a couple weeks after.  So in
       that case, I think her estimates of what we get in
       terms of reducing bi-catch might be overestimates.
                 On the other hand, in terms of longer
       closures, I'm not sure about this four degree spread. 
       I'm not sure a lot of the vessels out there are really
       going to be able to fish four degrees west effectively,
       and that would happen.  So in that case, some of her
       estimates might be underestimates in my way of
       thinking.  
                 I think we really need just -- she presented
       this, here's one assumption, and I think we need to try
       to assemble some kind of technical group and come to
       some conclusion.  For people who've got experience
       dealing with this, it's not going to be written down. 
       There is some literature on it.  We've done several
       things in Florida when we've looked at effort shifting
       in different fisheries over different periods of time,
       so there is data available and I'm sure there are from
       other places.  
                 But I just think we need to get a currency
       before we start staking our bets on what might not turn
       out to be real.  We might say this looks great and it
       turns out it's not going to be there.  I'm not arguing
       we wait until October either but I'm just a little
       concerned about arguing the utility of let's close this
       area or not for this period of time or not when, at
       least in my mind, I'm not sure what the impacts of that
       are going to be.  And that's just in the biological
       basis so that doesn't even go to the impacts in terms
       of the social or economic impacts.  
                 And I do think that within these two huge and
       incredibly complete plan amendment and a new plan that
       we've got there's probably enough information in there
       looking at vessels and who is fishing to get to look at
       some of that information too.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Pete Jensen and then Bob
       Hueter.
                 MR. JENSEN:  If I were to take the pragmatic
       approach here, NMFS is reluctant to tell us exactly
       what they're proposing other than SWO-3 and some choice
       in there.  I have a lot of the uncertainties also about
       what's going to happen but, to me, the pragmatic
       approach is NMFS has said they're going to do something
       September 1st.  
                 The role of this advisory panel, it seems to
       me, is to give them the best advice we have.  And
       whether we agree or disagree with September 1, it looks
       like they're going to do something.  It looks like it's
       going to be some part of SWO-3 unless something unusual
       happens here.
                 It seems to me that a lot of the suggestions
       that have been made are reasonable, and that is we need
       a workshop, we need peer review, we need to think a lot
       about this.  Why isn't the pragmatic approach to
       suggest that for the next fishing year that the closure
       in SWO-3 be in October while you buy time?  That way
       NMFS can show that they're trying to address the
       problem yet giving the advisory panel and others
       opportunity to explore this in more detail.  
                 We know that the buyout proposal is not going
       to be a reality for some time.  It's not going to be
       here tomorrow.  There's still a lot of debate there. 
       That would be my pragmatic approach to this for the
       next fishing year to buy the time.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Bob Hueter.
                 MR. HUETER:  I can't disagree with what Russ
       Nelson said.  I also am concerned about the currency. 
       But following in Pete's vein, if one looks at the two
       calculations, the NMFS numbers say a 24 percent gain or
       24 percent reduction in discards, Nelson's numbers are
       47 because you don't do the displacement calculation.
                 I was simply picking up on that, making a very
       large assumption that the numbers are correct, that
       they may be between 24 and 47, and asking the simple
       question:  Would that be enough for me?  I think that
       based on just swordfish I would be feeling pretty good
       about those savings.  Nelson has worked to identify the
       proper area.  NMFS has worked to identify the proper
       area.  It's a hot spot.  We know that.  It's showing
       this in the numbers.  
                 I would then follow it up to simply add that
       some of the other species don't have the benefit that
       would be needed.  We'd have to make that up elsewhere. 
       A couple of species it's actually hurts them a little
       bit and I would want to think about that to see if some
       shifts in the exact location could help those species.
                 It will indeed require additional analyses but
       I'm trying to be forthcoming just to toss out on the
       table my general impressions where I would feel
       comfortable.  For swordfish looks pretty good.  We're
       starting to get some benefits for sailfish.  I'm very
       uncomfortable because the other species don't gain;
       therefore, I would want to see additional areas.  I
       need the data to go all the way but on these data,
       assuming the calculations are correct from Nelson and
       from NMFS, I can make those general types of
       statements. 
                 MR. HUETER:  Bob Hueter.  I just wanted to
       second what Russ Nelson said.  I'm really uncomfortable
       considering any of this really serious in detail.  I'm
       just thinking I'm starting to feel like somebody that's
       at a car dealer and I'm haggling over the price and I
       don't know whether I'm buying a Cadillac or a Yugo.  
                 I mean, I'm sort of saying, well, that's a
       good price or, you know, can you bring it down, but I
       don't know what I'm getting.  So I'm really
       uncomfortable with taking this very far at this point. 
       And it's not just that this has been dumped on us
       because that always happens, as was pointed out this
       morning; it's that this information is too raw.  
                 I don't know what the assumptions are in the
       fisheries displacement models.  I don't necessarily
       have to be part of this technical workshop but I
       certainly want to see more presented before I can get
       too excited about any of these various scenarios.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Nelson, then Rusty.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  Nelson Beideman, Blue Water. 
       You know, I appreciate the comment about the currency
       and what not.  I would like to let everyone know that
       we've requested the large coastal shark and pelagic
       shark stuff but we don't have the information.  You
       know, we haven't gotten the data where we could put
       those benefits.  
                 I don't understand why the National Marine
       Fisheries Service models show a going down on large
       coastal sharks because we fully expect that those
       areas, especially year round on the Atlantic side, are
       going to have very, very, substantial large coastal
       shark reductions.  And we're very anxious to show those
       benefits but we simply have not been given the data.
                 But Bob might, you know, comment on that
       because, you know, take a look at where that is.  I
       mean, that's the whole wintertime, you know, fishery
       for that Atlantic portion.  I'd say it's a large
       proportion of the large coastal shark.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Rusty Hudson.
                 MR. HUDSON:  Rusty Hudson, directed shark.  In
       Chapter 7 on page 26 it talks about the 5 to 10 percent
       of the large coastal shark commercial quota.  I would
       be interested in attending this technical workshop if
       they have such a thing so that we can get into the
       numbers because I agree with what Nelson is saying that
       that would be a substantial decline in the amount of
       discards dead and/or landings from those pelagic
       efforts in those area because they have a large
       interaction south of the Mid-Atlantic region with large
       coastals.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Bob Hueter and then Russ
       Nelson.
                 MR. HUETER:  Yeah, but see this is the whole
       problem.  It's not that simple.  It depends on what
       assumptions you make in terms of where people go when
       they're forced out of an area.  What do they do?  Do
       they then all directed shark or something?  
                 That's why it's a very complex scenario, and
       for us to just without getting the background as to how
       these models were constructed for us to just say, okay,
       this looks great, let's have these three months.  I'm
       really uncomfortable with it.  I need to know a lot
       more.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Russell Nelson.
                 MR. NELSON:  Thank you.  Thus far today it
       seems our discussions have been looking at the Blue
       Water or the SWO options.  As I recall the presentation
       yesterday, the Service was also presenting a separate
       and additional closure in the Gulf which would have
       also addressed billfish.  That was the idea, right?  So
       we do have two presentations.
                 And I've got to say, I mean, I'm not arguing. 
       Those of you that know me know I'm probably one of the
       most impatient guys that can get involved in this
       process, and often to my detriment.  And I'm not
       arguing for a delay.  
                 But if I was to propose something, a closure
       back in Florida if we were working on this, and I
       realized that at this point impacted parties were
       likely to go to court, and I looked at the record I had
       and the science behind what the criteria for selecting
       a closure was, I would be, you know, not real anxious
       about that.  We do need to get more detail and more
       reasons why we're doing this, what the goals are, and
       the data that shows us what these things are going to
       do.
                 So I don't know, Jack, how you argue for it. 
