ATLANTIC STRIPED BASS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, 

WILDLIFE AND OCEANS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

H.R. 2655 

A BILL TO AMEND THE ATLANTIC STRIPED BASS 

CONSERVATION ACT TO AUTHORIZE THE MID-ATLANTIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL TO PREPARE A FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR ATLANTIC STRIPED BASS UNDER THE MAGNUSON FISHERY 

CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT 

22- 102cc" 

DECEMBER 12, 1995-WASHINGTON, DC 

Serial No. 104-48 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1996 

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office 

Superintendent of Documents. Congressional Sales Office. Washington. DC 20402 

ISBN 0-16-052234-X 
COMMITTEE OI\ RESOURCES 

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman 

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana 

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah 

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

KEN CALVERT, California 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts 

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona 

FRANK A. CREMEANS, Ohio 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

WES COOLEY, Oregon 

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho 

LINDA SMITH, Washington 

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas 

RICHARD (DOC) HASTINGS, Washington 

JACK METCALF, Washington 

JAMES B. LONGLEY, JR., Maine 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE MILLER, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota 

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, Califomil! 

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 

Rico 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

HOBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

SAM FARR, California 

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island 

DANIEL VAL KISH. Chief of Staff 

DAVID DYE, Chief Counsel 

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chi'-'( Clerk/Administrator 

JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS 

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana 

WAYNE T. GILCREST, Maryland 

PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts 

LINDA SMITH, Washington 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

JACK METCALF, Washington 

JAMES B. LONGLEY, JR., Maine 

GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts 

GEORGE MILLER, California 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

SAM F ARR, California 

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island 

HARRY BURROUGHS, Staff Director 

JOHN RAYFIELD, Professional Staff 

LIZ BIRNBAUM, Democratic Counsel 

(II) 
CONTENTS 

Hearing held December 12, 1995 .......................................................................... . 

Text of H.R. 2655 .................................................................................................... . 

Statement of Members: Pallone, Hon. Frank, Jr., a U.S. Representative from New Jersey .. .. ......... . Saxton, Hon. Jim, a U.S. Representative from New Jersey, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans .......................... .. . Studds, Hon. Gerry, a U.S. Representative from Massachusetts ........ ........ . Young, Hon. Don, a U.S. Representative from Alaska, and Chairman, 

Committee on Resources .... .... ... ...... ............... .... .. ... .. .. .. .... ........................ .. . 

Statement of Witnesses: 

American Sportfishing Association and National Marine Manufacturers 

D!~r~r~~t}~~~~e~~~~~t~~~t~:~Vo~;. ·N-·~~ ... .i~~~~:y· A1ii~;;~~-. ~·. s~ ~~ . Fi~h~ eries ......... ....... .. ................... ....... ........ ...................... .. ....... ... .............. ...... .... . . Dunniga~, ~ohn H., Executive Director, Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 

Comrmss10n .................................................................................................. . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Fote, Tom, Jersey Coast Anglers Association .............................................. .. Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Healey, Robert T., President, New Jersey Boat Builders Association ....... .. Prepared statement .............. ... ....... .. ........ ................................................ . Lovgren, James, commercial fisherman, Pt. Pleasant, New Jersey ........... .. Prepared statement ........... .... .. ......... .. .. ....... .......... ..... .. .. .. .. ...... ........ ....... .. Peele, Robert, Deputy Director, North Carolina Fisheries Association ...... . Prepared statement ............... .... ........ ..... ................... .. ..... .. .. .. .. ......... ...... .. Peterson, John A., Jr., Mayor, Seaside Park, New Jersey .. .... .................. .. .. Prepared statement ........... .......... ........... ...... ....... .... .. ....... ........................ . Seafarers International Union of North America (prepared statement) ... .. Schaefer, Richard, Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management, National Marine Fisheries Services ......... ............................. .... .. .... . Prepared statement .............. ... .. ........... ............................ ...... ... .. ............. . Weddig, Lee, Executive Vice President, National Fisheries Institute (prepared statement) .......................................................................................... . Wright, Bill, Government Relations Representative, National Fisheries 

Institute ........................................................... ............................................. . 

Additional material supplied: New Jersey Alliance To Save Fisheries: Position paper on the proposed 

opening of the Exclusive Economic Zone to striped bass harvest ... ......... . Newspaper articles on striped bass ............ .................... .. ............................ .. North Carolina Marine Patrol ................... .. ............. .......... ................. ........... . Pallone, Hon. Frank, Jr.: News release, November 21, 1995-Pallone 

Praises Saxton Striped Bass Legislation .. .. ............................ ................... . Torkildsen, Hon. Peter G: Questions submitted to witnesses ......................... .... .. ........................... .. Responses to questions from: Donofrio, James, New Jersey Alliance To Save Fisheries ...... ...... .. Dunnigan, John H., Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission ........................ ......................................................................... .. Fote, Tom, New Jersey Anglers Association .................................. .. Healey, Robert T., New Jersey Boat Builders Assn ...................... .. Lovgren, James, Fishermen's Dock Co-Operative, Inc ....... .......... .. . Peele, Robert, North Carolina Fisheries Association, Inc ..... ........ .. Peterson, Mayor John A. , Jr., Seaside Park, NJ ..... ............. ......... .. 

(Ill) 

Page 

1 

45 

3 

1 

2 

3 

101 

12 

32 

86 

15 

74 

11 

72 

16 

78 

34 

92 

9 

57 

99 

4 

49 

96 

36 

128 

133 

130 

126 

106 

116 

122 

113 

120 

107 

118 

110 
IV 

Additional material supplied-Continued 

Torkildsen, Hon. Peter G--Continued 

Responses to questions from-Continued 

Wright, Bill, National Fisheries Institute, Inc. 

Page 

124 
ATLANTIC STRIPED BASS 

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 1995 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS, COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Jim Saxton (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM SAXTON, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM NEW JERSEY, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS 

Mr. SAXTON. If I could have everyone's attention please, we are 

going to begin the hearing. As some of you may be aware, at 11 

o'clock, the Prime Minister of Israel, Shimon Peres, will address a 

joint session of Congress. And in order for us to be there in a timely manner, we are going to have to recess at about 10:40. We will 

be back here within a few minutes after the Prime Minister concludes his speech. So we apologize for that. 

We didn't anticipate that that was going to happen when we 

scheduled this for 10 o'clock, but it is one of the things that happens around here from time to time; that is, things happen in an 

unanticipated fashion. 

In any event, we will begin the hearing, and let me just say the 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans will meet today to 

discuss H.R. 2655, the Atlantic Striped Bass Preservation Act of 

1995, a bill I introduced which will extend for at least five years 

the current moratorium on fishing for Atlantic Coast striped bass 

in Federal waters off New Jersey and other Atlantic Coast states. 

And I might add that this is a moratorium not just for commercial 

fishing in the EEZ, but for sportsfishing as well. 

After meeting with the New Jersey Alliance to Save Fisheries, I 

am convinced that we need more information before the National 

Marine Fisheries Service lifts the moratorium on striped bass fishing in Federal waters off the coast. Recreational fishermen up and 

down the Atlantic Coast, as well as other fishermen , have put up 

with very strict limits on striped bass fishing over the last 10 

years. 

These severe restrictions would not have been necessary if reasonable but effective limits had been set in the 1970's. Before easing current restrictions, we must be sure that we do not again let 

overfishing decimate the striped bass population. 

(1) 
2 

NMFS, the National Marine Fisheries Service, has proposed lifting the moratorium on fishing for striped bass in Federal waters 

off the Atlantic Coast. This bill requires NMFS to continue the current moratorium on fishing for striped bass in Federal waters for 

at least five years. After that, the moratorium could be lifted if a fishery management plan is prepared in compliance with the requirements of the 

Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The current 

NMFS proposal raises concerns be•:ause it may open the door to 

overfishing. It may short-circuit the fishery management plan process, thereby drastically limiting the scrutiny which a proposal on these types 

of important matters merit. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, and I would at this point re(;ognize Mr. Studds, the ranking 

member, for any comments he may have. 

[H.R. 2655 may be found at end of hearing.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. GERRY STUDDS, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. STUDDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief, and 

I apologize in advance for not being able to stay at some length. 

As you know, this is a subject of some historical and personal and 

emotional interest to me and the region that I represent. 

Your calling this to my attention made me wonder about two 

things that I wasn't aware of: first of all that we had a problem. I thought if there was anywhere that we didn't have a problem 

these days, it was in the striped bass resource, and I don't feel the 

need to go around looking for additional problems. I don't know 

about you, but I have a surplus of them at the moment to concern 

myself about. 

And, secondly, I thought these critters had at least one streak of 

Republicanism in them. That was an antiFederal streak. I thought 

they confined themselves to state waters for the most part. I realize that occasionally everybody makes a mistake and crosses a 

boundary, but certainly not knowir.gly on the part of these creatures. And it is my understanding that a very small percentage of 

the catch has ever been outside of state waters. These are 

coastbound creatures for the most part. 

So I didn't know [A] we had a problem and [B] that we could 

have a problem with these guys because I thought they were smart 

enough to stay out of our waters. It seems to me that the first 

question we need to address is the first one I raised, that is there 

a problem that needs our attention here because our attention is 

divided in umpteen different directions at the moment. 

And, secondly, if there is a problem with the proposal of the Feds 

to lift the moratorium, is it really a threat to the conservation of 

the stocks here? And if there is, where is the proper response? I 

myself, of course, am shocked, shoc:ked that anyone in this Congress, of all Congresses, would suggest that anyone other than the 

states are the repository of all wisdom in these matters. They seem 

to be in all others, and that if there is a problem, it probably 

should be addressed in the very careJully crafted and balanced way 

in which we have addressed this problem for the past decade. 
3 

So I am, as I have indicated to you personally, somewhat skeptical that we need to take action such as this, but I certainly am 

open to learning new things. And I would ask witnesses-at least 

for those of us who will read your testimony but may not be able 

to personally hear it-to address the question of whether or not the 

proposed action by the Department of Commerce poses a threat to 

the conservation plans and the restoration plans of the stocks. 

And if you think that it does, whether this kind of a Federal action is the appropriate one given the traditional balancing of state 

and Federal responsibilities and the very successful management of 

these stocks to date. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SAXTON. I thank the gentleman for his comments, and let me 

just ask if there are other members who may wish to have an opening statement? OK. Thank you very much. I ask unanimous consent that all subcommittee members be permitted to include their 

opening statements in the record, and I hear no objection. 

[Statements of Mr. Young and Mr. Pallone follow:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. DON YOUNG, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM ALASKA, AND 

CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

Mr. Chairman, I compliment the Subcommittee Chairman for holding this hearing 

today and for introducing H.R. 2655, a bill dealing with striped bass fishing in the 

Exclusive Economic Zone. Atlantic Coast fishermen saw striped bass virtually disappear in the early 1980's, 

and for a decade they have been saddled with severe restrictions on the harvest of 

this valuable species. Those restrictions appear to have paid off, and the fish have 

staged a dramatic recovery in the past two years. 

Nonetheless, I share Chairman Saxton's concerns that it would be a terrible mistake if we were to undermine these successful conservation efforts by allowing 

overfishing to again threaten this species. Therefore, I believe it is appropriate to 

closely review the proposed plan of the National Marine Fisheries Service and to 

determine if these ideas assist or hurt our long-term goal of properly managing Atlantic Coast striped bass stocks. 

I look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses on this important issue. 

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW 

JERSEY 

I am pleased, Mr. Chairman, that you've convened this hearing on striped bass 

management and NMFS proposal to lift the moratorium on harvesting striped bass 

in the Exclusive Economic Zone. 

This is an issue that you and I have been working on since I first came to Congress. In fact, you have and continue to be an original co-sponsor of legislation I've 

introduced in the last four Congresses to prohibit the commercial harvest of striped 

bass both in coastal waters and in the Exclusive Economic Zone. I also want to point 

out that this legislation, H.R. 393, is co-sponsored by my distinguished colleagues of the Subcommittee, Mr. Longley and Mr. Gejdenson. 

I appreciate your support, and I am pleased to support you by joining you in sponsoring H.R. 2655, The Atlantic Striped Bass Preservation Act of 1995. This is important legislation that authorizes a five year extension of the current moratorium on the harvest of striped bass within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. Mr. Chairman, as you and many of our panelists know, I have been a fierce opponent of attempts to reopen Federal and State waters to commercial fishing for 

striped bass. In addition to introducing H.R. 393, I have provided testimony to Federal officials on several occasions opposing the reopening of the EEZ to striped bass 

fishing. 

While many are optimistic about the recovery of the Atlantic striped bass stockand I count myself among them-! remain extremely cautious about any rush to re- open the Federal fishery. As my colleagues know, Atlantic striped bass stocks began 

declining in the 1870s. Commercial harvests of striped bass declined precipitously 

in the period between 1973 to 1983 from 15 million pounds to 3.5 million pounds. 
4 

Yet, despite this history, earlier this year, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 

Commission voted to increase the commercial harvest of Atlantic striped bass to a level close to the level that caused the most severe damage to the stock during U·.e 1970s. NMFS followed with a _proposal to reopen the fishery in Federal waters. Mr. Chairman, as you and I both know, this is not the time to turn back the clock 

and repeat the mistakes of the past. The recreational fishing industry, including the charter and party boat industries, 

have been hard hit by the decline in stocks of fish along the East Coast. They have seen a smaller and smaller slice of the pie as many of the stocks they traditionally harvest have been decimated. These traditional stocks include tuna, summer flounder, bluefish and, perhaps most important, striped bass. Recreational fishermen, the charter boat industry, the partY. boat industry, boat 

manufacturers, and the bait and tackle industry contribute rmllions of dollars each 

year to coastal economies. The viability of these industries depends on the health 

of a few key stocks, especially the Atlantic striped bass. States realize the importance of striped bass to these industries. In fact, many 

states have already passed gamefish laws. These states include New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvarua, New Hampshire, Maine, South Carolina, and Georgia on the 

East Coast, Oregon and California on the West Coast, and Florida and Alabama on the Gulf Coast. We need to compliment these conservation measures by keeping the 

current law. What we don't need is to make it harder for states to enforce gamefish laws by reopening the Federal fishery 3 miles off their coasts. 

It's 1mportant to J?Oint out, too, that consumers of striped bass would be unaffected if the moratonum were lifted. There is currently a large segment of the aqua- culture industry raising hybrid striped bass. 'rhese captively raised fish could meet 

the consumer's need for striped bass in the market place. If anything, the aqua- culture industry might suffer as a result of a lifting of the moratorium. 

Mr. Chairman, I continue to believe that if we really want to protect the stocks, 

if we really want to preserve the thousands of jobs associated with the recreational 

fishing industry, we need to pass a game fish bill. 

However, I firmly believe that H.R. 2655 is a good first step in our efforts to protect the striped bass, and I intend to work closely with you to move legislation pro- tecting the striped bass. 

I intended to work with Chairman Saxton and others to see if this makes sense and possibly find a way to accomplish this. 

Mr. SAXTON. Now, I would like to introduce our first witness. 

Panel one, we have a representative of the Administration, Dr. 

Richard Schaefer, Director of the Office of Fisheries Conservation 

and Management of the National Marine Fisheries Service. I would 

like to remind you, Dr. Schaefer, and others that we conduct our 

business under the five-minute rule, and that your oral statements 

will be limited to five minutes to give members plenty of opportunity to ask questions. However, your full statement will be placed 

in the record. Mr. Schaefer, if you would like to begin? 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD SCHAEFER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF 

FISHERIES CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT, NATIONAL 

MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE 

Mr. SCHAEFER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, the National 

Marine Fisheries Service is very appreciative of this opportunity to 

come before the committee to provide its views on H.R. 2655. The 

recovery of the Atlantic Coastal striped bass resource to previously 

high historical levels is one of the true success stories of cooperative fisheries management. 

At the outset, let me say to you and other members of the committee and to the public, Mr. Chairman, that I believe the National 

Marine Fisheries Service has made f:. significant contribution to accomplishing that objective. And, further, let me also assure you 

that now that that objective has be~n attained, the National Marine Fisheries Service would take no action nor propose to take any 

action that would jeopardize or reverse that stock recovery. 
5 

As we are all very much aware, the National Marine Fisheries 

Service proposed rule to remove the current moratorium on both 

recreational and commercial fishing for striped bass fishing in the 

EEZ and replace it with a 28-inch minimum size limit has generated considerable public commentary and stirred much controversy. 