       I mean, if we're going to come out of here
       recommending, I'd like to see us recommend a goal.  I
       don't know if we're going to do that.  I know we're not
       going to come out of here saying this particular area
       is the one we should look at as a preferred
       alternative, but I would at least like to get us -- I
       think I've heard all of us say that there seems to be a
       need for some kind of technical workshop, which I also
       have no desire to be involved in, but that the symbols,
       the technical people who sit together and struggle with
       some of the stuff that we're trying to struggle with.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Gary Matlock and then Ray
       Bogan.
                 MR. MATLOCK:  I don't know if this will help
       but, hopefully, it will.  Several different items for
       you.  The first is that dealing with a time/area
       closure to reduce the bi-catch of fish on longlines is
       not new.  We didn't just walk in today and say, hey,
       we're going to go do this or we're going to try to do
       this.  We proposed an area to close off the Florida
       Straits throughout the entire HMS FMP process. 
                  All of the comments we received during that
       said that that area was too small, it would be
       ineffective at accomplishing the objective of
       substantially reducing the bi-catch of things on
       longlines. 
                 Our response to that in the HMS process was to
       not implement that particular closure but to tell
       everyone in writing as clearly as we can we are going
       to implement a closure and it will be bigger than what
       we proposed in the Florida Straits.  What we've done is
       to take a very simple approach to addressing what area
       could be closed or areas could be closed that are
       larger than Florida Straits that would accomplish both
       reductions in the swordfish bi-catch and in billfish
       bi-catch.  
                 And you've gotten the results of that
       approach, that very simple approach, which is basically
       close an area, assume that the catch in that area is
       going to be zero because everyone will abide by the
       law, and move the effort into a four degree area around
       that closed area, apply that effort that would be
       moved, assuming all of it would be moved which we know
       is not right, times the catch per effort for those
       species in those adjacent areas from the past data, and
       calculate the pluses and the minuses.  It's a very
       simple thing.  There's no complexity to this.
                 That result says if those assumptions, i.e.,
       that people will move from where they are now out to
       four degrees and all that effort will go out there,
       which we know is wrong, it will be less than that more
       likely, here's what the outcome is.
                 We put together what we think at this point is
       the best approach from the two closures that we've
       given you to accomplish the following objective.  And
       this objective is structured around particularly
       National Standard Nine, bi-catch, which says we are
       trying to obtain the most reduction in the bi-catch of
       those fishes for which we are concerned while, at the
       same time, minimizing the negative impact on the
       directed fishery to the maximum extent possible.  So
       we're attempting to achieve simultaneously several
       different outcomes, depending on the species.
                 What you've got from us is something that will
       achieve reductions in bi-catch on the order of
       something around 0 up to about 20 percent depending on
       the species, while reducing the directed landings of
       swordfish by about 5 to 7 percent, depending on the
       time that you pick. 
                 We've given you that analysis.  That's what
       we've done.  We've laid out what we've done and we've
       showed you what the results are that are.  
                 The reason that we have picked September the
       1st as a time within which to accomplish a larger
       closure than what we proposed in the HMS process is
       because we think, (a), we can't get it done before then
       and, (b), if you get it done by September there will be
       benefits to be achieved this year in an area to be
       closed for both swordfish and billfish.  
                 If we are unable to get it done by September,
       depending on the species, the benefits that can be
       achieved range from none for some of the billfishes if
       you do it, say, in October to some numbers for some of
       the other species, again depending on the areas that
       are closed.
                 What we are also trying to do is to make sure
       that we do not box ourselves in domestically before
       ICCAT has an opportunity to develop a rebuilding plan
       for swordfish and billfish, which they have not yet
       done.  
                 Therefore, we have not picked a percentage
       reduction in the bi-catch because we don't want to
       commit domestically to something that will interfere
       with Commissioner Delaney's role in making sure that
       the international objectives do not conflict with the
       domestic ones.  
                 So we didn't pick a percentage to achieve
       through this.  What we did was to let the data tell us
       what percentages you could achieve, and we've done that
       and we've given that to you.
                 Now finally one last comment for you, and it
       is, if I can remember it as it escapes me here. 
                 MS. LENT:  You have a great staff.
                 MR. MATLOCK:  Yeah, right.  Geez, it just went
       away.  Oh, I know what it was.  We're not attempting to
       achieve the bi-catch reductions through time/area
       closures alone.  We intend to accomplish the objective
       of reducing the bi-catch to whatever level it needs to
       be to accomplish whatever rebuilding plans we have in
       place through a combination of time/area closures, gear
       modifications, fishing behavior changes, and so on.  So
       this is only one piece of the puzzle. 
                 That's why, again, we didn't get a or develop
       a specific target that we're trying to get to.  We let
       the data tell us what you could get if you did this,
       these two closures that we've identified and make the
       assumptions that I've tried to outline for you are
       made.  Now, that may or may not help you but that's
       what's going on with the Service.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Ray Bogan.
                 MR. BOGAN:  Thanks.  Gary, you raise a good
       point and that is that we have discussed time and area
       closures on more than one occasion.  Indeed, NMFS has
       provided us over time with charts, color charts which
       for folks like me helps me identify things quickly as
       to the effect of the time/area closure. 
                 One of the concerns I have about what we're
       doing now and which is going to prompt a recommendation
       is that we have half the group who wants to debate, you
       know, let's go further, get more information,
       presumably get the information that we had about six
       months ago that NMFS already provided to us and bring
       that back in and discuss that, because I thought that
       was pretty thorough, that information that we were
       provided with on the effects of various fisheries in
       conjunction with what's been presented to us yesterday.
                 I suggest, unfortunately, that we get off of
       this and we go on to something else and we come back
       here the next time ready to get all the information
       that we've been handed for the last six months and
       discuss it.  But right now we're not because the debate
       is stagnating on, you know, the information is not
       there to discuss it.
                 The unfortunate thing about that is that in
       very simplistic terms I thought the idea of a time/area
       closure was something that we were all pretty excited
       about, and I think what those who want more information
       are asking for is, hey, look, let's make sure we can
       quantify what we're getting out of the deal.  
                 And that's very understandable, but I was
       hoping that we could talk a bit more about the concept
       of what Blue Water has proposed, of what NMFS has shown
       us on these various charts and that kind of thing.  And
       I just feel like we're getting way too bogged down.
                 And my other idea is that we were going to
       have another part of the agenda in which we were going
       to be able to express some other views on other
       fisheries and some of us are hitting the road.  So
       instead of debating the fact that we don't have
       information or we do have information, maybe we can
       move on.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  You're saying other fisheries
       than just the time/area closure -- 
                 MR. BOGAN:  My recollection on the agenda was
       there was something -- 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  There is some other business
       later in the day.
                 MR. BOGAN:  Yeah, and I think we're at that --
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  So you want to get on to that,
       okay.
                 MR. BOGAN:  And we're on that, yeah.  But
       again, get the group together that's going to come in
       and coalesce that information and that understands it
       better.  You know, all that stuff we've had for many
       months to work with, get that stuff together.  Sit down
       and go over it and come up with some recommendations. 
       Quantify things.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Well, I mean, it has been a
       very clear sense around the table that the idea of
       getting a technical group together to work with the
       various data sets that we looked at yesterday and try
       to find some commonality between them and to improve
       the information coming in to us is an important thing
       to do.  
                 And I think there is also a common sense
       around the table that there isn't a whole lot more we
       can do except give some initial reactions, you know,
       somebody said that it looks good for one species but
       maybe not for others, I have to know more, I have to
       have a better sense of where I really want to end up
       with the issue.  And all of that is going to require
       some further discussion that you can't get into today.
                 Those are sort of a couple of basic things
       that have been fairly consistent throughout the
       discussion even yesterday.
                 MR. BOGAN:  And let me say that my initial
       reaction is that there are two areas that were never
       considered prior to the FMP coming to place for the
       Blue Water/billfish proposal coming about, and that's
       something I think that's worth mentioning is that there
       is something being proposed here that's never been
       proposed before, substantively being proposed rather
       than just discussed academically.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Okay.  We had Gail and then
       Russell Nelson, and then Nelson and a bunch of people. 
                 MS. JOHNSON:  Thank you.  Gail Johnson.  There
       is another point to all this that hasn't been brought
       up yet, and it's crucial.  And that is no matter what
       areas we choose, if it happened to be September 1st
       there is the small matter of enforcing this very large
       area which may or may not have irregular borders to it.
                 It's my understanding that the vessels
       monitoring system is supposed to be online by September
       1st but my gut feeling and from information gathered
       from various places is that it is not going to be
       ready.  
                 And that is of crucial importance because not
       only in that area are there boats that have to stay in
       the area because their size and capabilities, but
       that's a huge area that needs to be transitted by
       vessels, not necessarily longline vessels but vessels
       of all types.  
                 We need the ability to transit that area with
       the know-how to see the vessels in there and no, he's
       not fishing.  You need to be able to tell whether a
       boat is fishing or not, so unless we know what the
       alternative to the vessel monitoring system is or it's
       online, this is premature.  We have to be able to
       enforce whatever we choose here.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Russell Nelson.
                 MR. NELSON:  I guess just in response to Gary,
       I mean, yeah we could put -- we should put some areas
       out there and we should close them.  But to do this, 
       it takes energy and time and it wears the process out
       so -- 
                 (End of Tape 5, Side B.)
                 MR. NELSON:  -- the next time we're examining
       this is the characteristics of the vessels that are
       expected to be displaced from any given closed area. 
       And the reason for that is, first of all, the size and
       type of vessels will guide us in trying to figure out
       just where they are most likely to disperse to when
       they leave that area and; number two, it will also give
       us information to assess the impacts of anything we
       might go forward with in terms of National Standard Ten
       because it's my understanding that quite a number of
       the boats involved are likely to be small fiberglass
       vessels that are really ill-designed or ill-equipped to
       be pushed a great distance offshore or, for that
       matter, to be pushed from the east coast of Florida or
       the south Atlantic bite up into the area of Cape
       Hatteras or further north during times of the year when
       the weather is very bad.  So I think it's very
       important we consider that dimension as well.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  David Wilmot.
                 MR. WILMOT:  This is a tough one.  Obviously
       we would love to have all of the data before we move on
       this.  Of course.  But there are two issues here.  One,
       I have to agree with Gary we have known that this was
       coming for a long time.  A lot of information has been
       presented in the past.  Some new information has been
       presented here.
                 I think there may be a way to move forward
       short of stalling the process and there's no other way
       to look at it by doing a technical workshop.  It may be
       that NMFS could put together very quickly a paper with
       background materials and methods, results, discussion,
       et cetera, that outlines what has been presented to us.
                 We could then review that document and
       provides comments back very quickly.  There is no
       reason this shouldn't be a priority for everyone
       sitting around this table.
                 At that time, if major objectives are raised
       based on the data that can be presented, and I might
       add that the same should be requested of Blue Water
       since an identified area has been put forward, if major
       objectives are raised at that time NMFS could make a
       decision whether or not they would need to pull back
       for the right reasons and look at it more closely. 
       That seems to me to be a fair compromise so that we
       don't stall this.  We can keep it moving forward and
       the best data can hopefully come forward.
                 I have no illusions that there will not be
       changes to this process on a regular basis.  I suspect
       we're going to find that the reaction in the fishery is
       different than assumed in various sections.  I suspect
       that the biology of the fish is going to surprise us
       just a little bit here in a number of cases.  It's
       going to change with time.  
                 We wouldn't want to make a big mistake. 
       People's lives are at stake here.  Their livelihoods
       are at stake, and I recognize that.  But adjustments
       can be made very quickly if major things come to light. 
       So that's the first thing I would propose.
                 Second, Gary, you said that you would not want
       to interfere with the international process by having a
       strict target from the domestic side.  That argument
       would have also applied for rebuilding.  One could have
       argued -- a lot of people did argue -- don't lock me
       into a ten-year rebuilding plan when I have to go to
       ICCAT.  It can work.  
                 I would argue that we domestically can have a
       very hard target and it's not going to handcuff us
       internationally.  Hopefully it will give us good
       marching orders, but I don't think with overfishing it
       killed us.  While I may disagree with what happened
       with bluefin, it didn't kill us in negotiation.  I
       don't believe it would on bi-catch with any of these
       species either.
                 So that's my proposal with how to move
       forward.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Thank you.  Pete Jensen then
       Russ Nelson.
                 MR. JENSEN:  Well, perhaps I'm out here in the
       twilight zone.  You scheduled this meeting today in
       order to give you time to do everything that's
       necessary to get something in the Register by September
       1st, and I know what that process is, which means that
       you're going to have to have a proposal out on the
       street in order to do the public hearings and
       everything else very, very, soon.  
                 I haven't heard you suggest anything that
       you're willing to extent that schedule so I'm still
       operating under the assumption that you are going to go
       ahead on that schedule.
                 Am I reading it correctly?
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Gary.
                 MR. MATLOCK:  With what we know today, yes.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Russ.
                 MR. NELSON:  I would suggest then to leave
       this subject means that we give no advice at all to
       NMFS on this issue, and I think that's just abrogating
       our responsibilities to give them our best advice today
       because you're going to see it on the street pretty
       darn quick.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Rebecca.
                 MS. LENT:  Ending this AP meeting today
       doesn't necessarily rule out the possibility of a
       technical working group if that's something we could
       arrange or something as David suggested where we send
       out a document and ask for written comments.  The AP
       deliberations amongst you has to be in a formal meeting
       with open meeting and all that, but you could
       individually respond and write legal counsel.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Russ Nelson.
                 MR. NELSON:  Well, given the possibility or
       probability or possibility that you are going to send
       out proposals as a preferred option and go to public
       hearings, you did share with us yesterday what you felt
       were your preferred alternatives for the areas but you
       never mentioned what time period you were preferring or
       you were going to suggest.  Can we find that out in
       terms of how long you're suggesting?
                 MS. LENT:  Once again, this is given the
       options -- 
                 MR. NELSON:  Pending your consideration of
       everything you've heard today.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Rebecca.
                 MS. LENT:  Let's see.  I believe for swordfish
       what we were looking at is a SWO-3 and going out as far
       as the month of June cumulative, so that's closing for
       all of the year except for May, April and -- except for
       April and May. 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  The billfish.  The billfish. 
                 MS. LENT:  The billfish (inaudible).  January
       and July, August, September -- 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  What months?
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.)  It would be
       those three.
                 MS. LENT:  Okay.  And then for billfish, BIL-4
       which is the smallest area, July, August and September. 
       And again, this is all preliminary analyses.  Based on
       these options that we have in front of us, this is what
       looks the best.  We may have further analyses given
       some of the ideas from Goodyear's work and other
       suggestions that we've had.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Russell.
                 MR. NELSON:  And that would -- and with the
       billfish then you are also at this point or prior to
       this meeting or whenever we're considering that your
       alternative would extend those closures into Mexican
       waters or at least to the extent you could by
       referencing the U.S. vessels. 
                 MS. LENT:  Let me say this for the third time,
       and I hope it's clear.  Even though we had some records
       from the log books of sets made in other countries'
       EEZs, if we had a time/area closure we could not have
       that apply to other countries' EEZs.  We could have it
       apply outside the U.S. EEZ to U.S. boats.
                 MR. NELSON:  Would that -- going into this
       meeting had that been your intent by giving us those
       areas that included Mexico that if you proposed it as a
       preferred alternative it would include a provision
       which would have prohibited U.S. vessels from fishing
       in that area?
                 MS. LENT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Rebecca's answer was yes.  Mau
       Claverie and then Randy Blankinship.
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  Rebecca, if you're going to do
       that in the Gulf, my request is that you cover more
       years than just '96-'97.  As you saw from the Goodyear
       presentation, I think if you do that it's going to move
       further east because those fish are, you know,
       sometimes here and sometimes there.  And I wish you
       would give more consideration to the enhance the
       recreational part.  