We held nine public hearings and received approximately 1,000 

written comments on the proposed rule. We are currently in the 

process of reviewing and considering those comments and, further, 

are investigating charges of possible jurisdictional "loopholes" in 

the management regime and enforcement inadequacies and things 

of that nature. 

The genesis of our proposed rule goes back to March of this year 

when the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, the planning body responsible for the interstate management of Atlantic 

Coastal striped bass fisheries, found Atlantic Coastal stocks with 

few exceptions to be "fully recovered." 

Based on that finding, we sought the Commission's advice on 

whether or not the Federal moratorium in the EEZ should be retained or removed. The Commission clearly stated its support for 

removal. Therefore, we enter into the rulemaking process. 

The Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act of 1984, as amended, 

has, in my opinion, been the key legislative instrument responsible 

for the recovery of striped bass stocks along the Atlantic Coast 

thanks to Mr. Studds and people like you, Mr. Chairman. 

It not only provides the appropriate planning, institutional, and 

compliance mechanisms necessary for the states to achieve their 

collective conservation and management goals and objectives, but 

it also provides authority for the Secretary of Commerce to promulgate appropriate rules in the EEZ to complement interstate action. 

In so doing, the Secretary is required to consult with the Atlantic 

States Marine Fisheries Commission, the appropriate Regional 

Fishery Management Councils, and each affected Federal, state, 

and local government entity. This we have done, and I might add 

that both the New England Fishery Management Council and the 

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council have indicated no objection to our proposed rule. The Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act also requires the 

Secretary to periodically review EEZ regulations for their continued consistency with state regulations that will ensure their effectiveness, achieve their conservation and management goals, and to 

amend EEZ regulations when necessary and appropriate. 

In lieu of the ASMFC's finding that the Atlantic Coastal striped 

bass stocks are fully recovered, we feel that our proposed rule 

meets these requirements. Nevertheless, recent events have occurred which give us cause to give even more serious consideration 

to our proposed action. 

At its meeting last week, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 

Commission's Striped Bass Management Board speaking on behalf 

of the Commission reversed its earlier position and has now requested the Secretary to withhold any further regulatory change in 

the EEZ until sometime after the current two-year transitional period, which will lead to a maintenance-mode fishery, is comrletedthat is January 1, 1997-and until a thorough evaluation o certain 
6 

jurisdictional and enforcement issues and concerns can be conducted. 

Moreover, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council has requested an additional consultation with us for purposes of reviewing and discussing the public commentary that we have received. 

We are in the process of schedulir,g such a meeting with the MidAtlantic Council and perhaps also with the New England Council. 

No final decision will be made until we have thoroughly reviewed 

and analyzed all of the extensive public comments we have received and many of them detaileci, and until we have thoroughly 

considered all of the updated adv ce and counsel provided by the 

Commission and the councils. 

While the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act provides separate authority for the Secretary to promulgate Federal rules in the 

EEZ, the National Marine Fisheries Service considers itself a full 

and responsible partner with the Commission and with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service in the C·)nservation and management of 

the Atlantic Coastal striped bass re,source. In that regard, it is and always has been our intent and practice 

to work cooperatively, consistently, and in concert with our partners. And I believe that the recorc. confirms that. Therefore, I can 

assure you that we are paying particularly close attention to their 

advice which will weigh heavily in making a final decision on the 

disposition of the proposed rule. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate being here before you, and I will be happy to try to answer 

any questions you and other committee members have. 

[Statement of Mr. Schaefer may he found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, Mr. Schaefer. Let me just explore with 

you for a minute the recent reversal on the part of the Atlantic 

States Marine Fisheries Commissic·n and the information that they 

may have come across more recently that has caused them to request a delay in the implementation of new regulations. Can you review with us that information a;1d what has prompted their reversal of position? 

Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, I have the motion in front of me 

which the Commission adopted last week, and if I may, let me just 

read it, "That the Striped Bass Management Board recommend 

that the National Marine Fisheries Service maintain the moratorium until at least the Board adop·cs the full fishery rate ofF fishing mortality rate which would be equivalent to maintaining maximum sustainable yield. Further, that the Board will develop specific jurisdictional and enforcement recommendations." 

Now, my conclusion from this is that, as I indicated in my comments, we'd asked the Commission early on whether or not it 

thought we should remove the moratorium or retain it. And the 

simple response was remove it. Now, apparently upon further consideration and thought, there are some issues that have come up 

that the Commission feels need fmther inspection, if you will; certain enforcement concerns as stated in the motion; certain jurisdictional concerns, and I assume that would be "loopholes" that are 

perceived by some; and until the full fishery rate of FMSY, which 

would be the maintenance mode i1shery, occurs. So I just think 

that those are the reasons that the Commission has asked us to 

hold off for a while. 
7 

Mr. SAXTON. Does it cause you any concern at all to look at the 

history of the striped bass population and note that during the latter part of the 1950's the population was increasing at a fairly stable rate of increase, and that then during the '60's it declined and, 

of course, during the '80's and the first half of the decade of the 

'90's there has been an increase? 

There appears some evidence that there could be a cyclical process that the population of striped bass may go through and that we 

are today at an increased level of population which may or may not 

be a naturally sustainable level. 

Mr. ScHAEFER. My personal opinion, Mr. Chairman, and I think 

that of the Service is that, frankly, prior to the Atlantic Striped 

Bass Conservation Act there really was no coordinated management, nor were there any forcing mechanisms to make people behave, if you will, in a responsible fashion. That Act, in my opinion, 

as I indicated before, has been the primary reason that we now 

have a well-managed fishery. 

We have restrained fishing mortality. It has been done collectively by the states through the Commission. The plan is effective 

in terms of maintaining a ceiling on that fishing mortality rate. I 

think, frankly, we are experiencing good management which is the 

primary cause for the recovery and maintenance of the current 

stock. Now, I am not saying that it is not possible for the stock to experience further future declines. That is entirely possible for environmental and other reasons. But the fact of the matter is with this 

adaptive management strategy that the Commission has undertaken, it is flexible. 

It can respond to such declines at an early date and increase the 

clamps, if you will-tum the screws down on fishing mortality so 

that we don't have a repeat ofwhat happened in the '50's and '60's 

as you say. I just think we are experiencing very good management. 

Mr. SAXTON. Does it cause you any concern at all that an additional component which would provide pressure to the species 

would be put in place by virtue of a change in regulations to permit 

a new fishing activity, i.e., commercial fishing, in the EEZ? Does 

that cause you any concern at all? 

Mr. SCHAEFER. As I have said in my written testimony, Mr. 

Chairman, the Technical Committee-the Scientific Committee of 

the Commission that looks at striped bass-has told us that any of 

the fishing mortality that occurs in the EEZ is almost immeasurable in terms of its effect on the overall stock. 

And given the controls in place, the state landing laws on both 

commercial and recreational fishermen, our feeling at the outset of 

going forward with this proposed rule was that this would add no 

additional fishing mortality whatsoever to the harvest. And we felt 

that that was a responsible action at the time. 

Mr. SAXTON. Let me just ask one final question which is more 

parochial. I understand that there has been significant progress in 

Delaware Bay with regard to restoration of the stock; however, that 

the restoration process in Delaware Bay has not grown or progressed to the point where we would call it recovered. Is that correct? And can you comment on that issue generally? 
8 

Mr. SCHAEFER. Well, we agree, and the Commission obviously 

agrees, that the Delaware stock is not fully recovered. That is correct. But in terms of looking at the tagging data that we have access to, of a total of over 7,000 striped bass tagged in the Delaware 

River and in the estuary, only two returns have come from the EEZ 

off of Virginia and North Carolina. 

I didn't calculate the percentage here, but it must be like a hundredth of a percent or something of that nature-infinitesimally 

small. Our view is that given data like that, and there may be 

other data, we don't think that out proposal would really impact 

in any way on the recovery of the Delaware River stock. 

Mr. SAXTON. But you do agree ths.t the Delaware River stock has 

not recovered to the point where we would call it recovered? 

Mr. SCHAEFER. I agree. Yes. 

Mr. SAXTON. OK. Thank you. Mr. Studds. 

Mr. STUDDS. Just very quickly if I may. The current moratorium 

in the EEZ was imposed in what year? 

Mr. SCHAEFER. 1990. 

Mr. STUDDS. 1990. In the years immediately prior to that when 

there were some landings, do we have any idea roughly what percentage of total landings were from the zone? 

Mr. SCHAEFER. Yes. On the average, around seven percent. The 

highest that was ever attained that I recall was up around 14 percent. I think that was in the late "70's sometime, and it has been 

as low as one percent or even less than that. So the average has 

been five to seven percent. 

Mr. STUDDS. OK. If you were to go ahead and lift the moratorium, am I not correct that the current state landing laws and limits would still pertain so theoreticaEy there would be no overall increase in the landings? 

Mr. SCHAEFER. That is correct, Mr. Studds. 

Mr. STUDDS. And do you now plan or at least you suggested you 

might-given the request from the Commission that you defer for 

at least another year the lifting, do you plan to do that? 

Mr. SCHAEFER. No. I think we a1:e just going to look at all the 

data we have, all the comments which we have not gotten through 

yet. There are 1,000 of them and some very detailed. We want to 

look at all the commentary. We now have the Commission's position, a reversal of what they agreed with earlier. We want to go 

back and talk with the councils, New England and Mid-Atlantic. 

After we have all that data in front of us and all that input, then 

we will make a decision, Mr. Studds. 

Mr. STUDDS. And which particular fiscal year might that be? 

Mr. SCHAEFER. Hopefully very soon, Mr. Studds. 

Mr. STUDDS. I mean are we talking about weeks or months 

or--

Mr. SCHAEFER. I would think som~)time right after the first of the 

year. That is my judgment. Mr. STUDDS. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. Mr. Jones. We have been joined by the 

gentleman from Maine, Mr. Longley 

Mr. JONES. I will pass, thank you. 
9 

Mr. SAXTON. OK. Mr. Schaefer, thank you very much for being 

with us this morning. We appreciate it, and we look forward to 

working with you on this issue as we progress through the process. Mr. SCHAEFER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. SAXTON. Tbank you, sir. OK. If I may, Mr. Schaefer, the 

record will remain open for 30 days for any other members who 

may have questions which will be submitted in writing. Thank you, 

again. Mr. SCHAEFER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SAXTON. Let me introduce our second panel. First, I would 

like to welcome th-9 Mayor of Seaside Park, New Jersey, John A. 

Peterson, Jr., who is a long-time friend of the striped bass and advocate of our recovery planning. And we also have Mr. Robert T. 

Healey, President of the New Jersey Boat Builders Association; and 

Mr. James Donofrio, Executive Director of the New Jersey Alliance 

to Save Fisheries; Mr. Tom Fote representing the Jersey Coast Anglers Association; and Mr. James Lovgren, a commercial fisherman 

out of Pt. Pleasant, New Jersey. 

I would like to once again just say to the witnesses that we are 

operating under a five-minute rule so when you see the orange 

light come on, if you would begin to conclude your testimony and 

conclude your thoughts when you see the red light come on. I would like to welcome all of you here. This is very informal. 

Once we have concluded your statements, we will undoubtedly 

have some questions to pose to you. I would like to recognize Mayor 

Peterson at this time. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN A. PETERSON, JR., 

MAYOR, SEASIDE PARK, NEW JERSEY 

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you very much, Congressman Saxton. On 

behalf of the members of the Borough of Seaside Park's Town 

Council, our residents, and many tourists from all over not only our 

state but the entire country, and all the businesses in our community, I wish to thank you and the members of your committee for 

allowing me to present testimony today on this issue concerning 

striped bass which is a vital concern to our economy and the tourism industry of all New Jersey, if not the entire East Coast. 

Parenthetically, I must also note my appreciation for all the hard 

work and efforts from your office and other members of your subcommittee on behalf of related issues with regard to the Magnuson 

Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the 

Coastal Zone Management Act. 

Our shore economy, my own community, and the future of New 

Jersey's second largest industry, which is tourism in general, are 

intrinsically related to the preservation of a clean, natural environment with a flourishing stock of marine and other species. 

On the specific issue before the subcommittee today, I wish to 

offer my full support for H.R. 2655 which would extend the fiveyear current moratorium on striped bass fishing in the EEZ and 

which would also require the implementation of a fishery management plan before said moratorium would be lifted. 

As per my testimony already given before the National Marine 

Fisheries Service, I would be in opposition to any plan to reopen 

the EEZ at a time when the species is just beginning to rebound 
10 

from the devastating days when various factors led to a near depletion of this species from the entire East Coast. 

I join with the various recreational fishing groups, particularly in 

New Jersey and from my own area., the constituents and tourists 

who are dismayed over the seeming swiftness of the National Marine Fisheries Service's proposal, as well as the lack of full environmental impact studies for a comprehensive fishery management 

plan for this species. 

As noted previously, the tourism industry itself is the second 

largest industry in the State of New Jersey, as lou are well aware, 

and in further relating the economic impact o tourism to striped 

bass fishing-recreational fishing, I would emphasize that the total 

ripple economic effect of all recreational surf fishing and particularly striped bass fishing boosts sales of fishing equipment, bait, 

clothing, gasoline, vehicles, boats, motel rooms, food, beach fees, 

and other expenditures which have a far greater economic benefit 

to New Jersey's economy than has b<een traditionally recognized. As striped bass fishing occurs primarily during the spring and 

fall seasons, the benefit to the New Jersey shore economy occurs 

at a critical time after summer re,;idents have left the area. As 

such, in my own town of Seaside Park, which is representative of 

other similarly situated communities up and down the Jersey 

shore, the many bait and tackle shops, sporting good stores, small 

restaurants, luncheonettes, real estate rental and sale businesses 

are entirely dependent upon recreational fishing and especially the 

most popular surf fishing for striped bass. 

I would also note that striped bass itself has become over the 

years more than just a fish itself but has become part of the tradition, if not the history, and it represents a cultural and historic recreational tradition that is importam to our citizens and our economy. It would be absolutely premature to place fishing of striped 

bass at this time when the pressu ~e and the fish itself has just 

begun to make a comeback to open up fishing for the species in the 

EEZ. I would relate in closing that I can't help but note that in certain 

political arenas most certainly with respect to the environment in 

general there is public suspicion of government regulations and 

management plans that perhaps has pushed the pendulum of public opinion and government too far. 

In showing most exemplary leadership on various ocean environmental issues, as I noted previously and specifically with regard to 

the striped bass and recreational fishing, I would ask the subcommittee to note that the striped bass has been a regulated species since the first settlement of the New World. As noted by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the 

Massachusetts Bay Colony prohibited the use of striped bass as a 

fertilizer for corn and squash plantings by our earliest settlers, and 

in 1669 Plymouth Colony ordered that revenues from the fishery 

for striped bass be used to construct the first public schoolhouse in 

North America. 

I would ask the subcommittee and the Congress to recognize the 

reasonableness of existing regulations on the striped bass so that 

we may preserve and protect recreational salt water sportsfishing 

for this species and, ironically, future commercial fishing as well 
11 

for generations to come. I thank you and the members of your committee for allowing me the opportunity and the honor to come here 

today to speak before you. 

[Statement of Mr. Peterson may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much, Mayor. As we all know, there 

are certain economic benefits to having a healthy striped bass population. Of course, one of the interests that has a substantial stake 

in this is the boat building industry. The boat building industry is 

represented today by Mr. Robert Healey. Mr. Healey, we would 

look forward to hearing from you at this time. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT T. HEALEY, PRESIDENT, NEW JERSEY 

BOAT BUILDERS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. HEALEY. Thank you, Congressman Saxton and members of 

the committee, for allowing me to appear here today. I and my 

brother Bill have the Viking Yacht Company. We have been building boats on the Jersey shore for the past 35 years, and significantly enough we are located on the Bass River. And I also represent-! am President of the New Jersey Boat Builders which 

comprise 15 builders of large boats in New Jersey and some 5,000 

employees in all. 

I am also the Chairman of the New Jersey Alliance to Save the 

Fisheries, and we represent some 800,000 recreational fishermen 

and some 20,000 people in the marine industry, as well as conservation groups in the State of New Jersey. 

We are in full support of H.R. 2655. Congressman Saxton and 

other members of the committee, I am sure you are aware of the 

history of the luxury tax and the burden it imposed upon the boating industry. We have seen, you know, and since that took place 

and the repeal, we were devastated. Our company alone had 1,500 

people working for us. We went to 60, and after the tax was repealed, we came right back, and we are back to 600 people, and 

we are doing over $50 million. 