                 MS. LENT:  Okay.  And we did pick that comment
       up as a very important point that Phil made yesterday
       was that the reports of billfish bi-catch were lower in
       '96 and '97 so we may need to take another look at all
       that.
                 MR. BLANKINSHIP:  Also, if you're going to do
       some re-analysis, in regard to including that area in
       Mexico in figuring where that effort may transfer to,
       instead of going in four degrees all directions you
       might just direct it in the U.S. direction instead of
       including down in the Mexico EEZ.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Okay.  The last couple of
       comments have been some specific suggestions as to
       where the particular delineations of these areas might
       be looked at a little differently or revised for some
       specific issues that Mau and Randy are aware of.
                 Steve, did you have a comment?  Steve Loga.
                 MR. LOGA:  Just a question for Rebecca.  On
       billfish four, how does that affect the bottom longline
       for shark during the shark season?
                 MS. LENT:  All of these analyses are for
       pelagic longline.
                 MR. LOGA:  So they can still fish bottom
       longline? 
                 MS. LENT:  Right.  And this is the way we've
       done the bluefin tuna in June time/area closures only
       for pelagic longline. 
                 MR. LOGA:  Okay, I was just wondering.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Okay.  Russell.
                 MR. NELSON:  Well, then a real important
       consideration here, Rebecca, is going to be can you
       detect using the vessel monitoring system, can you
       detect a distinct signature that applies to bottom
       versus pelagic longlining? 
                 MS. LENT:  According to enforcement, we can.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Nelson.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  Yeah, a question for Rebecca
       and especially while Gary is still in the room.  Glen
       wanted me to ask this question while he was still in
       but he couldn't wait any longer. 
                 Rebecca, twice over the last couple of days,
       you know, you've said we welcome a buyout.  I'd really
       like to know exactly what that means, whether that
       means that, you know, you expect that Congress would
       have to address that or exactly what.  But I've got to
       leave here pretty quick to catch a flight and so are
       many others.  
                 I'd really like to know what you guys, you
       know, expect as far as, you know, we welcome a buyout,
       you know, because it seems to me that, you know, you're
       trying to set yourselves up to go ahead with some type
       of substantial closure without considering
       compensation.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Rebecca, can the Service
       comment -- 
                 MS. LENT:  I'll let Gary say it.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Gary.
                 MR. MATLOCK:  Nelson, I'm sorry, I'm not sure
       I heard all the question, but what I think I heard put
       very simply was is a closure linked to there being a
       buyout either in place or going to be in place.  
                 Did I get it right?
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  No.
                 MR. MATLOCK:  Okay.  Ask me again then what
       you asked.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  I think -- if I may, Nelson --
       I think his question was it was said yesterday that the
       Service welcomes the efforts to put a buyout thing
       together.  Can you comment on whether or not that is
       something that the Service supports?
                 Correct?
                 MR. NELSON:  Yes.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Do you support the buyout?
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Go ahead, Gary.
                 MR. MATLOCK:  The answer is yes, we very much
       support the use of buyouts to reduce capacity
       throughout fisheries in the U.S..  We are more than
       willing to put them in place.  We have the
       infrastructure and the capability to make them work to
       get people's input and to structure them in a way that
       is as responsive to the industry as we can be.  We
       prefer that the initiation of them begin within the
       industry.  
                 And, finally, we have no money to make them
       happen, so even though we support them we don't have a
       golden pocket sitting somewhere to fund them.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  We realize that.  The data --
       the follow-up is the data requests that we're going to
       need, you know, for the legislative effort.  Is there
       any timetable or is there any, you know, commitment to,
       you know, follow through with that -- 
                 MR. MATLOCK:  The answer is, again, yes. 
       We'll provide as much data as we can as quickly as we
       can to meet people's requests.  But I think it's
       important to understand we're busy providing what we
       can to the AP.  That was a very top priority for us and
       we've already gotten beat up because you got it on the
       day that you met.  We couldn't get it to you any
       faster. 
                 We're also dealing with court challenges which
       we have to go, obviously, deal with contempt complaints
       against us so we have priorities that come up with
       which we have to deal, and we'll do that.  But
       providing information, I think you'll have to agree,
       Nelson, that we've given you a great deal of data and a
       great deal of responsiveness over the past several
       months in particular and we'll continue to do that to
       the maximum that we can.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  Would there be any time frame
       on completing the data that Senator Breaux requested in
       his recent letter?
                 MR. MATLOCK:  I can't commit to on to you
       because I don't control the time frames and the work
       loads for the southeast center, and that's from where
       those data are coming so I can't give you a time.  I'm
       sorry.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  Well, what I was -- basically
       what I was told from southeast center and from Rebecca
       is that it was not at the top of the plate.  And,
       again, I don't know exactly, you know, what that means.
                 MR. MATLOCK:  And I don't know either.  I'm
       sorry, I just -- the center is the place that actually
       decides what they do within their time frame so I can't
       answer it.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Irby Basco.
                 MR. BASCO:  All my questions have been pretty
       well answered it's been so long, but I have a question
       for Nelson.  If my arithmetic is right, 47 boats at $15
       million is about like -- or permits, rather, is like
       about $300,000 because I know there is some
       administration costs.  
                 Is that what a permit is worth, something like
       that?
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  On the present current position
       of the compensation formula is that each vessel would -
       - each permit would get $100,000 block price per permit
       and then the remainder of the $15 million would be
       split using a formula that the vessels share compared
       to all catches in the last three years in that area. 
       Okay?  
                 So the vessels' catches over the past three
       years in that area, that share they would receive,
       which locks into, you know, the effort.  It satisfies
       the diversity that even among vessels of the same size
       there are different categories of fishermen. 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Okay.  Rebecca wants to clarify
       something.  I'm sorry.  Go ahead, Irby.
                 MR. BASCO:  One more.  I do have a question
       for Gary.  I think I heard you say that you were
       looking at a 0 to 20 percent reduction in the time/area
       closures that you all were thinking about?  I mean, is
       that giving us a benchmark, a 20 percent or 15 percent
       on the reduction?  
                 MR. MATLOCK:  What it's giving you is the
       results of the data analyses that we've done and the
       range of reductions that might occur for the species
       involved at which we looked.  For example -- I don't
       have the plots in front of me -- yeah, I do.  
                 For example, if you close all the way out
       through, except for April and May in SWO-3, the amount
       of reduction in the large coastal shark discards is
       about zero.  It goes up I think maybe to a half or one
       and the swordfish reduction is about -- well, it's
       about 19 percent, it looks like to me.  
                 So those numbers I've given you are the
       results of the data telling us here's the reduction
       that you could expect for those species if you were to
       close during these times in those areas.
                 MR. BASCO:  Excuse me one more time. 
       Actually, those percentages you're talking about won't
       get us where we need to be; is that correct?
                 MR. MATLOCK:  The answer is not necessarily. 
       We've not set a target.  We don't have the reductions
       that we think need to occur because we don't yet have a
       rebuilding plan approved by ICCAT.  All these
       reductions are is this is what would occur based on
       these data.  
                 We're not trying to convey in any way that
       this is a target that we're shooting for, that this is
       a desired result in terms of the number.  It's what the
       reductions are with these data.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Rebecca wants to clarify, then
       I'm going to see where we are.
                 MS. LENT:  Just a second.  Russ Nelson, you
       had asked me about enforcement.  Yes, enforcement told
       us that they can enforce a time/area closure for
       pelagic longlines only.  The way they would enforce it
       is not by the signature except the signature of the
       vessels tells you whether they're just sailing through
       or whether they're making a set.  
                 Once they're in port we can tell what they
       were making the sets on.  That's the way it's enforced. 
       You can't by the signature tell a bottom longline from
       a pelagic longline.  I wanted to clarify that.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Gail, to that point.
                 MS. JOHNSON:  So you are assuming -- are you
       saying that the VMS system will be online September
       1st, that there will be systems available to put on the
       boats and that the providers are all in -- there is a
       lot of pieces to this and I'm really concerned that
       they're not all (inaudible).