And we in the boating industry, not only in New Jersey, but 

around the whole United States, as a result of the luxury tax have 

become more active in measures like the one before this committee 

today. We have a great sensitivity here, and we see the beginnings of 

what took place with the luxury tax. On the luxury tax, it was the 

opinion of Congress at that time that they were going to tax the 

rich. When, in fact, what happened, the rich stopped buying boats, and thousands upon thousands of boat builders throughout the 

United States lost their job. And we were devastated, and we are 

now limping back from that devastation. 

We see the same roots here today in the whole fishery crisis. 

There is, and we must recognize, a crisis not only in the United 

States, around the world because of the overharvesting by the commercial fishing industry of fish. And what is taking place is that 

there just aren't enough fish in the ocean, and that is what is really taking place. And we are devastating our fishing stock, and what 

happened on the striped bass is a typical example. 

And what has happened is the reason it is coming back is because of the moratorium, and what upset us in New Jersey was 

when the National Marine Fisheries came out with a regulation 
12 

and said that they were going to open it again to commercial fishing which would put us right back where we were, as Congressman 

Saxton discussed, some years ago when we almost devastated the 

complete striped bass population. We sit on the Bass River, and there weren't any striped bass in 

the Bass River for a number of years. And I am sure Congressman 

Saxton knows that because he is from the area. And so what I am 

saying to you is that we see right now a decline in boat building 

as a result of the fishery crisis. 

We in our company alone estimate that we have had over the 

past several years a 10 percent drop in fishing boats, and that is 

what we build. We build sportfishing boats for around the world. 

And our boats average $1 million apiece. And like in the luxury tax, people ay, "Oh, well, that is the rich, 

and this is their recreational hobby--fishing." Well, I can tell you 

for every boat we lose because there aren't any fish out there--and 

I can tell you, people don't buy $1 million fish boats if there aren't 

any fish-and for every boat we lose, five people lose their job for 

a year-five people. And we estimate we lost 10 boats last year, 

and that is 50 people. 

Now, take that around the country. Take it around the country 

to all the boat builders. There are thousands of jobs involved here, 

and we are scared to death in the marine industry and in the boat 

building industry we are seeing the beginning of another luxury 

tax with the fish prices. And the National Marine Fisheries Service, they tell us the scientific-people say there will be no imposition 

here by opening the EEZ to commercial fishing. 

Well, I can tell you they haven't had a successful plan at the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the only successful plan they had is striped bass where they had a moratorium. And what we are 

afraid of they are going to open up again after they have-they review their items-they came out and said they were going to open 

it, and we stopped them with 2,000 people in New Jersey at their 

hearings. And we need this legislati.:>n to safeguard because they 

don't have a track record to safeguard it, nor do they have the enforcement to safeguard it. Thank you. 

[Statement of Mr. Healey may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Healey. We are going to 

proceed with one additional witness before we break. Mr. Donofrio, we would like to hear from you at this time. Mr. Donofrio is with 

the New Jersey Alliance to Save Fisheries. Sir, if you wot•.ld proceed. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES DONOFRIO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NEW JERSEY ALLIANCE TO SAVE FISHERIES 

Mr. DONOFRIO. Good morning, Mr. Saxton and distinguished 

members of the committee. Thank yc.u for the opportunity of coming here today on behalf of Mr. Saxton's bill, H.R. 2655, the Atlantic Striped Bass Preservation Act of 1995. 

The striped bass fishery from Maine to North Carolina generates 

$270 million in revenues annually to coastal communities in these 

states. Recreational angler participation in the striped bass fishery 

alone from the aforementioned states is over 466,000 individual anglers. 
13 

These numbers are from a 1991 National Survey of Fishing, 

Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation provided by the U.S. 

Department of Interior and Department of Commerce. We feel 

these numbers are low now because there is an increase in angler 

participation in this recovering fishery. 

As indicated above, the striped bass fishery is one of the most 

economically important species to this very large recreational industry and its many constituents who participate in the sport of 

fishing for striped bass. 

This fishery nearly collapsed in the early '80's, and since that 

time state and Federal agencies have taken steps to conserve the 

resource. A virtual shutdown of both the recreational and commercial harvests of striped bass was initiated with very stringent limits on recreational catches and netting almost entirely banned in 

some areas for a period of time. 

Some of the other factors that were mentioned were also acid 

rain and pollution, and I find this argument not to be true. It is 

remarkable that in such a short time with netting being stopped 

that these fish have come back. And I don't believe that the pesticides that are being used on the farms in the Chesapeake and the 

acid rain problem has been cleared up in five years. So that argument as far as I am concerned doesn't hold any water here. 

But in 1988, a moratorium on striped bass harvests in the Exclusive Economic Zone was put into effect. The National Marine Fisheries Service and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission 

recognized at the time of closure there were conflicting jurisdictional problems and a lack of enforcement. 

None of these jurisdictional and enforcement problems had been 

worked out during the moratorium period. Putting these previous 

problems to rest during the moratorium only places them back in 

our laps and once again could aid in destroying a fishery that is 

recovering from previous problems. 

These jurisdictional and enforcement problems must be solved 

prior to any reopening of the EEZ. It has been debated whether the 

striped bass fishery is fully or partially recovered. This debate is 

not relevant with the absence of an effective fishery plan. 

Fishery managers will have no problem meeting their projected 

quotas on paper, and all fishery managers agree that an effective 

fishery management plan has to have sound enforcement as one of 

the key components. And this component is definitely lacking specifically in North Carolina. Therefore, any accounting of the harvests will always be a counterfeit number, and I ask if NMFS and 

the ASMFC are going to take full responsibility if this fishery collapses once again. 

North Carolina has over 4,000 miles of ocean and estuarine 

shoreline. There were 21,941 commercial fin fish licenses sold in 

1994. Routine patrols include waters, fish houses, wholesale-retail 

establishments. In addition, operations are conducted throughout 

the state to guard against the sale of illegal seafood products. 

Colonel James F. Swain heads the North Carolina Marine Patrol. 

Included with this written testimony are the log sheets of the 

North Carolina Marine Patrol officers. From this information, one 

can clearly determine that there is enormous lack of enforcement. 

NMFS has two full time fishery enforcement agents in North Caro-
lina. These agents are located in opposite ends of the coast, as indicated by the attached infonnation that was sent to our office by 

NMFS. Why the big emphasis in North Carolina? Migrating striped bass, 

specifically larger, sexually-mature females, winter over in North 

Carolina waters that are part of the EEZ. This breeding stock, 

which affects the entire Northeast striped bass population, is at 

risk and very vulnerable. An improperly implemented fishery plan 

or any fishery plan that has key components missing should never 

be orchestrated. 

Considering the aforementioned infonnation provided, we ask 

that the committee proceed wholet.eartedly with Congressman 

Saxton's bill, H.R. 2655. This bill will clearly allow the agency, the 

ASMFC, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Council, and the states to develop an effective fishery plan. While this plan is being developed, 

the moratorium on harvest will be extended for five years. And 

during this time, only positive circumstances should develop regarding this most valuable fishery resource. 

And I want to make some additional comments, that I do disagree with Mr. Schaefer, and I don't really believe this is a management success story as much as implementing strict restrictions 

and tight restrictions on the netting of the bass in the commercial 

harvests. And I think that is the r1~al success story there. 

And management, as I saw it at the meeting on December 7 in 

Braintree, Massachusetts, is cleal'ly confused. If the ASMFC, the 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, recommends in 

March to reopen this fishery to NMFS, now on December 7 after 

hearing and listening to many testimonies by people specifically in 

New Jersey and other states where NMFS held hearings, they have 

decided unanimously to go against the reopening. So this tells me 

that management is confused, and Mr. Saxton is right on the 

money here when he says it is going to take five years to straighten this mess out. Thank you. Mr. SAXTON. Well, thank you very much; I appreciate your very 

straightforward and articulate te:>timony. As I mentioned at the 

outset of the hearing, we are going out of necessity to take a break 

now to hear the Prime Minister's address to the House and the 

Senate. And I would guess that we will be able to reconvene at 

about quarter of 12, so if you would all be available then, we will 

assume our present positions and proceed at that time. Thank you. [Recess.] 

Mr. SAXTON. If we may, we are going to reconvene. We are expecting several more members. However, they are hopefully on 

their way. But we will take up where we broke and ask Mr. Fate 

if he would be kind enough to share his thoughts with us at this 

time. And, once again, may I remind everyone that there is a loosely controlled five minute time limit, and please be prepared to conclude your thoughts when you see the red light go on. And if you 

pull the microphone relatively close to you, it will make it easier 

for all of us to hear. Go ahead, Mr. Fate. 
15 

STATEMENT OF TOM FOTE, JERSEY COAST ANGLERS 

ASSOCIATION 

Mr. FOTE. Yes. They wanted me to move the microphone back before, because I was talking too loud. Thank you, Chairman James 

Saxton, for introducing H.R. 2655. This bill is important for all the 

states throughout the migratory range of striped bass. I would also 

like to thank Congressman Frank Pallone and Congressman 

Longley for co-sponsoring the bill. 

My name is Tom Fote. I am one of the three Commissioners representing New Jersey on the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. I am also Legislative Chairman of Jersey Coast Anglers 

Association which represents 80 fishing clubs in New Jersey and 

surrounding states. I am testifying wearing both hats because both 

New Jersey's delegation to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 

Commission and the membership of JCAA are in total agreement 

to opposing the reopening of the EEZ. 

ASMFC member states proved they could work together to rebuild the depleted striped bass stocks under the cooperative process 

established by the Striped Bass Conservation Act. They developed 

and instituted regulations that could monitor and enforce within 

state waters. Enforcement in state waters has been strong and sustained · with many violations written, in stark contrast t0 the total 

lack of enforcement in the waters of the EEZ. 

There has been a moratorium on the harvest of striped bass in 

the EEZ for more than five years. And during that period, the National Marine Fisheries Service has only written one summons for 

illegal possession of striped bass in Federal waters. I have not 

heard of a single instance of a boat being checked in the EEZ off 

New Jersey for the possession of striped bass. Yet, we know striped 

bass fishing occurs in the EEZ every year. 

Striped bass has always been an inshore fishery with the overwhelming majority of the catch, both commercial and recreational, 

coming from within state waters. Historically, the harvest was 90 

percent recreational and 10 percent commercial outside of the 

Chesapeake Bay. 

The traditional recreational fishery was accomplished from the 

beach or in estuarine waters where the average user was a blue 

collar or low income family member who could participate in the 

fishery with small expenditure and money and manage to put a 

high protein food source on the table as a result of their fishing efforts. The commercial fishery was comprised of small, independent 

watermen working with small boats and using hook and line, gill 

nets, and pound nets. This was never a big boat offshore fishery. 

By reopening the EEZ, the pressure to expand the recovering 

striped bass fishery into the offshore waters using nontraditional 

gear will be extreme, with an even greater bycatch problem as a 

result. 

Keep in mind that the least damaging methods of commercially 

harvesting striped bass are hook and line, tended gill nets, and 

pound nets. Once the fishery is open offshore, other gear types that 

generate large volumes of bycatch and discards will move into the 

fishery. This will open the door to vastly increased nonharvest mor-
15 

tality and will have an extremely negative impact on the spawning 

stock biomass and on the traditional user groups. 

After the protection of a public resource, marine fisheries, there 

is an addei duty of being sure the public is not consuming fish that 

are contaminated with dangerous pollutants. It is our responsibility 

as managers to remember that all striped bass are not considered 

safe to eat in large quantities, a.nd fish from certain waters are 

considered unsafe to consume at all. We must not back away from 

the unpleasant task of making this an important part of the marine management plan. 

The recreational anglers consur.1e the greatest volume of striped 

bass and should be given the greatest opportunity to retain fish 

that are safe to eat. The management plan for striped bass forces 

anglers to only harvest larger fish, the very fish that can be carrying the highest volume of dangerous pollutants. 

One of the goals in this recovery has to be in reduced recreational size limits as the fishery recovers so anglers can at least 

eat the least contaminated striped bass. Areas with the highest levels of common contamination are presently closed completely to the 

commercial harvest of striped basE. or regulated by fish size. 

If the EEZ is reopened, there is no control to guarantee that contaminated fish who migrate through the EEZ are not going to be 

consumed. Remell'.ber that pregnant women and young children 

are not advised to consume any amount of striped bass whatsoever 

from specific waters. 

The Federal Government must mount a comprehensive study of 

PCB contamination in Federal w&.ters just as the Federal Government requires the states to ensure public safety. The Federal Government cannot exempt itself from the very regulations imposed on 

the states from protecting the public's resource. 

In conclusion, as has been said many times by many people, "If 

it ain't broke, don't fix it." At prE1sent, there is no problem filling 

any state's allowable quota of striped bass from within state waters. There is absolutely no justified reason to reopen the EEZ to 

striped bass harvest with the resulting problems to the fishery and 

with the public health risk it will generate. 

H.R. 2655 in its five-year extension of the moratorium in Federal 

waters will provide the time necessary to explore the problems and 

find suitable solutions. Thank you for allowing me to testify before 

this committee. I always enjoy coming back. 

[Statement of Mr. Fote may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Fote. We are now going 

to hear from Jim Lovgren who is a commercial fisherman from the 

Pt. Pleasant area of New Jersey, of course. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES LOVGREN, COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN, 

PT. PLEASANT, NEW JERSEY 

Mr. LoVGREN. Right. Thank you, Mr. Saxton, and thank you for 

having me here today. Coming from New Jersey and attending all 

three National Marine Fisheries Service public hearings concerning 

the EEZ reopening, I can tell you New Jersey's recreational industry is up in arms. I can also tell you that 75 percent of those sports 

who testified didn't have a clue about what the proposed National 

Marine Fisheries Service regulations actually meant. 
17 

The first Toms River hearing that was canceled due to inadequate preparation was a scene out of the deep South in the 1920's. 

All that was missing was the white hoods, and before you knew it, 

commercial fishermen would have been hanging dead from the end 

of fishing poles. If this country is going to go back to mob rule, then 

apparently striped bass is where we will start. 

A New Jersey Department of Agriculture study released this 

year on the commercial and recreational industry's effect on the 

state's economy reached these conclusions using 1993 figures: value 

of commercial fish landings, $100 million; economic value added results in a total of $600 million generated by the commercial industry and its support industries; economic value added to the recreational industry is $762 million. These numbers prove that even 

though more people participate in the recreational industry, they 

are equally important financially. 

Employment figures show 9,100 people directly employed by the 

commercial industry full time and 21,840 by adding its support industries. 9,700 full-time employees depend on the recreational industry for their jobs. That means that more than twice as many 

people rely on the commercial industry for full-time employment 

than they do on the recreational industry. I think these official 

New Jersey statistics prove the always overlooked aspect of the 

true value of commercial fisheries to New Jersey. 

I have been asked why are New Jersey commercial fishermen so 

interested in striped bass. Mter all, it has been declared a game 

fish. It is illegal to sell them in the state. The answer is twofold. 

First is regulatory discards; the throwing away of dead legal size 

fish in the name of conservation. 

The second is because this past summer the recreational industry declared war on the commercial industry. They initiated a highly publicized net ban campaign and decided New Jersey would be 

targeted as the first state. They have since declared striped bass 

as the first battle. 

No one in the commercial industry wants a war with anybody. 

We want to be able to continue to supply the public with a nutritious food product relying on properly managed and sustainable 

fisheries and a clean environment. Now, I am not a big fan of fisheries management, but there is certainly enough of it around to 

reach some reasonable conclusions. 

Each coastal state has their own fisheries scientists and management system. The ASMFC is a Federal Commission that attempts 

to regulate coastal migratory species within three miles of the U.S. 

coast. The National Marine Fisheries Service manages all fisheries 

in Federal waters from three miles out to 200. A lot of public 

money is spent paying these scientists and managers to manage 

fisheries. They are doing their jobs. They say, and the commercial 

industry agrees, that the striped bass stocks are recovered. 

I should not be here today. I should be out fishing trying to provide for my family. You should not be here today. This country has 

a million more serious problems to address than having to waste 

time because the recreational industry doesn't like the conclusions 

reached by three different layers of government scientists and fisheries managers. Did anybody say budget? 
18 

As written, the commercial industry opposes H.R. 2655. We feel 

that the stocks are recovered enough to allow a limited amount of 

harvest that would actually occur under the National Marine Fisheries Service proposal. Striped bass are the most tightly regulated 

fin fish on the East Coast, and each state has a predetermined 

poundage quota that cannot legally be overrun. So whether a bass 

is caught in state or Federal waters, the total amount of bass actually landed will remain the same. 

The Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council sho1.1ld not have 

to develop a fishery management plan for striped bass as required. 

The ASMFC already has an effective plan in place that is one of 

the very few plans that have effectively restored a depleted fishery 

to past levels. To require them to develop a s;;riped bass plan is not only duplicative, it is a waste of very valuable time and resources that should 

be spent managing other species of fish that need our immediate 

attention. This requirement is nothing more than a delaying tactic 

contrived by the recreational industry so that they can continue to 

hog the striped bass fishery. 

New Jersey's commercial industry will support H.R. 2655 provided it is amended to provide a 600 pound possession limit. A 500 

pound limit will do a number of things, the biggest one is that it 

will address the regulatory discar:l problem in Federal waters. 

As the striped bass population has increased, the amount of bass 

being caught incidentally in other fisheries has also increased. Many of these fish are dead and presently have to be thrown back 

to be eaten by crabs instead of ::'eeding humans and contributing 

to our economy. 

A 500 pound possession limit will not allow commercial boats to 

catch a large amount of fish off of one state and unload them in 

another. It would not be financially rewarding enough to do so. 

Traditional small commercial fishing operators would not have to 

worry about strange fishing boats from other states unloading 

20,000 pounds of stripers that would come out of their quota. Anglers would not have to worry so much about commercial fishermen 

slaughtering stripers off the Virginia and North Carolina coasts 

during the winter migration. A study done by the State of Connecticut convincingly proved 

that the depletion of the shad population in the Connecticut River 

was caused overwhelmingly by predation of striped bass and not by 

overharvesting by commercial netters as it was assumed. This predation will continue in other rivers and other states until other fish 

species are depleted and then the bass will turn to predation of 

their own young, possibly causing their own stocks to collapse 

again. 

Now is a critical time for fisheries, fisheries managers, and the 

fish themselves. With some species of fish at historic low levels, we 

must all be careful that we do the right thing with our fishery re- sources. And strange as it soundE", too many striped bass might be 

more of a problem than too few. Schools of 30-pound stripers can 

decimate other fish populations just as easy as loss of habitat or 

overfishing. There is a delicate balance here, and we would be well advised 

to take all things into considerati.on with regard to what is a sus-
19 

tainable population of striped bass. Thank you very much. Sorry I 

had to read that so fast. 

[Statement of Mr. Lovgren may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Lovgren. Let me pose a 

question if I may to each of the panelists who might want to take 

a crack at answering it. One of the issues in question here is the 

wintering habits of striped bass and the potential danger that it 

may pose obviously in the commercial take offshore during the winter months. Mr. Donofrio, why don't we start with you. And can 

you give us your impression of that situation and the dangers that 

it could pose if we get into this thing in the wrong way? 

Mr. DoNOFRIO. Thank you, Mr. Saxton. Yes. My biggest concern 

here, and I think the concern of our industry, is wintering sexually 

mature female striped bass-we refer to them as cow bass-are in 

the EEZ at this time of year from December, January, February, 

and then March 1 they proceed up into the estuaries to spawn. 

Prior to this spawning, we are concerned that there will be an 

overharvest of these sexually mature female bass due to the lack 

of the enforcement. And the enforcement problem is a big issue 

here because on paper the plan could probably be met, 386,000 

pounds in North Carolina, and you are going to see that. But is it 

going to be 386,000, or is it going to be 800,000? We don't know 

that. 

And with all the comments heard from the different commissioners and different groups along the coast in the last few months, 

we come to the conclusion that there is a lack of these mature bass 

in any numbers. And whatever numbers that are prevalent off the 

coast of North Carolina should be protected, and we should move 

with caution, which your bill allows us to do, while we assess these 

stocks. 

And I would think that Mr. Gilchrest's state, which has a viable 

inshore commercial fishery, would have voted against the EEZ reopening, but they had, in fact, voted for it-an extended moratorium because they realize that they want to protect these breeding 

fish also which go into their estuary system and propagate their 

fishery. So I think even the commercial fishermen in some of these 

states are moving with caution. 

We don't see that much here. It is more of an adversarial role 

in New Jersey where I don't understand why our commercial fishermen are getting involved in this process here because it is a 

gamefish in our state, and they can't sell them. So the bycatch 

issue for them is a nonissue. They can't sell them. They can't transport them in New Jersey. But some of the other states that have 

a commercial fishery want these breeding stocks protected, and 

that is our concern. Thank you, Mr. Saxton. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. Mr. Fote, did you attend the Atlantic 

States Marine Fisheries Association meeting recently? 

Mr. FOTE. Yes. As usual, I attended all their meetings that I can, 

and I was up four days in Boston at the last meeting. And it was 

interesting. 

Mr. SAXTON. Well, let me pose the question before you answer. 

Mr. FOTE. OK. 

Mr. SAXTON. They went into the meeting, and I had the impression that they were going to recommend to NMFS that the regula-
~:0 

tions move forward. Apparently, that was incorrect, and at the 

meeting they expressed great reservation or reservation about proceeding with regulations to create a commercial fishery in the immediate future. Do you know what that change in mind-set was 

based on, what their motive was for changing their mind? 

Mr. FOTE. Yes. I think what happened here was fisheries managers sitting around a table said, "Well, it sounds like a good idea. 

It is a recovered fishery. Let us open it up." And then they went 

back, and they talked to the people in the states. I mean, Larry 

Sims, from Mr. Gilchrest's distrid, and I sat and talked about it. 

And New Jersey has become a commercial-recreational thing, but 

it is not that type of fight in other states. Larry didn't support it 

opening because basically he wanted to protect the stocks. 

We also worried-the Fish and Wildlife Service put out a point 

in fact-that wintering grounds in North Carolina is not only 

Chesapeake Bay stock, it is the Roanoke stock, the Albemarle 

Sound stock. It is also the Hudson River and the Delaware all 

mixed together there. The Albemarle and the Roanoke are in bad 

shape. The Delaware River is not fully recovered. 

If you basically hammer thos ~ fish real hard, when they are 

schooled up that tight-! mean, in the old days, recreational fishermen used to be able to gig them and basically get them. When they 

are that tight you could damage three other stocks. The Commission looked at that fact. It also looked at the testimony of Mr. Holgarth. Dr. Holgarth pointed out that a lot of loopholes have been uncovered while~ they went through this process. 

There are certain issues that ha,ren't been addressed that need to 

be addressed. 

And then I pointed out the PCB problem. One of my duties as 

a commissioner is to point that out. I mean, I want to know whether the EEZ has safe fish so I don't have to put the same advisory 

as I do in state waters out to the EEZ. We have to know that. And 

we didn't want to contaminate th ~ commercial fishery up and down 

the coast. I think they took all those things into consideration. Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much. Mr. Lovgren, help me out 

with regard to this enforcement issue. I believe you favor a partial 

relaxation or reregulation on commercial fisheries so that a bycatch 

would be permitted, and I believe the bycatch would be up to, is 

it 500 pounds a trip or 500 pounds a year? 

Mr. LOVGREN. No. The idea would be a 500 pound possession 

limit. If a boat is in Federal waters, he would be allowed to possess 

500 pounds. That would be enforceable by the Coast Guard. Mr. SAXTON. Well, help me with this enforcement issue because 

it is a question that not only concerns us with regard to enforcement on the striped bass issue but enforcement on a lot of general 

issues. And can you represent that commercial fishermen are concerned enough about enforceme:1t generally that they generally 

comply, sometimes comply, always comply? What is an honest assessment of the rate of complying with regulations such as one that 

would be promulgated subsequent to your concept of the new reg? 

Mr. LOVGREN. Well, I can tell you in New Jersey there it might 

have been different a few years ago. It was different a few years 

ago there when a few boats got caught and they are facing $25,000 

and $50,000 fines. The rate of compliance is very high at this point. 
21 

That is a lot of money. It can put you right out of business there, 

and the Coast Guard has been a very visible presence for the last 

five months off of New Jersey. We have seen three, four boats out 

in our fishing areas right in the mud hole for three and four 

months at a time. That is a day. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. My time has expired so let me turn to 

the gentleman from North Carolina at this point for any questions 

that he may have. 

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I do have a couple of questions. Mr. Donofrio, and I apologize if I pronounce the name incorrectly, would you please tell me how the New Jersey Alliance to 

Save the Fisheries is funded? What is the makeup of your group? 

Who are your key financial supporters? Is it 501[c] or--

Mr. DONOFRIO. We are currently filing for that right now, a 

501[3][c] and a 501[3][c][ 4]. And we are in the process of that. And 

right now I am being staffed at the Viking Yacht Company in New 

Gretna, New Jersey. 

Mr. JONES. Can you give me just the number of members in this 

group-membership-100, 200 people? 

Mr. DONOFRIO. OK. Well, we have the support right now of the 

Jersey Coast Angler Clubs which numbers somewhere-the estimates are 35 to 80,000 members through clubs. With that, Ben 

Glassine, who is the President of the Federation of Sportsmen, had 

called me and faxed me and told me that the Federation of Sportsmen in New Jersey, who was over 200,000 people, give us total 

support on this issue with the striped bass. And they see a need 

for us to be together on lots of issues like this. 

Mr. JONES. To your knowledge, do you have any commercial fishermen that are active in your group, New Jersey Alliance to Save 

Fisheries? 

Mr. DONOFRIO. I would say that we have some commercial fishermen that support our position here as a management issue. This 

to us is a management issue. It is not a commercial versus recreational issue. 

Mr. JONES. Well, let me ask you. I have a copy of your group's 

handout with three major points that must be met before the moratorium is lifted, supposedly. If these three major points were met 

would you be willing then to see the moratorium lifted? 

Mr. DONOFRIO. You mean in our-·- Mr. JONES. Yes. It is a position paper. 

Mr. DONOFRIO. Our position paper? 

Mr. JONES. Right. Mr. DONOFRIO. Can you give me some time to get it out here? 

OK. Do you want to go over the points? 

Mr. JONES. Yes. 

Mr. DONOFRIO. I don't have it right in front of mE:w 

Mr. JONES. If these three points were met that you would like 

to see-you had three concerns, and these concerns were met, 

would you be willing then to see the moratorium lifted? 

Mr. DONOFRIO. I think those are the points that we are all addressing, and Mr. Saxton's bill is talking with a timeframe. That 

is the timeframe needed to address those points. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JONES. And let me ask you one other question. I had a real 

concern with a statement you made, and, quite frankly, Mr. Chair-
2:2 

man, I don't know why we need the National Marine Fisheries 

Service to do all this work at the taxpayers' expense if we are going 

to have an outside group come in. 

The statement you made-and I don't want to misquote you, but 

I think I wrote it down-was that you wanted to hold off on lifting 

this moratorium until we can make an assessment on the stocks, 

that your group makes an assessment-assesses the stocks. And 

then you would agree or disagree with what a Federal group wants 

to recommend. Did I understand you correctly? 

Mr. DoNOFRIO. We met with Dick Schaefer. I believe it was on 

November 3, and we asked Mr. Schaefer and the NMFS people if 

we could look at their biology-their assessments. And we asked if 

we could have our people, scientific community-privately we 

would contract them to look over the data because we just, frankly, 

sometimes don't believe what is going on here with some of the 

plans. 

If you look, there is a NMFS survey. I just received that in an 

ASA meeting a week ago, and it shows most of the fishery stocks 

are overexploited. These are fishery stocks that are run by NMFS 

plans so it tells me that maybe vve have got to look at this data 

a little carefully and have some outside academic people look at it. 

And this was our reason for doing that. 

Mr. JONES. Thank you. Mr. Healey, let me ask you a question. 

I represent the coast of North Canlina. We have a lot of boat manufacturers that I have a good relat.ionship with. We have numerous 

commercial fishermen, and one of the problems I have seen since 

I have been here for 11 months, is that there seems not to be a 

balance between the industry and commercial fishermen. And I don't want to characterize what you said because we broke 

to go hear the Prime Minister of hrael speak, but I thought I heard 

you say of your concern about thP- time that the Congress passed 

the luxury tax and how many people you had to lay off work. 

In my state, this continuation of this moratorium will have a 

negative effect on the small commercial fishermen. Do you have 

any concern not about the North Carolina commercial fishermen, 

but the New Jersey commercial finherman that might be losing his 

job? 

Mr. HEALEY. Well, let me say this to you. I have a concern about 

everybody's job, and I learned th;lt from the luxury tax. But one 

of my concerns about the commerdal fishermen in North Carolina 

and the commercial fishermen in New Jersey is, unfortunately, 

they are pushed so hard to catch anything out there they can get 

to pay their people and pay for th,~ir boats. And I have compassion 

for that. 

But one of the things that concerns me with the commercial fishermen c..nd the stp.all commercial fishermen and large commercial 

fishermen is they are ready to exhaust the breeding stock or anything to live day to day, and that is totally not acceptable because 

as far as I am concerned, they cannot afford to take a long-term 

look at it, and to me that is very d~sturbing. 

And I really think the basis of our problem is there aren't enough 

fish out there. But at the same time you can't exhaust the breeding 

stock. Now, we are talking about these cow fish in North Carolina 

in your state. And if we allow thE' commercial fishermen in North 
23 

Carolina to harvest these cow fish, we are depleting the very basis 

of this fishery, and that is my concern. 

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I have one other quick statement and 

then one question. I disagree respectfully with your assessment of 

the lack of concern by the commercial fishermen. I just want to 

state that for the record. I would like to ask the gentleman from 

New Jersey who is a commercial fisherman, and I don't want to 

mispronounce your name, so if you would say it for me please--

Mr. LOVGREN. Lovgren---Jim Lovgren. 

Mr. JONES. If you would please respond to Mr. Healey's statements about the lack of concern by commercial fishermen in New 

Jersey as well as North Carolina which I totally disagree with. 

Mr. LOVGREN. Well, I have to agree with you there. I think that 

is a terrible statement especially coming from a man who has been 

willing to ban net fishing in our state waters there. That to me 

shows that his jobs to him are worth more money than my job is 

to my people. 

Now, I do concern myself with the fisheries. I have been concerned with yours, and I will tell you most of the fishermen I know 

are very concerned about next year's stock and the year after. It 

is a very tough living. It has gotten tougher as the years go by. We 

do care about next year's fish, and we care about the coming generations of fishermen. And we don't see them coming up anymore 

because the industry is so tough. 

Mr. HEALEY. Well, I would like to respond to that, and I would 

like to tell you that for every job out there in commercial fishing, 

and I understand their problem, we have 100 jobs at stake. We 

have 100, 200, 300 jobs at stake in our industry. And unless this committee and this Congress gets an enforceable 

management plan, and I radically disagree with him that they are 

all in compliance in New Jersey-! radically disagree with thatunless we get the time to get a good management plan, we are 

going to lose jobs-his jobs and we are going to lose our jobs. And 

that is why we need this bill, Congressman. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, Mr. Jones. The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Gilchrest, has joined us, and I reminded him how much 

I enjoy stopping on my way home as I drive up Route 95 in Havre 

de Grace to chow down on rockfish from time to time. So we recognize that there is a partnership here in management between commercial and recreational fishermen at least in the Chesapeake Bay. 

Mr. Gilchrest. 

Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the Chairman. That is a beautiful little 

town where the Susquehanna River meets the Chesapeake Bay. We 

call it Havre de Grace. Some other members of this illustrious body 

call it Have-A-Disgrace, but I am sure Jim would never refer to it 

that way. And it is a beautiful little town. 

You have mentioned Larry Sims a number of times, and the 

Chesapeake Bay-the stock of rockfish or striped bass has been declared for the most part fully recovered. And we have a pretty viable, productive commercial fishing industry on the Chesapeake Bay 

and which I would like to ensure its sustainability for years to 

come. 

I also recognize the value of recreational fishing to the economy 

and to the enjoyment and to the tourism industry and to the qual-
ity of life. And I think the two, recreational fishing and commercial 

fishing, can be merged with an understanding that unless there are 

fish, then you would have neither one. 

And Larry Sims is a good friend of mine, and we, quite honestly, 

would like to see no fishing in the Atlantic Ocean so that they 

could all come up the Chesapeake Bay, and our commercial 

watermen, as we call them, wouJ.d have plenty of stock. So I am 

sort of at a disadvantage here. 