                 MS. LENT:  There's a lot of work left to do,
       Gail, and we're doing everything we can to meet that
       goal.  
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Let me see if I can take a
       sense of where we are.  We've talked about a lot of
       different things.  There is general conclusion and
       consensus, I believe, around the table that a further
       analysis of the information is necessary to harmonize
       the different pieces of data that have been brought to
       us and to understand what all of those implications
       are, that that needs to be done in a technical workshop
       so that a single set of information can be brought back
       to the Service and, indeed, the advisory panel so that
       you can really tell them where you think they ought to
       be going with this proposal next.  
                 Nobody has disagreed that it is essential
       before we can carry this process much further that
       we've got to have a good technical workshop to bring
       all of these pieces of information together.
                 You've had some discussions about timing of
       this action and there are two large views that I've
       heard.  One is that this is an important issue, it
       should have been in the plan to start with and that it
       shouldn't be delayed at all and September 1st would be
       not too soon to carry that program forward. 
                 The other view is let's not rush to judgment
       here.  We're in a point where maybe another couple of
       weeks or a couple of months worth of analysis is going
       to give us a lot of benefits in terms of being able to
       make a better decision, and that what we ought to do in
       that case is not to delay or postpone it too far but to
       go ahead and default towards making sure we have the
       best information rather than rushing to judgment just
       to have something in place by September. 
                 I don't know that I would characterize either
       of those, based on what I've heard, as a predominating
       view.  They have both come up from around the table.
                 And I haven't really heard any of you saying
       that, you know, this whole idea of time/area closures
       is such a bad idea that we really ought to postpone it
       till maybe sometime in the year 2000 or 2001.  There
       does seem to be a sense that we ought to get on with
       it.  It's just sort of two views as to how quickly and
       in the light of weak information that we ought to have.
                 Also, there has been a lot of discussion over
       the last two days around the table and in the
       presentations about the proposal to link time/area
       closures with a buyout.  Again, around the table there
       were a couple of sets of views that were expressed.  I
       don't think I would report back that either of them
       represented a real consensus on the table.  
                 There are some people who think that what we
       have to do for bi-catch we have to do for bi-catch, and
       that the Service needs to proceed along that line.  And
       then there's the other view that, no, even the
       implications of this it's going to be so devastating to
       the industry that you shouldn't proceed with it unless
       you have the buyout program in place.  
                 And, again, I think that's sort of the right
       and the left of where we got on that issue but didn't
       have any real clear consensus yet around the table.
                 And then there were some specific issues that
       the record will reflect about where particular lines
       needed to be drawn and what some of the implications
       were.  There is still, I think, some uneasiness around
       the table that the Service is proceeding perhaps to put
       something into place without having yet determined
       where it is they want to go with it.  
                 And the other answer to that is, well, we
       don't really know where we want to go with it until we
       see the rebuilding program that comes from ICCAT.  And,
       again, this is another area where there is going to be
       some balance and judgment that needs to be exercised in
       finding the middle ground for those.
                 That's where most of our discussion has been
       over this issue today and sort of what I can recall
       just off the top of my head here about where you were
       on it.  
                 Do any of you think that I've missed anything? 
       Russell and then David and then Bob.
                 MR. NELSON:  I need to clarify it simply by
       asking two questions.  One, just ask people to raise
       their hands if they think that the Service has
       sufficient information available now to make credible
       decisions on where they should be.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  We'll do that -- 
                 MR. NELSON:  And then the other would be how
       many people disagree with the idea of pursuing a linked
       legislative package that might include a buyout.  I
       think you would find that whereas you characterize it
       as being sort of equally divided on those issues I
       think there is a certain consensus here.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Well, I didn't mean to say
       equally divided.  I didn't think there was a clear
       consensus but let me go ahead and ask you that question
       and I'm going to get it on the record.  But my concern
       is too many people have left and I'm afraid that we'll
       send the wrong message, Russ, if we do that, you know.
                 Bob.
                 MR. HUETER:  Bob Hueter.  I'm going to abstain
       if it's voted on because the reason -- and this is the
       point I was going to make.  The reason I'm hesitant to
       get behind any of these and discuss these and endorse
       them as an advisory panel member, I am not second-
       guessing NMFS' analysis. 
                  I'm not saying you guys did this wrong or you
       don't have enough information.  All I'm saying is if
       you want my opinion on this I don't -- you haven't
       given me enough information.  That's all I'm saying.
                 So, no, I'm not going to vote on whether NMFS
       has the information to go ahead with this.  If they
       have a timetable that they're committed to, fine.  I
       think we ought to though proceed with the idea of a
       technical workshop to bring the information out and
       certainly to look at the results of anything that gets
       implemented.
                 By the way, I wanted to say that I love
       time/area closures as an idea.  I'm certainly not
       against time/area closures.  I think it's a wonderful
       idea.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  David Wilmot.
                 MR. WILMOT:  I was going to say exactly what
       Bob said up to the lat two sentences.  Not that I
       disagree with time/area closures but the technical
       workshop.  The reason I proposed that a paper be put
       together is basically NMFS would have the opportunity
       to defend what they have presented in this form to each
       of us.  I think we could see that and then if the AP
       could form a consensus then we could demand a technical
       workshop.  
                 But until I see that, I would have no reason
       to question that NMFS does not have plenty of
       information to identify a closed area and put it in
       place by September 1st.  I actually am anticipating
       that they do and look forward to seeing such a paper
       developed right away.  So that's the one
       characterization I would say that's a little different.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Thank you.  John Wingard, Rusty
       Hudson, and Mau Claverie.
                 MR. WINGARD:  I guess what I would like to say
       is if, in fact, a closed area does go forward that
       there be some commitment of resources to gathering data
       explicitly addressing the effects of the closed area
       and including in that data collection social and
       economic data as well to see what the distributional
       impacts are of the closed area just so we don't come
       back here again and say we don't really have numbers to
       work with.  
                 If we go forward with this, I think it's
       important that we take advantage of that and explicitly
       collect data on the effects.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Rusty Hudson.
                 MR. HUDSON:  Rusty Hudson, directed shark. 
       Basically whether there is a technical workshop or not
       my main concern is we have identified a potential
       number to be used as dead discards off the top of what
       has, you know, basically could be a directed shark
       quota and I want to see what that savings would be.  I
       can't tell -- maybe I just didn't get enough schooling
       from Karyl's stuff -- what the savings would be with
       the large coastals.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Mau Claverie.
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  Two things.  One is, Rebecca,
       when you're doing social economic in consideration of
       the intense competition between recreational and
       commercial with bi-catch, can you please throw in the
       recreational benefit as well as the economic and social
       benefit? 
                 The other is on VMS and identifying what the
       longliner is doing, I found a definition in the
       regulations of pelagic longline but I haven't found a
       definition of shark or bottom longlining.  Is that in
       there or is that not in there?
                 But the definition of pelagic longlining
       doesn't say where in the water column you are or what
       you're catching.  It says deeper than 50 fathoms so
       that is a VMS deal, the location deal.  That's not what
       you caught or brought to the dock deal.  But I don't
       know what the concurrent thing is for the shark.  If
       it's anything shallower than 50 fathoms is considered
       shark, well then the VMS does it.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Linda Lucas.
                 MS. LUCAS:  I want to say I'm in favor of
       time/area closures too.  I think this paper that we're
       talking about ought to have multi -- some information
       about these multi-permit holders and just somebody
       mentioned vessel characteristics, but I'd like to see
       something about who is holding multiple permits and are
       they part of the proposed buyout scheme.
                 And the overall orientation of the paper I
       think should be to provide us with incremental impacts
       of various closures, similar to the tables we get with
       proposed actions and the impacts of those actions.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Thank you.  We are sort of
       fleshing out here and right now we're telling Rebecca
       what we want to see in terms of information coming
       back, and that's good for her.
                 Mau.