We would just like to put a hold on long lines, on nets, on everything out there in the Atlantic Ocean except for the few fishermen 

along Ocean City. We could tell them to come up the Chesapeake 

Bay. So I am sort of one of those not-so-neutral parties here. I 

would like to see a ban on recreational fishing of rockfish in the 

Atlantic Ocean; I mean, just so you have some understanding 

where I am coming from. 

But I guess my question is, and I would like each person to just 

take a second to respond-! guess to a large extent what we are 

talking about is the sustainability of this particular species of fish, 

whether it is recreational fishermen or commercial fishermen. 

We want to make sure, as the commercial fisherman here has 

stated, that he wants to make sure that future generations can 

catch striped bass, and that all of us would like to see everybody 

in compliance and reasonable regulations to ensure that people can 

continue to the degree that is possible today their particular careers in this life. 

And I say that because fundamentally there are fewer fish now 

than quite possibly there has been for thousands of years. And 

there is more people with much better equipment catching those 

fewer fish. We all would like to see-I know the gentleman from 

New Jersey and the gentleman from North Carolina and everyone 

sitting in here, especially the commercial people, would like to see 

this activity managed in such a way to sustain the stock and sustain those people who make their living from it. 

So what I would like to-I am going to sort of ask a little different question because this has to do with is NMFS right? Is the 

Atlantic Fisheries Management Council right? Is the Mid-Atlantic 

Fisheries Council right? Is the recreational evaluation of the stock 

assessment correct? Are the commercial watermen correct when 

they say that there is plenty of striped bass out there? 

What is the best way to assess or to collect the data to determine 

the stock assessment? I know we need science injected in this. We 

need people that are out there on the water giving their perspectives. So to me this sort of boils down to how many fish are out 

there? How can we tell how many fish are out there? And who 

should get the allotment? 

So what is the best way, in your opinion-this will be my only 

question-on collecting data to determine the stock assessment? 

And I would like to work my way from your right to left. 

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Congressman. Not totally avoiding 

the question, but my thoughts and comments are geared somewhat 

toward the larger picture as well as the strictly counting of the 

stock and the species. I think somewhere in the equation we have 

to have the National Marine Fisheries Service as well as the Congress recognize as they have in other areas of the law a cost benefit 
25 

analysis that would incorporate the value, say, of jobs in tourism, 

jobs on the coast, recreational fishing, the bait and tackle shops, 

the small businesses, the motor, the fuel, the hotel rooms, all 

that--

Mr. GILCHREST. Excuse me. Would you say, and if I could justI know it is the yellow light-are you saying that the allowable 

catch should be modified by economic considerations? 

Mr. PETERSON. To an extent I would ask that that also be incorporated in a scientific conclusion because the economic factors do 

come into play and I think should be looked at in the overall picture. I have attempted to relate in my written testimony some anecdotal information, and as inferred by your question, I don't cite 

a lot of science. And I would fully support the Congress or as we 

have heard here today some volunteer groups if there is sufficient 

funding. 

Whether it is like Garret Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons, we 

are looking at a limited resource. And it is how to have a fair and 

reasonable allotment to assure its future for future generations. I 

would definitely support such a proposal. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Healey. 

Mr. HEALEY. Well, to try to answer your question directly, what 

we have seen is that the National Marine Fisheries Service has 

been doing the monitoring and doing the calculations, and they 

have not been successful. The only success story they will tell you 

they have, and they tell you about all their scientific accuracy, they 

failed in every fishery except the striped bass where there has been 

a moratorium. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Could you give an example where they have 

failed? 

Mr. HEALEY. Well, I had a meeting with Dick Schaefer, and Dick 

Schaefer said, "This is our only success story." 

Mr. GILCHREST. The striped bass? 

Mr. HEALEY. Striped bass. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Would you say that NMFS failed because the 

science was inadequate, or they failed because the science was 

modified because of social or economic considerations? Therefore, 

the sustainable yield was modified? 

Mr. HEALEY. Well, I am not sure of the reason, but the only 

thing I could say, we asked them on the striped bass issue to give 

us their information, what they were basing their positions on so 

we could hire our own sources to evaluate that information. And 

I think that is one of the methods and ways to approach this, and 

we are willing and have the resources to do that. 

The New Jersey Alliance to Save the Fisheries is made up of 

some 800,000 that we represent-we don't have members, we represent-and we are just getting-we have only been in operation 

three months-in 800,000 recreational fishermen. There are 20,000 

people in the marine industry, and there are conservation groups 

that are coming on board and supporting us all the time. So we are 

ready to put together the resources to analyze this. 

But what I really think is important about this legislation is that 

the accuracy of the information is one thing, and a major factor, 

which the United States Coast Guard and NMFS themselves have 
26 

met, is they do not have the funding or the enforcement capability 

to enforce what they do enact. 

Now, what I am saying to you, to measure this and to put together the components of a good fishery management plan is going 

to take some time because what has happened, the history of 

NMFS is that they have not been successful by their own admissions. 

So what we have to do, and Congressman Saxton's bill gives us 

that time for the private sector and the public sector to NMFS to 

put these things together, we are now going to have a meeting with 

the Coast Guard and get an outline from them on what their enforcement problems are. And in ~orth Carolina, for example, Congressman, there are only two people that NMFS have to cover the 

whole coast of North Carolina on enforcement which is an impossible task. 

Mr. GILCHREST. I know the issue is much more complicated than 

what I have stated, but I have a red light. And if I could just getsee, I am not talking about enfor-:ement. The data collection is just 

one ofmy--

Mr. HEALEY. Well, right to that., we would like to have the opportunity to review their data and address the accuracy of it. 

Mr. SAXTON. We are going to move on. Mr. Jones and I both have 

an additional question or two and maybe Mr. Gilchrest does as 

well. So with your indulgence, we will go one more round here of 

five minutes each if you all have :ime. 

Let me begin by asking just or,e question. I will ask each of you 

to respond to it. My understanding is that the NMFS regulations 

or proposed regulations that are set up would permit commercial 

take in the EEZ and would set a size limit of 28 inches. And my 

understanding is further that the regulators try to limit the total 

take to somewhere between 20 and 25 percent, and there is debate 

over whether it ought to be 20 percent or 25 percent-and that 

each state has a responsibility fo:·~ doing its share to conserve within the parameters of that total take limit. 

Therefore, it seems to me that if there is going to be-several 

people have said this is not a com.mercial-recreational issue. But it 

seems to me if there is a total take limit of 25 percent let us say 

and the states are responsible for providing a system within which 

that works, then it seems to me if there is a commercial take there 

have to be different regs provided by each state to make sure that 

we stay within the total take limit. 

Give me your read on that. Is that a fair assessment? And, if so, 

what do you think the ramifications are for recreational fishermen 

and for commercial fishermen? Mr. Peterson, would you like to 

start? 

Mr. PETERSON. That seems likE: a fair assessment, Congressman, 

and perhaps in looking at the overall picture, I am very supportive 

of the bill and the moratorium :;>roposed simply for the fact that 

perhaps further dialog could reach a consensus. And it could not 

develop into what has been terme;d more of an adversarial commercial versus recreational situation at least in New Jersey, and that 

perhaps my overall, as noted in my comments, if we are going to 

err, let us err on the side of caution. And I do support the morato-
27 

rium, and again I have cited some anecdotal information. But I 

think it may be fair to relate it. 

I had the privilege of going to school in Congressman Jones's 

state. And in spite of memorable fishing experiences, that I loved 

them and still to this day in North Carolina, I always look forward 

to returning to nearby Island Beach State Park in New Jersey 

where we have the Annual Striped Bass Governor's Cup Fishing 

Tournament. 

And with its determination that the fish has been recovered, in 

spite of that, in last year's tournament alone there was only one 

keeper fish taken. So there is something out there that the fishermen-if we had an opportunity to gather this data, I think we 

could perhaps learn and use the science as well. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. Mr. Healey. Mr. HEALEY. Well, I think, Congressman Saxton, we are getting 

back to the question of integrating the states on some uniform program. For example, you can't land any striped bass in New Jersey, 

you know, where you can land them in other states. Now, it all 

comes back to the management. 

It all comes back to an integrated plan where you take the various laws and regulations in the state in relation to the EEZ and 

to the Federal regulations and integrate that in a plan and also 

provide the appropriate enforcement. And that is why I think this 

bill is so important. It is going to give us the time to put together 

all these factors. As I said to you before, we are going to take a 

very active role, the Alliance to Save the Fisheries. We are not just 

a pack of people going to come up here and criticize. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. Mr. Donofrio. 

Mr. DONOFRIO. Thank you, Mr. Saxton. I would like to say this. 

I am not a biologist, and that is not my background at all. But 

from what I have seen with the assessments, we have had a meeting with the ASA and certain conservation groups on December 1. 

And we have interviewed different leaders, and there is a portion 

of the large mature bass missing from the population. Whether this 

stock is recovered or not, as I stated before, to me is not even a 

debatable issue here. 

In the absence of a management plan that is effective, it doesn't 

matter whether the fish are literally jumping into the cockpits of 

boats because a plan has to have all components that are working. 

And we have some interjurisdictional problems here as was 

brought up by Mr. Saxton. 

And we have some enforcement glitches that have to be looked 

at, and, in fact, New Jersey only has eight conservation officers and 

two NMFS agents on duty full time; North Carolina also with two, 

and I believe there are 38 full time in North Carolina waters. 

So we have a lack of enforcement in most of the coastal states. 

Maryland ideally has one of the best and most effective plans working through the whole system. As the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission during the conference the other day in Braintree, 

the commissioner up there went through all the different glitches 

with Mr. Holgarth. And Maryland was pretty much under control. 

But we have big problems here, and I think the timeframe that 

Mr. Saxton's bill is setting up here is what is going to be needed 

to look at these issues. And that is my concern here, that we are 
28 

going to jump into this. NMFS is shooting from the hip. And clearly the confusion from the Commission saying let us open it to let 

us not open it tells me that there are some really serious things 

we need to look at here, and this is going to take time. 

That is the clincher here, that the Commission said let us open 

it, and now they say let us close it December 7. And that to me 

just backs up Mr. Saxton's bill here 100 percent. Thank you. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Fote. 

Mr. FOTE. Yes. Looking at the interstate commerce and the way 

the laws are written, it really becomes very problematic how we 

are going to solve some of these problems. Some of the states when 

they testified before the Commission basically said they couldn't 

enforce their laws, and they don't know if this would open it up, 

would it basically be able to bypass the laws in their states. 

I think one of the real concerns about NMFS data and when you 

look at it is they are always managing for F max, fishery maximum 

sustainable yield. And I think that is what has got us in all the 

problems. Congressman Gilchrest asked what species are in trouble. Well, the problem is trying to find ones that are not. 

If you look at bluefin tuna, if you look at scup, you look at whiting, you look at cod, you look at hake, you look at yellowtail, they 

are all overfished. They are all going down the tubes. And NMFS 

has not done an effective management job in bringing any of those 

stocks back. It is when they took control, that the states really took 

an active interest in how it was going to be done and spent a lot 

of money. I mean, striped bass management did not come cheap. 

And the states are still spending a lot of money to keep it in effect. 

We are working to effectively manage it in state waters. By opening up the EEZ, you create a whole bunch of other problems-mor- tality rate, can you estimate the bycatch mortality? No. I mean, 

Mr. Lovgren pointed out the fact that, "Well, we only want 500 

pounds as a bycatch." Well, if you remember what happened in our 

state was we had a bycatch provision, and the plan was passed in 

1939 for a directed fishery. And Axel Carlson and his brothers put nets down at the Toms 

River and netted tens of thousands of pounds of striped bass and 

shipped them out while he was supposedly fishing for shad and 

river herring. In the two years, they never caught one shad or river 

herring, but they caught a lot of striped bass. That is when New 

Jersey decided that when you allow a loophole, the loophole is always expanded. That is a problem. I mean, I don't know how you 

address that. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Fote. Mr. Lovgren. 

Mr. LOVGREN. Yes. To talk about fisheries management from 50 

years ago to the present day, I think it has come a long way. The 

last 20 years since the Magnuson Act has been put in place, management has-basically it is a growing thing there. We are learning 

by the process. There aren't too many successes, but I can point out 

surf clams as a very successful program. The striped bass are back. 

Fluke are coming back. That is a definite there. 

What I am seeing myself, just recently porgies. We are seeing 

more porgies than we have seen in 10 years. I won't say 10 years 

but five or six-sea bass-a lot of small sea bass, a good run of 

weakfish-12- 13- inch weakfish. These are one-year-old fish. Now, 
29 

that is telling me that some stocks are coming back. Statistically, this isn't going to show up for a number of years. 

And to address Congressman Gilchrest's question about management and what would be a way to address this, the one thing the 

National Marine Fisheries Service is ignoring and that is their best 

data that is anecdotal information to them-the commercial and 

recreational fishermen's experience. We are out there on the water 

almost every day. If you can pick out honest-and there are honest fishermen out 

there that you can rely on for accurate data and you could pinpoint 

one or two of them in each state, these people will give you reliable 

information that is more than anecdotal. It is a fact. And this 

should be used. This should be incorporated into the Magnuson 

Act, that anecdotal information should carry a lot more weight 

than it does presently. 

Our industry is not in favor, OK, of opening the EEZ to wholehearted, let us go get them striper fish, and we are not in favor 

of that. We are in favor of eliminating regulatory discards. It can 

be done. That is not a problem. It can be done. The Coast Guard 

could enforce it in Federal waters. That is where it matters, OK 

If there is going to be cheating in the state, that cheating is 

going to go on whether that fish was caught in state or Federal waters. That cheating is there, and that is a problem for state enforcement. And they mentioned two enforcement agents in North Carolina. That is two Federal enforcement agents. We probably only got 

two in New Jersey. How many state enforcement agents do they 

have-marine police and so forth? They are the guys that are enforcing those state laws. Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much. Mr. Jones. Mr. JONES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just one question for Mr. Healey, and I finally got a chance to read your letter that you gave 

to the committee. I want to read this to you. "It is important to the 

boating industry that the EEZ remain closed to the commercial 

fishing of striped bass. Quite obviously, striped bass in the EEZ 

must be caught by recreational fishermen from boats and not from 

the beach." My question is why is it OK for recreational fishermen 

to catch fish in the EEZ and not commercial fishermen, and how 

is this better for conservation? 

Mr. HEALEY. If you are going to allow the longlining, the 

paranetting, and the scooping up of all these fish by commercial 

fishermen, there aren't going to be any fish to catch, Congressman 

Jones. We all know the major problem with striped bass was that 

when they put-before the moratorium we didn't have any striped 

bass. 

I am on the Bass River, Mr. Jones, and as our . friend Mr. 

Lovgren tells, I can tell you we had plenty of striped bass. We 

didn't have any until the moratorium came back. And the only difference that I can see, and I am not a scientist, is we had a moratorium on the commercial fishing of striped bass, and that brought 

the species back. 

Mr. JONES. Well, just my observation. I believe if we were discussing a bill to ban commercial fishermen, you two gentlemen 

from New Jersey-! am not talking about the mayor-would probably be very supportive of that. Thank you. 

22-102 0 - 96 - 2 
30 

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Gilchrest. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Just a quick follow-up on my original question, 

and I guess I am going to ask are there any scientists on the panel? 

OK. Mr. Fote, you mentioned the failure of NMFS on a number of 

occasions. My perspective and I am really interested in your answer because my perspective is to a large extent it was the failure 

of NMFS was enhanced by many of the management councils' 

plans which didn't include all the data that NMFS gave them. 

Now, if I am wrong on that, I would really like to know. So if 

I am wrong on that, I would like to-this is the EEZ fishery management councils-what they have done in New England, the MidAtlantic states, the Gulf of Mexico, and all the eight management 

councils which basically receive their data from NMFS. It is filtered through a scientific statistical committee. Then it is given to 

an advisory board, and then it is modified based on a lot of economic conditions. 

So is it wholly NMFS's fault? :s it partially the management 

council's assessment of the data? And if it is a combination of the 

two, what should replace or partially replace NMFS in collecting 

the data? 

Mr. FOTE. I don't agree with you that they manipulate the data. 

The data is data. When it is reviewed by the SAW which is the 

stock assessment workshop. 

Mr. GILCHREST. No. I am not saying they manipulate the data, 

but they sometimes ignore the data. 

Mr. FOTE. They ignore the data. That happens. When you get a 

council that votes on it, and that is when it comes up to the job 

of the Secretary of Commerce to b~ sically make sure that the data 

is being followed and basically that is what his decisions are. 

So when it comes down to the total review of the process, it goes 

up to the Secretary. And basically he has to make decision on the 

information he has in the data, whether he accepts the council's assessment, National Marine Fisheries assessment, and what the 

data says. 

Now, what I find is, and I guess it is both the recreational and 

the commercial community, both put pressure enough that sometimes when it gets up that high decisions aren't made on data. It 

is made on politics. I mean, it is a shame that that is how the system runs. 

Also, NMFS has-beside data, like bluefin tuna wasn't a problem 

until they brought the purse seines around from the West Coast. 

Then basically that became a problem. Other species have not 

been-until they reintroduce new gear to a fishery, that does cause 

a problem. And we fund the studies that basically do that, and it 

puts traditional fishermen out of business, both commercial and 

recreational. 

NMFS has a hard time implem£:nting its tough rules. I always 

said that when it set up the councils, if I was a politician that is 

what I would do because basically I could blame them for not doing 

my job and say, "I was basically given the job," and the National 

Marine Fisheries Service was given the job of regulating the fisheries. 

Now, I have got a buffer zone beeause I say the councils haven't 

done their job so I couldn't do my job while it is their overall re-
31 

sponsibility to do their job and follow the data and make $Ure that 

when the Secretary signs off on a plan that that plan will do a recovery. That is not what any of these plans have done in the last 

10 years or 15 years. Fluke, as pointed out, is coming back. That is a strong plan involved with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission so we 

play an active role in how that fisheries is coming back. It seems 

that the plans that NMFS has done up by itself, and I disagree 

with Mr. Lovgren about scup-I mean, when we used to fish for 

porgies as kids, we used to find porgies all over the place. 

We can't find them at all anymore. I mean, they are gone from 

the bays and estuaries. We haven't seen them rebuilt. Whiting collapsed dramatically in the last couple of years. The party boats and 

charter boats, the recreational fishermen that fish, and Mr. 

Lovgren have all been having a hard time filling up their boxes 

with whiting over the last three years. I have been yelling at the 

Rhode Island fishing boats. I mean, it is a real problem. It is a 

tough decision. 

You are actually going to hurt livings of both the commercial and 

the recreational sector. You have got to make a tough choice, and 

when it comes down to you picking up the phone and screaming, 

"What is going to affect North Carolina?" or Congressman Saxton 

picking it up and, "How is it going to affect New Jersey and how 

is it going to hurt their fishermen?" they kind of back off, and that 

is a problem. And if we had a perfect world, they wouldn't do it. 

And as to scientists, I am not a scientist, but I spent enough 

years now listening at meetings where I picked up a lot. I almost 

sound like a bureaucrat which becomes a real problem. Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much. Mr. SAXTON. Let me just ask Mr. Lovgren one final question. If 

I have this information right, in 1994, the price per pound from the 

vessel for dogfish was 14 cents. Does that sound about right? 

Mr. LovGREN. Yes. I would say that is very close there. The gill 

net vessels get two or three cents, maybe four cents more a pound. But the 14 cents sounds about correct. We are getting 19 or 20 

right now, and sometimes the fish will bring in 25 to 30 cents. 

Mr. SAXTON. OK But we are close. Now, I am also told that in 

1994 the average price per pound for striped bass was $1.64. And 

I guess my question is doesn't that promote a big bycatch? 

Mr. LovGREN. Of striped bass with the dogfish? 

Mr. SAXTON. Yes. • 

Mr. LovGREN. Well, if they could do it, it might. Now, possibly 

off of North Carolina they could. I don't know how far in the 

dogfish get in North Carolina. I am not familiar with the fishery 

down there, OK I can tell you that I know the price of striped bass 

is down to about $1.25 a pound now. The markets are reacting to 

the fact that there is erratic supply, and when that happens, they 

find other things to fill, and that is--

Mr. SAXTON. OK Well, thank you. I just wanted to get that one 

last question in for you because we are going to have to dismiss 

this panel and go on to the next panel because we are rapidly running out of time. But the point here is that where it is profitable, if there is an 

opportunity for a profit to be made and that much of a difference 
32 

in the price of what fish we are going to fish on and try to catch 

and land and bring to shore for profit, it seems to me pretty obvious that there is going to be a great incentive to go after the stripers. 

I would like to thank this panel very much for your indulgence. 

You have been here for a long time now. We started at 10 o'clock. 

It is now 1 o'clock, and we are going to have to move on to the next 

panel. So thank you very much for being here with us. We appreciate it. That is just a sign that we are going into session, and that 

is exactly why we need to move on. So I thank you very much. 

And while you are leaving, I would like to introduce the third 

and final panel. We have Mr. Jack Dunnigan who is Executive Director of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission; Mr. 

Robert Peele, Deputy Director of the North Carolina Fisheries Association; and also Mr. Bill Wright, Government Relations Representative from the National Fisheries Institute. Gentlemen, 

thank you very much for being with us. We appreciate it. We are 

anxious to hear your testimony, to get your view and your perception of this issue. And so we will begin with Mr. Dunnigan. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN H. DUNNIGAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION 

Mr. DUNNIGAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am Jack 

Dunnigan, Executive Director of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, and it is a pleasure to be back before the committee today to talk about striped bass. This is really the hallmark 

program that most people consider when they think of the Atlantic 

States Marine Fisheries Commission. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you especially for the scheduling of this hearing. Originally, you wanted to do this last week, 

and by delaying it, you gave our Striped Bass Management Board 

an opportunity to look at the publie record with the National Marine Fisheries Service concerning its proposal to lift the moratorium on fishing in the EEZ. And so we now have the consideration 

of the Board to share with you. We also strongly appreciate the leadership of the Congress on 

striped bass issues going back many, many years and for the recognition of the predominant role that is played by the states in the 

conservation of this resource. 

Also with me today, Mr. Chairman, in the audience is Mr. Mark 

Gibson from the State of Rhode Island. Mr. Gibson is the Chairman 

of the Striped Bass Stock Assessment Subcommittee for the Commission and is very much involved in putting together the science 

and the stock assessments that support the fishery managers. 

Given the time, Mr. Chairman, I would ask at this point that my 

full statement be inserted in the record, and I will just hit a couple 

of highlights that may be of interest given the discussion that has 

gone on so far this morning. 

As was said earlier, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's Striped Bass Management Board met last week and considered the public comment that had been developed by the National Marine Fisheries Service over the last few months in deciding whether or not to go forward with the proposal to lift the moratorium in the EEZ on fishing for striped bass. 
33 

Originally, the Commission's Striped Bass Management Board 

had supported this idea, and as Mr. Fote characterized earlier, it 

was from a sense of recognizing the recovery that had occurred in 

the fishery and recognizing too that government shouldn't be regulating where it didn't need to in order to meet its objectives. 

It seemed to make sense since we were opening fisheries in state 

waters to have the same thing happen in Federal waters. It essentially occurred to the Board when they first considered it that there 

just wasn't much need any longer for this regulation. 

When the Board met last week, it reconsidered that, and although I wasn't there on that day, I think that there were three 

major factors that weighed in the minds of our Board members. 

First, it became very obvious from the public comment that the 

large predominance of the public didn't want this action to be 

taken. 

We in the states-we everywhere in government but especially 

we in the Commission-have been encouraged over the last couple 

of years by this committee and others to work hard to listen to the 

public. And I think that our directors in looking at the record that 

had been developed by the National Marine Fisheries Service noted 

that the predominant public concern here was that this action not 

be taken. 

Secondly, during the public comment, an issue arose that we had 

not anticipated, and that was the question about possible loopholes 

in the regulation. There is a concern today among our directors 

about whether or not there exists sufficient authority in the states 

and in the National Marine Fisheries Service to effectively enforce 

the commercial harvest caps that are contained in the Commission's fishery management plan. And this is how that could develop. There are a number of states that don't have commercial fisheries, and as a result, they don't have quotas or caps under our 

fishery management plan. However, those states may allow the 

landing of fish harvested legally in other jurisdiction. And so the 

question was if a fish was landed in another jurisdiction and 

brought into one of these states, how would that fish be counted 

against somebody's commercial allocation? 

The issue was, can we maintain a cap on the fishing mortality 

which is critical to the continuing success of the fishery management program? And looking at the information that had been developed as a part of the public hearing, I think a number of our 

directors questioned whether or not we knew enough at this time 

to do that. 

This is a very sensitive issue for state fishery managers right 

now because of some litigation that has been developed relative to 

state and Federal jurisdiction under the Magnuson Act, and whether or not states have authority to implement their laws for fish 

that are harvested in the EEZ. Now, perhaps in the Atlantic 

Striped Bass Act that would be a different situation, but it wasn't 

clear enough for our commissioners to be comfortable enough at 

this time. 

The third major issue that affected them I think was the need 

to be cautious. The Commission adopted Amendment Five to its 

fishery management plan last spring. In doing so, we have a target 
34 

fishing mortality rate that will allow the harvest of maximum sustainable yield. 

But because we are still in the process of coming out of a very 

long period of decline in this fishery, our commissioners decided to 

approach that goal in steps. And so right now we haven't gone in 

our management program completely to the fully restored fishing 

level, and that is really only out of an abundance of caution and 

prudence in the wise management of marine fishery resources. 

So for those reasons, Mr. Chairman, the Board changed its mind 

and took a different position and is recommending now that the 

National Marine Fisheries Service maintain the moratorium in 

Federal waters. 

If I can just touch one last point and that is specifically on the 

bill before you today. Mr. Chairman, nevertheless, the Commission 

believes that H.R. 2655 is not necessary. The Congress, the states, 

the Federal agencies, the industry have all invested heavily in the 

last couple of years in a fishery management process. We think 

that the striped bass situation has shown that that process works. 

For those who didn't like what the National Marine Fisheries 

Service proposed, we think that our Board's action last week shows 

that the process works. We just think that at this time it is not 

necessary for the Congress to step in on a particular issue in a specific fishery and mandate that an individual action be taken. And 

for those reasons, we just don't think that H.R. 2655 is needed at 

this time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have. 

[Statement of Mr. Dunnigan may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Dunnigan, and we certainly will get to some questions. We appreciate particularly your clarification of the basis of your decision of a week ago. And thank 

you for that testimony. Before we il:.'.troduce Mr. Peele, if I may ask 

Mr. Jones if he would like to introduce Mr. Peele inasmuch as both 

are from the Tarheel State. 

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Not only is Mr. 

Peele from eastern North Carolina, and I have the pleasure of serving his home county in the Third District, but Bob Peele is a graduate of NC State University. And I think because of graduating 

from NC State University, my father, former U.S. House of Representatives Chairman of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, didn't draft Bob but hired him right out of NC State. 

And Bob worked a number of years on the staff here in Washington, DC; did a great job for my father; very smart young man. And 

after my father's death in 1992, he continued to work with former 

Congressman Martin Lancaster so I am very pleased to welcome 

Bob back to Washington, DC, and to appear before this committee. 

And I thank you for that courtesy, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much. Mr. Peele. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT PEELE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NORTH 

CAROLINA FISHERIES ASSOCIATION 

Mr. PEELE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the chance to be here 

today. It is a special pleasure for me to be here before my Congressman testifying. Walter is doing a good job for us up here, and 

I know, Walter, that your father would not only get a kick out of 
35 

seeing you sitting up there as a member of Congress, but would 

really be confused by seeing me down here testifying. 

Getting right to this, I am going to summarize just a couple of 

points in my statement. One thing that I think seems to be continually lost in this debate is that striped bass are part of a nationally 

owned public trust resource. Every U.S. citizen owns a piece of the 

striped bass pie, and for the great majority, the commercial fishing 

industry is their only access to an important resource of which they 

own. 

The latest ASMFC calculations put the commercial portion of the 

striped bass harvests along the Atlantic Coast at about 21 percent. 

That is a very small portion when considering that the vast majority of Americans choose to pay to have their seafood caught and delivered to restaurants and retailers where they can access them. 

Of the last 20 years, there has been a growing trend to ignore 

the rights of the nonfishing public to their share of the public resource. The North Carolina Fisheries Association is concerned that 

H.R. 2655, in effect, would continue to limit access to a public trust 

resource by the commercial fishing industry which, in this case, is 

just the delivery system for the American consumer. 

Mr. Chairman, the North Carolina Fisheries Association appreciates what you have done for the industry over the past, but I am 

afraid that we cannot support H.R. 2655. We feel the bottom line 

on this issue is that there is no biological need for the continuation 

of the EEZ moratorium. The ASMFC and NMFS recognize that the stocks are recovered 

along the Atlantic Coast. Now, I have to admit that my statement 

was written and submitted last week before the vote by the 

ASMFC Management Board in support of continuing the moratorium. Even the Roanoke stocks which are not deemed fully recovered are showing signs of improvement. 

The point is that everyone seems to agree that Atlantic Coast 

striped bass stocks, except those of the Roanoke, have fully rebounded. As a member of Congress stated back in 1991, and I 

quote, "A decade ago, the striped bass appeared to be doomed. But 

through the sacrifices of commercial and recreational fishermen 

and the work of enlightened state governments and ASMFC, the 

striper has slowly but surely worked its way back. Our goal is to 

make certain that progress continues." 

Mr. Chairman, Congressman Studds was absolutely correct in 

1991. The striper was recovering. Now, over four years later, the 

road to recovery for Atlantic striped bass is complete. After several 

years of sacrifices, now is the time to offer some relief to the com~ 

mercia! fishing industry, not further restrictions. 

And, lastly, and I think this is probably the most important point 

from the North Carolina Fisheries Association, if the moratorium 

is continued in light of the recovery of the striped bass stocks and 

at the sole request of recreational fishing industry groups, then the 

commercial industry will lose all faith in the current fishery management system. 

For a variety of species, commercial fishermen follow the mandates and FMPs and quota allocations. They may not agree with 

many of the mandates, but they begrudgingly follow them in the 

hope that if they make sacrifices and follow FMP guidelines, the 
36 

current management system will alJ.ow them to fish at better levels 

once stocks recover. This is in a sense an unwritten agreement between fishermen 

and regulators. Our concern is that H.R. 2655 ignores the acts of 

good faith and sacrifices of the commercial fishing industry and the 

best scientific data available that proves striped bass stocks have 

recovered. 

To continue the moratorium will breach the faith commercial 

fishermen have in the management premise that compliance and 

sacrifices today will lead to better fishing in the future. In light of 

the recovery, now is the time to allow fishing for striped bass in 

the EEZ, not further prohibit it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Statement of Mr. Peele may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Peele. And we will move 

on to Mr. Wright please. 

STATEMENT OF BILL WRIGHT, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS 

REPRESENTATIVE, NATIONAL FISHERIES INSTITUTE 

Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. My name is Bill Wright. I work for the National Fisheries Institute. Part of my past I spent several years working on 

the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee dealing with fisheries issues and watched the issue of the Atlantic striped bass 

move forward through Congress and make some great forward accomplishments on that. Mr. Weddig, our executive vice-president, who was originally 

scheduled to testify, was unable to attend. There are some merging 

issues going on right now with mercury and seafood that has 

pulled him away at this time for that, and he apologizes for not 

being here. 

And that leads into one of the key points that I wanted to highlight in our testimony. One of the things I think that is most important is that we have good science and adequate science, and it 

involves all parties who are affected by management of fishery 

stocks. 

And as the National Marine Fisheries Service has said previously, we are seeing a remarkable recovery of the striped bass. 

And it is through those cooperative efforts of the National Marine 

Fisheries Service, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, the member states, commercial fishing industry, and the recreational fishing industry that has met those goals. We still have 

a way to go and to continue to improve those stocks and everything. 

However, we have a process that is moving forward on this. That 

process is management through the Commission and through the 

Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act. We have a process to 

where the National Marine Fisheries Service looks at opening up 

the Federal waters again since they have had the moratorium since 

1990. That process is now moving forward as we all know. H.R. 2655, in our views as NFI, is inappropriate at this time. 

The reason why we feel it is inappropriate is that it does change 

that management process. It takes the authority and returns it 

back to the Mid-Atlantic Council and tells them that they may pre-
' 37 

pare a plan. And the concern is they may prepare a plan basically 

after a five-year moratorium. 

Today, we are looking at that Mid-Atlantic Council with a very 

heavy workload, with other fisheries amendments that they are 

preparing, our new fishery management plans that they are having 

to deal with. The concern that we have is that are they going to 

develop a plan in adequate time, or is it going to be put aside on 

the back burner until the five years are up and then start looking 

at that plan? At that point in time, we may be well beyond the 

point of opening up the EEZ. 