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  Mau Claverie.  I wanted to say
       something but I didn't want to say it behind Nelson's
       back.  Nelson, have you got a second now that you're
       here?
                 My personal opinion is that that postage stamp
       closure area that Blue Water proposed in the Gulf, it
       may -- I don't know what it would be for but it
       certainly wouldn't help the billfish situation any and
       so therefore that one I'm not in favor of from that
       point of view.  
                 It gets back to what we've always known that
       the swordfish longlining did not impact the billfish
       fishery anywhere near like the yellowfin longlining
       does.  And that is a swordfish square, as I understand. 
       
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Nelson.  You were almost at the
       door, too.
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  Yeah, I know.  Alan is my ride
       though so it's a question if he's coming or what.
                 But the reason that the swordfish focused are
       in the Gulf was included in the joint proposal is
       because in Jean Kramer's work that area came up as the
       number one dead swordfish discard problem for quarter
       number one.  
                 So we strongly felt that -- you know, and it's
       called the rat hole.  I mean, that's what it is. 
       Fishermen know damn right well it's a nursery ground
       area and we thought it needed to be included.  It's
       larger than the NMFS overheads.  It's one and a half by
       one degree.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. BEIDEMAN:  Right, it doesn't help billfish
       much.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Rusty Hudson.  It doesn't help
       billfish.  Rusty Hudson then Bob Spaeth.  
                 MR. HUDSON:  Mau brought up an interesting
       thing about the definition of bottom longline
       particularly with this 50-fathom thing.  A lot of the
       fellows will go outside of 300 feet especially in the
       Straits of Florida to catch sandbar, 400 foot is
       normal.  
                 If we wanted to target bignose, which is a
       huge population on the eastern seaboard and Gulf of
       Mexico we would be in 400 to 2,000 foot of water on the
       lower water column because they rarely get in the
       middle and upper water column.  So would we have to
       have VMSs?  You know, we're getting into a whole host
       of things there for this definition of a distance or
       depth.
                 MR. SPAETH:  Bob Spaeth.
                 MR. SPAETH:  Well, I have some real problems
       and it's just, you know -- 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. SPAETH:  It comes up time and time again
       where on advisory panels, not just this one, we're
       asked to make decisions when I don't know how humanity
       is going to be impacted.  You know, I know how the fish
       are going to be impacted.  I got a million dollars
       worth of analysis on that.  
                 But when we come to trying to balance it and
       come up and go by all these guidelines you put up in
       the thing and in the Magnuson Act, I don't think it was
       the intent of Congress for us to go and throw out a
       closed area and then go back and see if it hurt
       anybody.  
                 I think that they wrote those protections in
       there for the industry, both recreational and
       commercial, so those kind of things don't happen and we
       don't have to go back after we've created a legislative
       disaster, economic legislative disaster.  You know, for
       that reason, you know, I can't see us doing an economic
       analysis, getting the profile of the fishery and the
       boats and everything done in ten weeks.  That's
       September 1st.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  And thank you, Bob.  In all
       fairness, that was something that I should have said
       when I was trying to summarize.  
                 Earlier in our discussions there was -- and
       this was yesterday as well -- it was stated a number of
       times that we've been given an analysis that looks at
       the numbers of the fish and that the decision needs to
       also have an analysis of some socioeconomic issues as
       well rather than just what we've got so far, which is
       the bi-catch numbers.  And that was stated and I think,
       you know, nobody really disagreed with that
       proposition.
                 Gary.
                 MR. MATLOCK:  Thanks, Jack.  Your point is
       very well made, Bob, and very well taken.  And it at
       least was my hope that as a result of the discussions
       from having given you something relative to the fish we
       could have in a day and a half capitalized upon the
       AP's knowledge and you given us some meaningful
       comments like you've just given us about the paper you
       want from us on the impacts on the fish that we could
       take away not only your suggestions on what to look at
       but also information that you could have given.   
                 We will have to do a very extensive economic
       and social impact assessment of whatever closure we do,
       and we'll do that to the best extent that we can.  We
       did not have time to do that before today and if there
       had been much more agreement that a closed area of some
       sort of magnitude is what needs to be done to deal with
       the bi-catch issue, we could have had more time to talk
       about your input on what kinds of social and economic
       things to look at.  
                 Unfortunately, that did not happen so we will
       have to do it with what we have between now and
       whenever we propose something.  
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Bob Hueter, then Bob Zales.
                 MR. HUETER:  Bob Hueter.  Gary, this goes
       right to the point I was making about the complexity of
       this issue.  The impacts on the fish and the impacts on
       the fishermen are not separate issues.  These are
       inextricably intertwined.  Say that three times.
                 When you move fishermen out of an area either
       in time or in space, the socioeconomic factors affect
       how the fishermen respond to that, which then effects
       the fish.  That's why I'm saying that the assumptions
       are very important and why I feel it's a complex issue.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Bob Zales.
                 MR. ZALES:  Yeah, a couple things.  First off,
       a question.  Wasn't there a social economic study
       recently done by somebody, either it was the Fisheries
       Service or a grant or something?  I know a year or so
       ago at a meeting there was a guy and a girl that was
       getting information and they came to Panama City.  I
       know that because I gave them information on
       (inaudible) for highly migratory species is what the
       thing (inaudible).
                 So what happened to that?  Where is that
       information?  
                 MS. LENT:  There was a study done by the
       University of Florida.  Sherry Larkin.
                 MR. ZALES:  No, this wasn't University of
       Florida.  This was either somebody in your Agency or --
                 MS. LENT:  Or Rutgers.  Doug Wilson?
                 MS. PEEL:  That's it.
                 MS. LENT:  That was an anthropological study
       and that is in the FMP.  There is a summary of it and
       he's quoted throughout.
                 MS. PEEL:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. ZALES:  Okay, that's -- and the other
       thing is when this thing first started the recreational
       community immediately took hits, because I know I made
       the motion for the increase in size limit.  We've had
       two increases before that.
                 And at the very beginning of this process I
       distinctly remember time/area closures bi-catch being
       mentioned for swordfish and everything else, so this
       September 1st date that you all got set to me is
       actually a little bit too late.  I would hate to
       totally agree with the environmental community but I
       think they're right.  
                 And anybody that fishes, whether it be
       recreational, commercial or whatever, that's sitting
       here saying, well, we can't deal with September 1st,
       they've been on another planet for the past two or
       three years.  So go forward with whatever you've got to
       go with, deal with whatever lawsuits you're going to
       deal with, and have at it.
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  As a lawyer I say that's great.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  As the father of a law school
       graduate two weeks ago, I think it's a good idea too.
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  Super.  Congratulations.  Gary,
       does anybody remember variable season closure?  This is
       the same thing over again except now we're throwing bi-
       catch into the soup.  So I hope whatever the history
       was that that went down in flames that we can remember
       so it doesn't repeat.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  I think that we're about sort
       of through what we can do unless anybody feels they
       have any other questions or directions they want to try
       to give to Rebecca.  I think we can sort of move ahead. 
       We have one or two housekeeping things, and see where
       we go from there.
                 Any suggestions?  John, the last word.
                 MR. GRAVES:  Yeah, just the last word here.
       One comment.  There was an anthropological study done. 
       What those primarily were were community profiles
       studies.  They serve as a baseline at most, but as what
       I'm looking for are directional and magnitudinal types
       of effects of different proposals which communities
       baseline studies are only sort of a minimal starting
       point.  They don't really -- they're not dynamic
       studies.  
                 And that's what just like what I mean by
       dynamic studies is we know we can make guesstimates on
       what's going to happen to fish populations.  We need to
       do the same thing with what's going to happen with
       human populations as well.  So I commend the baseline
       community studies but that's just more or less a static
       evaluation at this point.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Okay, great.  Thank you.  He
       had the last word, Ellen, but -- 
                 MS. PEEL:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Ellen Peel.
                 MS. PEEL:  Well, I was looking for Karyl but
       maybe she's already done.