The question also is is it duplicating effort? We feel that it does 

duplicate effort with times of limited resources and tight budgets. 

We have got a plan in place, the proposed rule by the National Marine Fisheries Service looks and addresses. It had four options. The one option they recommended was trying to keep everything 

intact with what the state waters have to abide by. There are some 

adjustments that need to be made. The most important thing is 

that they have had a public process. As they have mentioned, there 

have been nine hearings and over 1,000 comments. That is key to 

that management process of moving forward. 

One point about opening up the EEZ that has been raised today, 

and I will reiterate that, is that it will provide a chance to improve 

the data collection. We do have bycatch of striped bass in the EEZ 

that has to be returned to the sea. In most cases, these fish are 

dead. No one is counting that. Unfortunately, the Commission has 

to base that on some scientific models and make assessments on 

that and estimates. The key thing that we believe is that if the EEZ is opened up 

and this bycatch is counted through the final rule, through implementing that requirement, we could get much more accurate assessment of that bycatch. 

The moratorium we believe is not needed. It is going to take 

some time to manage and put together the plan of opening up the 

Federal waters especially with the Commission's new agreement 

that they want to wait till fishing mortality equals MSY. 

Finally and fundamentally, there is a concern that NFI has that 

there is an expanding effort on the anticommercial campaign by 

various groups, and we feel that that effort to address this issue 

on striped bass is not the best route to take. We welcome them to 

come work with the commercial industry and sit down and find the 

best way to improve the stocks, improve the science, and move forward on that effort so everybody can benefit from that. 

And as Mr. Peele mentioned, 85 to 90 percent of American consumers depend upon commercial fishing to supply fish to the retail 

stores and the restaurants for them to enjoy. We should make sure 

that that access continues. And, finally, I just wanted to thank you 

for the opportunity to testify here and welcome any questions. 

[Statement of Mr. Weddig may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much. I have three questions for 

Mr. Dunnigan, and I am going to try to ask them concisely, and 

if you would try to answer them just as concisely. Then we will let 

Mr. Peele and Mr. Wright respond as well. In your oral testimony, 

you said that reason three for the Commission's position is that you 

felt that you should error on the side of caution. 
38 

And in your written testimony, you say that under Amendment 

Five the fishery is being reopened in stages and is currently under 

an interim target fishing mortality rate. The final target is a fishing mortality rate that will allow the harvest of full maximum sustainable yield and is currently scheduled to. be implemented in 

1997. I take it from those two statements that you believe that any 

decision currently on this issue in the EEZ is premature. Is that 

correct? 

Mr. DUNNIGAN. Mr. Chairman, that is what our Management 

Board decided last week-was to recommend to the National Marine Fisheries Service that they hold onto the moratorium until the 

Commission makes the decision to move the fishery to the full target fishing mortality rate. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. Number 2, on a little different subject, 

this committee and other committEles in the Congress have spent 

a lot of time along with private organizations trying to enhance the 

environmental quality of spawning grounds, if you will. Do you believe that there has been a significant improvement in spawning 

conditions, and, if so, has that added greatly or at all to the increase in the fish population? 

Mr. DUNNIGAN. Mr. Chairman, all of the indications we have are 

that throughout the spawning estuarine ranges of this species, 

there has been some improvement in the overall habitat quality 

that affects striped bass, shad, river herring, a whole range of estuarine-dependent species. 

We don't really have the kind of :nformation that we would need 

to make the kind of quantitative statement that we all might like 

to have about how much has the environment changed and how 

much does it contribute relative to fishing mortality. 

The continuing concern of fishery managers, however, is to focus 

on that which we can really try to control realistically, and that is 

how many fish that people take from those stocks. And where we 

find success is when we can effectiv ~ly control fishing mortality. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. And, finally, do you think it would be 

a good idea to have a fishery management plan on striped bass 

that applies just to the EEZ, separate and apart from the management plans that apply to state waters currently? And, if so, who 

should develop that management plan? 

Mr. DUNNIGAN. Well, Mr. Chairman, I am a nonvoting member 

of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. I am very reluctant right now to say that the council has the time and the resources to embark on a major new effort like that. 

And I think by and large if you look at what the states are doing 

cooperatively through the Commission, you would probably conclude that a separate Federal effort right now to determine striped 

bass management policy is unnecesHary. The large majority of these fish are harvested in state waters. 

The Commission has done an awful lot over the last 15 years working with the Federal agencies to make this program work. I think 

it is important that we all work together on a single program. 

That is what we are doing right now, and I just really don't see 

what would be gained by having a separate management effort 

come out of the Federal Fishery Management Council system. That 
39 

being said, of course, I would defer to my fellow council members 

if that was the priority they set. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. Mr. Peele and Mr. Wright, would you 

like to respond to any of the three questions? 

Mr. WRIGHT. OK. Your first question talked about the reason for 

erring on caution, and I think that it is wise always to err on caution. I think the Commission is doing that. I mean, as you can see, 

the states have quotas and caps and everything to err on caution. 

And they are being very careful of slowly reaching up to where 

fishing mortality reaches MSY which is the optimal yield or the 

goal. The second question--

Mr. SAXTON. May I just interrupt? 

Mr. WRIGHT. Sure. 

Mr. SAXTON. You are agreeing then-your organization agrees 

with the recommendation of the Commission? 

Mr. WRIGHT. Our organization-we believe that it is good and 

good sound management that you watch and develop a plan of 

phasing back in a fishery. Yes. However, looking at specifically 

what the Commission has recommended, we have not detailed an 

analysis of it or looked at it for a specific answer. We can provide 

that for you if you want. 

But, like I said, we believe that as you are building it back up 

to MSY, yes, you can address those issues of making sure that it 

is not being overfished again. And I think the Magnuson Act even 

with the bill that is moving through Congress today addresses 

some key issues that would avoid that overfishing like what has occurred in the past. Science has moved forward to help us with that 

management. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much. Mr. Peele. 

Mr. PEELE. Well, I would only say that the North Carolina Fisheries Association is still trying to figure out just what the ASMFC 

Management Board's vote really means. We were kind of taken 

aback by it. I mean, I have in my files here press releases from 

NMFS and from ASMFC hailing the recovery of the striped bass 

stocks. 

And then the vote last week, to be honest with you, has confused 

the situation quite a bit at least for my Board that has not had a 

chance to meet and really discuss it since then. So I guess it is safe 

for me to say that we fully support the opening of the EEZ, but at 

the same time recognize the need that you need proper management and that sort of thing. 

And as far as water quality goes, it is no secret North Carolina 

has had some major problems with water quality this year. In fact, 

the Roanoke River striped bass population was subject to a major 

fish kill. I would only say that the State of North Carolina is getting ready to take some major steps in improving water quality 

along our coast, and we can only hope that other states will do the 

same. But it is definitely on the burner in North Carolina this 

year. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much, sir. Mr. Jones. 

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of comments and then a question to Mr. Peele. You know, Mr. Chairman, 

I sit here as a new member of the Congress, and I do have the 

coastal areas. And one of the previous panelists made the state-
40 

ment about, well, if Congressman Jones calls a certain Federal 

group and they might make a change or if Congressman Saxton, 

they might do a few for Mr. Chairman, but they don't do it for 

me-they don't get it out on the record. 

I am sitting here looking at the U.S. State Department of Commerce news release 9/25/94, and it says, "NOAA may allow fishing 

for striped bass in Federal waters due to significant five-year recovery. Federal waters off the East Coast from Maine to North Carolina will be reopened for fishing for striped bass because of significant recovery of stocks the Commerce Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said." 

And one more quote. "Because of effective state and Federal programs run cooperatively to protect striped bass, some of the East 

Coast stocks have undergone a remarkable recovery and have 

reached levels where fishing can once again be allowed said Roland 

Schmitten, Director of NOAA." What confuses me is why we take 

the word of this group when it seem3 to fit the purpose. Then when 

it doesn't fit someone's purpose, we make an issue over it. 

My concern is, as was stated by Mr. Peele and Mr. Wright, is 

that we have had good people, both recreational fishermen, as well 

as commercial fishermen, in North Carolina. And as Mr. Peele said, 

some commercial fishermen very reluctantly did not want to abide 

by the moratorium, but they did. And if you go back to the time 

of the passing of the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act, we 

are going back to 1984. 

S!> many of these people have been as long as 11 years good 

stewards of the striped bass stocks, and yet now we have a Federal 

agency that when I first came here many people on this committee 

gave a great deal of respect and credibility to the work of NMFS 

and also NOAA. And now we are in this conversation of if they are 

not doing a good job as it relates to record-keeping. 

So I guess what I want to say to Mr. Peele is I agree with what 

you and Mr. Wright said. Our people have stayed for 11 and five 

years abiding by the law of the land except for this moratorium, 

and now if the-and there will be some recreational fishermen that 

will be very upset also. It is not jm;t commercial fishermen in our 

state. 

But my point is how in the world will you as an association explain to the commercial fishermen that this bill passed, and therefore we have five more years of moratorium, and it could be five 

more after that depending on whatever group wants to best serve 

their own purpose? And I am not talking about you, Mr. Chairman, 

when I make that statement. I will make that clear. 

Mr. PEELE. Well, it would definitely be a very hard sell on our 

part, and I don't know that we could explain it to our folks unless 

there is some absolutely pressing biological need. You have to remember that North Carolina fishermen are facing a weakfish closure that is going to hurt them. 

Now, this comes along. Our Roanoke stocks of striped bass are 

not considered recovered, and the guys are throwing back literally 

hundreds of striped bass and keeping five a day I think is what it 

was last year. It would be a very hard sell to go back to North 

Carolina and sell them on five more years of a moratorium based 

on what is probably very questionable scientific evidence. 
41 

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SAXTON. I just would like to say before I recognize the gentleman from Ma·:yland that I wish I had all the answers to fish 

regulation and making sure that fisheries remain healthy and 

making sure that f:ad:'_ group of fishermen has their own wishes realized all the time. 

Unfortunately, when it comes to tunafish which we sat in this 

room in an informal hearing and tried to work out some things earlier this year, which we were fortunately able to do, or when it 

comes to contaminated bluefish off the Northeast coast, or when it 

comes to whatever the issue happens to be--on the international 

basis swordfish-the swordfishery and all of these issues are very, 

very difficult. 

And I guess what we are going to have to do, Walter, is just 

wade through them one at a time and try to make the best of it. 

But I appreciate your comments very much. Mr. Gilchrest. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Dunnigan, you 

said that the Atlantic State Marine Fisheries Commission-! am 

not sure if this is the right word-reversed its decision based on 

public comment, loopholes in the regulation, and questions about 

being cautious in implementing the opening or ending the moratorium. 

And you also said that at this particular time legislation is not 

necessary because of the manner in which the Fisheries Commission has worked and can continue to work to ensure the sustainability of the stock. Could you give me an example of one of your 

fears as far as reversing your position is concerned and loopholes 

in the opening up of the EEZ-loopholes in the regulations? 

Mr. DUNNIGAN. Well, I think the concern that we have, Mr. 

Chairman, is that anytime you talk about state fishing waters as 

opposed to Federal fishing waters, there is always a question because of language in the Magnuson Act and language in the Constitution about how far the states can go regulating an activity that 

occurs outside of that state's boundaries. And that is the kind of 

loophole that we are concerned about right now. 

There is a possibility that has been raised, and we don't understand how all of the individual state laws operate, but there is a 

possibility that even though a state didn't allow, for example, a 

commercial fishery, that it would be legal under state law to land 

fish there that were caught someplace else in the EEZ, for example. 

Mr. GILCHREST. You mean someone-right now you can't land 

striped bass in New Jersey? 

Mr. DUNNIGAN. That is correct. You can't sell striped bass in 

New Jersey. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Could a commercial fisherman from New Jersey 

catch striped bass in the EEZ when the moratorium is lifted? 

Mr. DUNNIGAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Can they land it in New Jersey? 

Mr. DUNNIGAN. No, sir. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Could they land it in Maryland? 

Mr. DUNNIGAN. Perhaps. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Perhaps. 
42 

Mr. DUNNIGAN. If they met the requirements of local law, they 

could land it in Delaware, Maryland, or New York. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Well, then would your concern be that a commercial fisherman would be catching in the EEZ and then landing it 

in Maryland, New York, Virginia, North Carolina? Is that the loophole you are talking about? 

Mr. DUNNIGAN. No. The state that most people talk about is Connecticut, and I am reluctant to do that because I am not an expert 

on Connecticut law. They don't have a commercial fishery so they 

don't have any quota. But it is legal to land and sell fish in Connecticut that have been legally harvested someplace else. 

So the concern is that fishermen would catch striped bass in the 

EEZ. They would be brought into Connecticut to be sold, and we 

wouldn't have any way for accounting for that fishing mortality 

within the system we have already because there is no quota there 

for that fish to be counted against. And it is that kind of problem 

that our Board didn't feel we have a good enough handle on yet to 

allow this activity to continue. 

Mr. GILCHREST. You are recommending that the bill not be 

passed so what would you do then? What would your recommendation be as far as fishing in the EEZ for lifting the moratorium if 

this bill doesn't pass? 

Mr. DUNNIGAN. Our Board's recommendation regardless of 

whether the bill passes is that the moratorium in the EEZ be 

maintained at this time. There really are two separate questions 

here. Whether or not we decide we like the idea of fishing for 

striped bass and whether or not we like the idea of a moratorium 

in the EEZ, the point is that our Board believes those decisions 

ought to be made within the existing management structure that 

the states and the Congress have e:>tablished, rather than dealing 

with them through a separate legislation outside of that process. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Wright, you are apparently against the legislation also. What would your recommendation be absent the legislation but addressing Mr. Dunnigan's concerns about loopholes in 

the regulation and not being able to keep track of the moratorium 

on striped bass? 

Mr. WRIGHT. As Mr. Dunnigan and I had mentioned earlier, 

there is a management process currently ongoing. And NMFS has 

issued a proposed rule. They went out and did all that. They received those comments. They learned of concerns, and that is the 

valuable process of public comment. Now, they are going back and 

analyzing all that. I think it would be key. 

Typically what happens when you may use the regular fishery 

management plan and the council has public hearings, and they 

have an advisory panel and scientific statistical committees and 

things like that to go back and they put it together, and then the 

council decides. 

I think what may need to occur is that NMFS's next step would 

be a final rule, and maybe what needs to occur is there is a process 

to be inserted right in there that brings some core group together 

that looks over what has been analyzed by the comments, looks at 

the science and everything, and says, "OK. Can we open up the 

EEZ, and when is the most appropriate time?'' which I think is 

what the Commission said last week. I disagree that it is a 180 de-
43 

gree reversal. I think what they said is that maybe right now is 

not the time. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Is that core group that you just mentioned I suppose between the Commission and the council to look at the-is 

there a structure to do that now? 

Mr. WRIGHT. I think that NMFS may have the authority to pull 

together an ad hoc group under their rules to look at it. It is something similar. We did this for one of the Oil Pollution Act regulations-basically like a reg-neg committee-negotiated rulemaking. 

Actually that occurred prior to the proposed rule, but could take 

that same process, work over a short time period of six months or 

so, gather it, get it together, and be able to help with continued 

public involvement, devise the proper Federal rulemaking that 

needs to be implemented and covers those loopholes. 

And that could be done within a year's timeframe, and by 1997 

when fishing is at MSY we are meeting that goal together with 

what the Commission is doing in the states and what we could do 

with the EEZ. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, Mr. Gilchrest. I just have one more 

question, and I would address it to Mr. Dunnigan, and anybody can 

certainly respond to it. It seems to me that there have been two 

issues here raised today. One is the so-called Connecticut loophole, 

if I may use that term-probably shouldn't but I will-and the 

other is the question of enforceability. Mr. Dunnigan, how do you 

propose that we deal with those two issues which you are obviously 

concerned about inasmuch as you pointed to them in your testimony? 

Mr. DUNNIGAN. Mr. Chairman, I think the states and our Federal partners are going to continue to look at an effective management program and this whole suite of issues that has been raised 

concerning a potential loophole. And we will do that as a part of 

our ongoing management efforts for striped bass. 

The question of enforcement is an interesting one. It has been 

central to striped bass policy with the Congress since 1984--specific treatment in the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act for 

enforcement at the state level and for coordination and cooperation 

among the states working with the Federal agencies. We have put 

some effort in the last year into improving that coordination. 

But, frankly, Mr. Chairman, it is very expensive to do, and the 

National Marine Fisheries Service has limited resources. I can tell 

you that the states are very much in the same position, and until 

they can find some resources to support stronger enforcement activities, it is always going to be a very difficult problem. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. Would either of you gentlemen care to 

comment? 