                 MS. LENT:  We'll give it a try.  Shoot.
                 MS. PEEL:  Well, now, you've got four, five,
       and six, and I guess what's puzzling me so or
       confounding me so is, in billfish -- yes, I forget, you
       know, it's the only fish in the sea.  
                 But, you know, the science that Dr. Goodyear
       presented yesterday included some of all of that area
       but it was certainly - it didn't go as far south as
       yours but it went further east and west.  I mean -- no,
       it didn't go as far east as BIL-6 but it took in some
       of the northerly portions of four, five, and six.  
                 But her -- so you didn't look at closer in and
       more elongated.  Her work just showed that you're
       taking the sections?  Okay, I mean, I would hope that a
       technical meeting would -- could reduce that up some
       more to the east.  
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Thank you. 
                 MS. LENT:  Yeah, we may even before that take
       another look based on what Phil has -- 
                 MS. PEEL:  Okay, (inaudible).
                 MS. LENT:  Could we have either the disk or
       something written from Phil?
                 MS. PEEL:  Do you have what?
                 MS. LENT:  Either his -- Phil, you're here. 
       Do we have your disk or something we could keep -- the
       papers -- 
                 MS. PEEL:  Yes.
                 MS. LENT:  Okay.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Okay, they're working on it. 
       Mr. Claverie.
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  One other thought, Rebecca and
       Gary.  On the closure and the time in the Gulf, we know
       the marlin are gone during the winter.  They come back
       in the spring and they hang around until the fall and
       then they leave again.  
                 So if you want to minimize the time of the
       closure, one question is is it better to close the
       longline when they're coming in and let them get in or
       is it better to close after they're in?  I don't know
       if there will be any data that would show that, but if
       there is -- if somebody can glean something from that
       it might maximize the benefit to the billfish in the
       recreational fishery and minimize the time length of
       the closure for the benefit of the yellowfin longline
       fishery.  And I just don't know what the answer is.  
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Okay.  Good question.  Mr.
       Perett's last work.
                 MR. PERETT:   Thank you very much.  I can not
       let two attorneys be the last individuals to comment. 
       You know, fisheries is scientist biologies and
       biologists should be the ones that lead the show
       although the lawyers seem to be taking over. 
                 Thank you. 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Okay.  Rebecca, you had some
       closing thoughts for us, did you say? 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  No, we're moving off of
       time/area.  We did have an item on the agenda for
       discussing other issues that you might want to although
       I know some of the people that had other issues have
       left and it's getting a little bit late.
                 I think one of the things that we need to
       understand and perhaps Rebecca can mention this to all
       of us next time is that if we plan a meeting till 4:00,
       members have to be ready to stay till 4 o'clock.  So if
       you all want to bring up any other issues I suppose we
       have a chance to do that but -- 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  That's right.  Okay.  Rusty,
       your comment.
                 MR. HUDSON:  Rusty Hudson, directed shark. 
       I've got a few questions -- it's like 14 of them and --
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  On something else?
                 MR. HUDSON:  Shark.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  On sharks.  Let -- 
                 MR. HUDSON:  They're basically technical
       questions that I think would be better one-on-one.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Can you just work those out
       with the staff?
                 MR. HUDSON:  Well, I could or with Gary or
       Rebecca and then they could figure out who is the
       appropriate staff.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Sure, okay.  Thank you, Rusty. 
       Rebecca.
                 MS. LENT:  Well, as you all know, your
       appointment to this auspicious body, or these
       auspicious bodies, was for a limited term.  You thought
       it would never end.  For billfish, all of you, your
       appointments are up October 11th, 1999.  For HMS, if
       you look at the SOPS, in our infinite wisdom we
       apparently decided that we needed to keep some
       continuity so half of the people are up April the 6th -
       - I'm sorry, October 11th and the other half are up
       April the 6th.  
                 And that's based on alphabetical order so the
       following people are going to be off the HMS AP as of
       October 11th:  Nelson Beideman, John Dean, Bob Eakes,
       Sonja Fordham, Bob Hueter, Gail Johnson, Joe McBride,
       Rich Ruais, Mark Sampson, Peter Weiss, and David
       Wilmot.
                 What we're going to do this summer is again
       publish a federal notice, a Federal Register notice,
       saying we call for nominations for both of these panels
       and we'll get all of that information in and then make
       a selection based on the same type of composition that
       we've had before.
                 I would suggest, although we haven't discussed
       this within Fisheries Service-wide, but I would suggest
       that we go ahead and make the nominations both for
       replacements in October and in April so that we have
       those people ready to go in April.  
                 But we'll discuss that later, so just that
       warning and then maybe get out there and find other
       people that you think would like to have this great
       experience that you've been having.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  When do you expect you're going
       -- when is the Federal Register notice going to come
       out?
                 MS. LENT:  I'd like to get that out within a
       few weeks, if we can.
                 Gary, do you have anything to add?
                 MR. MATLOCK:  No.  But because I don't
       remember, are the folks that are on now subject to
       reappointment?
                 MS. LENT:  They can be reappointed.
                 MR. MATLOCK:  Yeah, so the ones that Rebecca
       listed are not necessarily off; it's that their term
       ends.  To be on, to stay on, they would have to be
       renominated.  
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Yes, Russ.  Russ Dunn.
                 MR. DUNN:  Can you just run over that list one
       more time?  And you said it was done alphabetically?
                 MS. LENT:  Yes.
                 MR. DUNN:  How do you get Beideman and Wilmot
       in the same alphabetical list?
                 MS. LENT:  We numbered them one through -- so
       it's odd and even.  It's odd and even.  Sorry.  
                 MR. DUNN:  Okay.
                 MS. LENT:  We do them alphabetically and then
       we do odd and even.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Okay.  So everybody needs to
       keep their eyes on that and make sure that you get your
       nominations in or whoever else.  And it's an open
       nomination process, correct?  Anybody can nominate
       anybody.  My mother-in-law can nominate my father-in-
       law, right?
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  An individual could even do a
       self-nomination.  Volunteer, it's called.
                 Thank you.  Any other issues to come before
       the AP this afternoon?  Mr. Claverie.
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  Yeah.  Rebecca, there are two
       seeming hot spots in the regulations that I wanted to -
       - well, the people who wanted to talk about it have
       left but, for your information in case you want to talk
       about it now or put it on the next thing.
                 Number one is the three yellowfin tuna that
       there's been a lot of dissatisfaction with that, not
       because it's three but because that's the beginning and
       it's got to go down.  And so there is still a desire
       that it start higher so that after you go through ICCAT
       on doing something about yellowfins that you'll get
       down to that low.
                 The other thing is the U.S. regulations
       affecting U.S. citizens when they are somewhere else in
       the Atlantic fishing on a foreign flag vessels seems to
       be a problem that is getting people's attention and
       complaint.
                 Now, I really don't know.  I know that U.S.
       flagged vessels landings from anywhere in the Atlantic
       count against the U.S. quota or whatever it may be, but
       I don't think -- I don't know if ICCAT or our Magnuson-
       Stevens Act or what requires that regulations that are
       binding on U.S. vessels or on U.S. citizens within our
       own EEZ must also be binding on U.S. citizens when
       they're fishing on foreign flags in other nations.  I
       don't know if that has to be or it's just a decision
       you all made.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Miriam McCall.  Miriam,
       microphone.
                 MS. McCALL:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Yes, you have to speak into a
       microphone.
                 MS. McCALL:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  No, but the tape won't get it.
                 MS. McCALL:  I don't have my statutory sites
       in front of me but I think if you look at the
       definition of the Atlantic Tunas Act at the definition
       of person and also at the prohibitions section in the
       Atlantic Tunas Convention Act, it makes it clear that
       the prohibitions apply to a person.  
                 And then you look at the definition of person
       and it refers to persons subject to the jurisdiction of
       the United States which, of course, one's citizenship
       makes one subject to the jurisdiction of the United
       States.
                 So, now I might be misremembering.  Likely I
       am, but I suggest you start there. 
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  Well, it just seems to me that
       that sounds like another arena where a little
       government edicting can cure the problem.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  The issue before us right now
       is other agenda items that we want to see for the next
       meeting of the AP.  Ellen, did you have something to
       offer there?
                 MS. PEEL:  I had another perspective from what
       Mau raised.  I mean, if the goal of this panel
       domestically and internationally at ICCAT is to
       recovery, let's say billfish in this situation because
       they are severely overfished, the mortality needs to be
       reduced not only in the United States but outside by
       citizens of other countries and outside by the U.S.
       citizens, anglers, who can afford to go to other
       countries.
                 So I had not heard any backlash but that
       conservation applies beyond on both recreational boats
       and the commercial boats.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  The issue here is for an agenda
       item for next time.  Rusty Hudson, did you have
       something to offer for that?
                 MR. HUDSON:  Well, in order to be prepared
       myself for that agenda I need to have a question
       answered on the limited access.  When is it considered
       officially established?  What date?
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  July 1st.
                 MR. HUDSON:  Okay.  This year.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Correct.
                 MR. HUDSON:  Okay.  So, technically, even
       though all the boats aren't qualified we don't have an
       absolute number in the universe, we are technically
       July 1st it will be because your appeals go through
       September. 
                 MS. LENT:  There is going to be applications
       and then appeals.
                 MR. HUDSON:  So, really, September is when we
       get a final number on those participants, right?  Okay.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Go ahead, Ellen Peel.
                 MS. PEEL:  A question of clarification.  A
       couple years ago, maybe it was three even, but at some
       point in the past when we were talking limited access
       in the longline fishery we had a control date which is
       several years past.  I thought that that was the date
       that -- at which we started counting vessels that were
       in the fishery.  
                 What was that '96 control date that we used --
       in the early discussions on limited access, what was
       that?
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MS. PEEL:  No, no, no.  I'm sorry, you're as
       narrow focused as I am on another species.  But, I
       mean, there was a control date I know that we discussed
       earlier in the limited access discussions when we were
       talking about only that, a much earlier control date. 
       I thought it was in '96.  I'm sure Nelson would know if
       he were here.
                 MS. LENT:  But there is a control date for
       swordfish and there is a control date for sharks, and
       then we also had dates over which you would have
       landings history and dates over which you would have
       permit history to qualify.
                 MS. PEEL:  But the dates for the limited
       access are all '99, right?
                 MS. LENT:  Limited access begins July 1, 1999 
       Everybody has got their packets of information. 
                 MS. PEEL:  Right.  But so anyone can still
       enter the fishery up until those '99 control dates,
       correct?  
                 MS. LENT:  If they entered the fishery today
       they would lose their permit.  Oh, no, actually, they
       couldn't enter today.  We wouldn't issue the permit.
                 MS. PEEL:  Okay, so then -- 
                 MS. LENT:  If they came in in January '99 they
       would -- 
                 MS. PEEL:  Okay, that's fine.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Bob Zales.
                 MR. ZALES:  Yeah, I just want to agree with
       Mau on the yellowfin thing because there is a lot of
       concern in the Gulf of Mexico not so much with the bag
       limit itself but just the potential regulatory
       atmosphere on yellowfins primarily because it's our
       understanding that up until today, I suspect, that the
       recreational yellowfin fishery technically doesn't
       exist with data.  
                 There is no data to say what's been caught and
       what hasn't been caught, and now that they've
       established a three fish bag limit I suspect at some
       point there will be this tremendous entry of
       recreational we caught yellowfin tuna fish out in the
       Gulf of Mexico because a large fleet survey doesn't
       survey the Gulf of Mexico and that's where that
       information comes from.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Well, the request to look into
       this at our next meeting is there and staff will take
       care of that.
                 Other suggestions for future agenda items for
       the AP?  
                 (No response.)
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Other issues that anybody wants
       to bring up before the AP under other business?  
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  This group, I am certain, is
       going to have another meeting.  
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Yeah, I think, you know, the
       only issue is when and, I don't know, my understanding
       is I would guess that Rebecca would want you to come
       back together before they made a final decision on
       time/area closures for sure.  
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Well, under their current
       planning target that would be. 
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MS. LENT:  -- can't commit to that meeting. 
       Ideally, we would like to have another AP meeting
       before we go final but a lot of this depends on
       schedules and one of the reasons too why we had this
       meeting today was it's just jam-jam packed --
       commissions, councils, commission, council.  
                 This is the one place we could wedge in a day
       and a half meeting and we overlapped with the Mid-
       Atlantic as it is.  So that's part of the question and
       also just the logistics of getting everybody together.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MS. LENT:  If it's time area, probably.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Rusty.
                 MR. HUDSON:  Rusty Hudson, directed shark.  On
       the shark evaluation workshops that are going to be
       coming up on small coastals, pelagics and/or large
       coastals eventually, is that in the domain of the AP to
       sort of try to help that along or is that totally up to
       you all to do?
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Gary Matlock.
                 MR. MATLOCK:  Rusty, that's actually scheduled
       and set up by the center.  We tell them what the needs
       are that we have.  If we have, for example, a need in a
       year in a particular group we try to influence what
       they do and when they do it, but that's really under
       their purview.  The AP can make recommendations or
       comments about anything you want, obviously, so if you
       wanted to address something to the center you could do
       that and we would relay it to them.
                 MR. HUDSON:  Basically, I had understood that
       there was an effort underway to try to get both pelagic
       and small coastal done in a rapid fashion as far as,
       you know, a reassessment since one hasn't been done
       since '92.  
                 And I'm not sure when the large coastal will
       be next.  I do think you have a three-year space now
       that you've sort of looked at, so I'm just kind of
       wondering if we can help them along by, as you're
       saying -- 
                 MR. MATLOCK:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Thank you.  Well, thank you
       everybody.  Now, who gets the last word -- Claverie or
       Matlock?  
                 A PARTICIPANT:  I do.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Okay, Mau.  Go ahead.
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  What is now on the website
       relative to regulations and plans?
                 MS. LENT:  Both the plan and the amendment are
       up.  The final rule -- is it upon the web yet?
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  There is a link to GPO access
       on the website to the final rule.
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  I've got that, but one thing I
       haven't been able to find is the Billfish Amendment,
       the final.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  Where is it on?
                 A PARTICIPANT:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  It wasn't on the same time as
       the FMP (inaudible).  The Billfish Amendment is now.
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  Well, is it in the same site?
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Same site.
                 MR. CLAVERIE:  I haven't been able to find it. 
       Summary, yes, but not the document. 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Okay.  Gary Matlock.
                 MR. MATLOCK:  I just wanted to convey the
       thanks to those of you who have stayed through the
       duration of this meeting, and given those who have left
       before the end of the meeting we're going to have to do
       something to the scheduling so that that does not
       continue to occur because some of the issues that Ray,
       for example, raised we have an hour before we end
       almost and he could raise them if he were here.  We're
       scheduled to go until 4 o'clock and so we can't get
       them raised.  
                 So we're going to have to deal somehow or
       another with the scheduling of the meetings so that
       people know that they need to stay.  For example, I've
       changed my own personal schedule to be here until 4
       o'clock, as have some of the staff.  We're here.  So
       we've got to fix this problem somehow, guys.
                 A PARTICIPANT:  Gary, I would suggest that you
       start a meeting early in the morning on the first day
       and you end it by noon, particularly if it's a Friday,
       so that way people have got the time to stay till it's
       scheduled, and then you get flights home.  
                 So I would suggest you go ahead and load it
       up. Instead of starting at 1:00, start at 9:00 in the
       morning and let people come in the night before.  It's
       easier to do that than it is to not go home on a Friday
       night.
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Bob Zales.
                 MR. ZALES:  (Inaudible.) 
                 MR. DUNNIGAN:  Thank you.  Thank you,
       everybody.  See you next time.  We are done.  Thank
       you.  
                 (Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned.)
                          * * * * *