Mr. PEELE. Well, I can only say that the State of North Carolina-and I realize that they would have to enter into some sort of 

cooperative agreement for enforcement out in the EEZ probably, 

but the State of North Carolina-is undergoing a major expansion 

of its law enforcement sector within the division, 20 additional officers. Twenty-six new boats are hitting the water. They have a heli-
44 

copter now, oceangoing vessels. So I think they are expanding in 

the right way. 

Mr. SAXTON. OK. Mr. Wright. 

Mr. WRIGHT. On that comment of enforcement, you know, I agree 

that you can't have enough enforcement to stop anybody from violating the laws or the regulations. In most cases, if you have got 

practical rules and regulations, you are going to have the majority 

or the large majority of the people act as law-abiding citizens. And 

you are always going to have a few people that are going to break 

the law. 

We don't have enough police officers on the street to stop crime. 

And the question is is that putting together practical regulations 

could take the enforcement dollars that are needed and focus on 

those efforts where they are needed instead of having this broad 

spectrum of making sure everybody is law-abiding. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much. I would like to thank each 

of the members of this panel and of the other panels for being here 

today and sharing their thoughts with us over a relatively long period of time, inasmuch as we have started at 10 o'clock and it is 

now quarter of two. 

Thank you for being with us. I hope that we have all profited in 

learning a great deal from each other today. And we look forward 

to working with you in the future. Thank you very much. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:42 p.m., the sub·::ommittee was adjourned; and 

the following was submitted for the record:) 
45 

104TH CONGRESS H R 2655 1ST SESSION 

• • 

To amend the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act to authorize the MidAtlantic Fishery Management Council to prepare a fishery management 

plan for Atlantic striped bass under the Magnuson Fishery Conservation 

and Management Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 16, 1995 

Mr. SAxToN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act to 

authorize the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council 

to prepare a fishery management plan for Atlantic 

striped bass under the Magnuson Fishery Conservation 

and Management Act. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the "Atlantic Striped Bass 

5 Preservation Act of 1995". 
4€· 

2 

1 SEC. 2. ISSUANCE OF FISID~RY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR 

2 ATLANTIC STRIPED BASS. 

3 Section 10 of the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation 

4 Act (16 U.S.C. 1851 note) is amended to read as follows: 

5 "SEC. 10. ISSUANCE OF FISIDffiY MANAGEMENT PLAN. 

6 "(a) IN GENERAL.-The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Man7 agement Council may prepare and submit to the Sec8 retary, under title Ill of thE~ Magnuson Fishery Conserva9 tion and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), a fish1 0 ery management plan governing fishing for Atlantic 

11 striped bass in that portion of the exclusive economic zone 

12 located within the geograp::llcal area of authority of the 

13 Council. 

14 "(b) CONTENTS.-ln addition to the requirements 

15 applicable to fishery management plans under title ill of 

16 the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management 

17 Act, the fishery management plan prepared under sub18 section (a) shall include pro,risions to19 " ( 1) ensure the effectiveness of all State regula20 tions governing, and any Federal moratorium in ef21 feet under Federal law on, fishing for Atlantic 

22 striped bass within coa.stal waters of a coastal State; 

23 and 

24 "(2) achieve conservation and management 

25 goals established for the Atlantic striped bass re-
47 

3 

source by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Com2 mission. 

3 "(c) CONSULTATIONS.-ln preparing a fishery man4 agement plan under this section, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

5 Management Council shall consult with6 "(1) the New England Fishery Management 

7 Council; 

8 "(2) the South Atlantic Fishery Management 

9 Council; 

10 "(3) the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Com11 mission; and 

12 "(4) each Federal, State, and local government 

13 entity affected by the plan. 

14 "(d) EFFECTIVENESS OF MORATORIUM IN EEZ.-

15 The prohibitions relating to Atlantic striped bass under 

16 part 656.3 of title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, as 

17 in effect on November 15, 1995, shall be in effect until 

18 the later of19 "(1) January 1, 2001; or 

20 "(2) the date on which a fishery management 

21 plan submitted under this section takes effect under 

22 title III of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and 

23 Management Act. 

24 "(e) EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE DEFINED.-ln 

25 this section, the term 'exclusive economic zone' has the 
48 

4 

meaning that term has under section 3 of the Magnu::>o"l 

2 Fishery Conservation and )1anagement Act (16 U.S.C. 

3 1802).". 

0 
49 

TBSTI:IIOIJY OP 

Rl:CJIARD B. SCBABPBR 

Dl:RBCTOR, OPPI:CB Pl:SBBRI:BS COIISBRV.Tl:OII AND MARAGBMBIIT 

RATl:OIIaL IIARI:IIB Pl:SBBRI:BS SBRVI:CB 

RATl:OIIaL OCBAIII:C AND ATIIOSPBBRI:C ADIII:IIl:STRATI:OH 

U.S. DBPARTIIBIIT OF COIIIIBRCB 

BBPORE THE 

COIIIII:TTBB ON RBSOURCBS 

SUBCOIIIII:TTBB 011 Pl:SBBRI:BS, Wl:LDLI:PB AND OCEANS 

U. S. BOUSB OF RBPRBSBIITATI:VBS 

DBCBIIBBR 12, 1995 

Good morning, Mr. C~airman and Members of the Subcommittee. My 

name is Dick Schaefer. I am the Director of the Office of 

Fisheries Conservation and Management, National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA). You have asked for our views on H.R. 2655. 

The NMFS does not support extending the current moratorium on 

striped bass in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) for five 

years, or until a Fishery Management Plan is prepared by the 

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and implemented by the 

Secretary, whichever occurs latest. NMFS finds H.R. 2655 to 

be neither necessary nor appropriate for the following reasons: 

(1) Atlantic coastal migratory striped bass stocks (with 

the exception of the Roanoke/Albemarle system stock in North 

Carolina and the Delaware River stock) were declared "fully 

recovered" by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries commission 

(ASMFC) in March of 1995 following a thorough stock assessment 
50 

conducted by ASMFC's Striped Bass stock Assessment Committee, 

comprised of both State and Federal biologists; and 

(2) inasmuch as nearly 95 p•!rcent of the historical 

landings of striped bass have been taken in state waters, the 

appropriate management planning b"dy for this resource has been, 

and remains, the ASMFC. 

With regard to the last point, an interjurisdictional fisheries 

management plan for striped bass (Plan), prepared by the ASMFC, 

has been in effect since 1981. r··~ is recognized under the 

Atlantic Striped Bass Conservatio:1 Act (ASBCA) as the governing 

document for striped bass managem•!nt along the Atlantic coast. 

The Plan has already been amended five times to reflect the most 

current status of the stocks at t:1e time of each amendment; 

indeed, amendment 5 to the Plan (.:tdopted in March 1995) declared 

these stocks to have recovered laTgely as a result of the 

restrictive management regulation; that were imposed by the 

states. It is important to be re:ninded, also, that the 

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management C~uncil undertook development of 

a fishery management plan for striped bass in the EEZ more than 

10 years ago but, early in the pr·~cess, it was determined that 

the impact on the resource would be negligible and not cost 

effective; as a result, the effort was discontinued. The 

Congress, in its 1991 amendments to the ASBCA, repealed Section 

6(c) which provided for preparati~n of a fishery management plan 

2 
51 

for Atlantic striped bass by the appropriate Regional Fishery 

Management Councils should they so choose. 

Rational fisheries management. is built upon the exercise of 

flexible authority to impose strict regulations, when necessary, 

to protect or rebuild a stock, or provide for controlled harvest 

when the management objectives have been met and the stocks are 

healthy; this is referred to as "adaptive" management. This was 

the approach adopted with the Federal striped bass moratorium. 

Many states, in addition to .reducing the total catch by so 

percent from the historical levels recorded in 1972 through 1979, 

also implemented moratoria in certain of their fisheries. The 

complementary Federal moratorium in the EEZ was deemed necessary 

and appropriate to enhance the effectiveness of state regulations 

in achieving their conservation and management objectives, i.e., 

to rebuild the stocks to former levels of historical abundance. 

However, because only 5-7 percent of the catch during the years 

of peak striped bass landings was taken from the EEZ, an EEZ 

closure could not, in itself, rebuild the stocks. Only effective 

state regulations could accomplish that result. 

In response to your specific questions: 

o What is the future outlook for the Atlantic Coast 

striped bass population? 

3 
52 

The future outlook for the Atlantic Coast striped bass population 

is good. Indices from both fishexy dependent and fishery 

independent sources reveal that the abundance of striped bass has 

increased significantly in recent years. In fact, the rate of 

increase has been from 20 to 25 percent per year since 1983, 

which means that the stock size has more than doubled every four 

years. Juvenile indices were at xecord highs in 1993 and 

exceeded long term averages in 1994. These strong indicators of 

population growth and health have increased our confidence that 

the stock can presently accommodate greater controlled removals. 

With the application of harvest restrictions such as annual 

quotas, increased size limits to ~'rotect spawners, etc., there is 

no reason to believe that the striped bass population will not be 

maintained at the rebuilt levels and support the annual allowable 

harvest levels recommended by ASMF'C. 

o What is the scientific basis for lifting the EEZ 

moratorium? 

First of all, as stated earlier, t1ecause nearly 95 percent of the 

striped bass are taken in state w<: .. ters, the ASMFC is, and should 

remain, the lead agency for striped bass management and the 

proposal to lift the moratorium in the EEZ was done in response 

to its recommendation. NMFS has ~;upported the ASMFC's 

development of the Plan, and has c.ctively cooperated in the 

resolution of related management issues since the ASBCA was 

4 
53 

passed. Second, the stock is fully recovered. All of the 

biological data, i.e., juvenile indices, spawning stock biomass, 

population levels, age class distributions, mortality rates, 

etc., indicate that the population has recovered and can maintain 

healthy levels at the harvest rates being allowed by the ASMFC. 

The data are reviewed on an annual basis and necessary 

adjustments made ("adaptive" management) to ensure the necessary 

population indices are met and maintained. And, third, but 

important in our evaluation, is the opinion of ASMFC's Striped 

Bass Technical Committee, made up of state and Federal 

biologists, i.e., that since only about 5-7 percent of the 

landings of striped bass was taken from the EEZ prior to the 

moratorium, the effect on fishing mortality would be nearly 

"immeasurable" if the EEZ was reopened to fishing for striped 

bass. 

o How will the striped bass fishing in the EEZ affect 

striped bass fishing in state waters, and the 

implementation of State management plans? 

The NMFS proposal to open the EEZ is designed to complement 

state regulations. At the time the striped bass population was 

declared "fully recovered" by the ASMFC, and the quotas were 

raised, NMFS discussed the EEZ closure with the state marine 

fisheries directors who serve on ASMFC's striped Bass Management 

Board. Their position, as stated in an April 11, 1995, letter 

5 
54 

from Philip G. Coates, Chairman of the ASMFC Striped Bass 

Management Board, to Rolland Schmitten, Assistant Administrator 

for Fisheries, was, and I quote, "At its March a, 1995, meeting 

in Providence, Rhode Island, the Board agreed that ending the 

Federal moratorium would not jeopardize the health of the 

migratory stock, and EEZ landings could be carefully controlled." 

Specifically, the Board stated that harvest from Federal waters 

must conform with the regulations in place at the port of 

landing, and all commercial striped bass poundage at a given port 

should be counted against that state's commercial quota. 

"Although commercial striped bass quotas for 1995 are 

considerably higher than in previous years, it is not expected 

that this change in EEZ regulations will result in major shifts 

of fishing effort into the management unit. Recreational striped 

bass fisheries are generally conducted within state waters, and 

state commercial allotments are carefully meted out by strict 

gear controls and limited tag dispensing programs. In general, 

permitting EEZ striped bass catch should help to reduce bycatch 

waste in the offshore fisheries while maintaining the integrity 

of established state industries." 

This was reaffirmed in a July 26, 1995, letter from Gordon c. 

Colvin, Chairman of the ASMFC, to myself, who-stated that "the 

Board's letter may be taken as a statement of the official views 

of the Commission on the moratorium question." 

6 
55 

In addition, the reopening of the EEZ to striped bass fishing has 

been supported by both the Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery 

Management Councils. 

The NMFS proposal would not change any of the state regulations 

or increase the allowable catch established by the ASMFC. It 

simply would reopen the EEZ to both commercial and recreational 

striped bass fishing and impose a minimum size limit of 28 

inches. All state regulations would apply once the striped bass 

are taken into state waters. The 28-inch minimum size limit was 

selected inasmuch as it is the baseline size limit from which the 

ASMFC catch is calculated and also the size limit that would 

protect over 50 percent of females and allow them to spawn at 

least once. NMFS believes the proposed size limit is necessary 

to assure that smaller striped bass are not targeted for sale in 

states with smaller minimum size limits. 

The rule simply means that fishermen in the EEZ may not harvest 

or possess striped bass less than 28-inches in length. However, 

if fishermen enter the state waters of Massachusetts, for 

example, they may not possess striped bass less than 36-inches in 

length and the fish must have been taken by hook and line only .. 

In other words, all of a state's regulations, (i.e., size limits, 

quotas, trip limits, permit requirements, sale or no sale, etc.), 

must be complied with if any striped bass taken in the EEZ are 

transported into that state's jurisdiction. 

7 
o What impact will comme1·cial fishing interests from 

other States fishing o f f New Jersey's coast have on 

recreationa l fishing in New Jersey waters? 

The reopening of the EEZ to striped bass fishing should have very 

little or no effect on recreatioual fishing in New Jersey's 

waters. The sale of striped basn in New Jersey is prohibited, 

and would remain so under the NMI'S proposed rule. While striped 

bass could be taken in the EEZ ot:f New Jersey and landed in a 

different state, such fish must c:omply with the state-oflanding's regulations and would be counted against its quota. 

Further, as noted earlier, it is the opinion of ASMFC's striped 

Bass Management Board that "it i:; not expected that this change 

in EEZ regulations will result ill major shifts of fishing effort 

into the management unit." The a llowable catch · has been 

calculated to maintain a healthy stock, and does not provide 

additional quota. In fact, reop ning the EEZ to striped bass 

fishing should reopen some .. Prime areas for recreational 

fishermen. 

That concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy to 

respond to any questions that yo·u or members of the Subconuni ttee 

may have. 

8 
57 

:Borough of Seaside Park ·Sixth & Central Avenues • Seaside Park, New Jersey 0871.12 

Congressman Jail)~s Saxton, Chairman 

SubCommittee ortFisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

Committee on Risoureet 

. US ~ouse qf Rep~esentatives 

339 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, o .c : 20s 15·3003 

(908) 793·0234 

December 5, 199S 

RE: December 12, 1995, Testlniony Before Subconunillee on Fisheries, Wildlife and 

· Oce~~s wi.th Rnpecl to II.R. 2655, ns Well ns ;>;MFS's Plan to Allow 

.· Comrncr~ial Fishing for Striped Bass in the EEZ Zone 

Dear CongressmAn Saxton: . " 

~nclos d is _a copy of my testimony to be presented at the December 12, 1995, hearing on 

your Subc'ommittee on Fisheries, Wild!ire &. Oceans, with respect to your own Bill, H.R. 

2655 and the NMFS's plan to open up the EEZ zone for c:ommercia! fishing of striped bass. 

On behalf of the members of our Town Council, our residents and many tourists, and the 

small businesses. ~hich depend on fishing and tha tourism industry In general, I certainly 

thank you for all your efforts concerning this n1ost vital issue. Besides being able to present 

the substance of my testimony itself concerning striped bass and the recreational fishing 

industry in my town, it is Indeed uplifting to know that our voice will be heard in 

Washington. 

Additionally, I wanted to again commend you and your hard working staff, and especially, 

Gary Gallant, Scott Jac:obs and Sandy Condit, for all their substantive and procedural help 

in making sure that our town and my testimony is presented in proper form in the record. I 

~ilders1and that Mr. Jacobs will be able to have the proper number of copies presented in 

the Committee's required form•t so that my enclosed testimony becomes part of the 

penmaneni ~ubcommittee's record. 
58 

Conj:ressman James Saxton 

RE: Decelllber 'u, 1995, Testimony Berort Subcomnlittce on Fisheries, Wildlife and 

· Oceans with Respect to H.R. 2655, as Well as NMFS's Plan to Allow 

Commerical Fish In& for Striped Ba.;s In the EEZ Zone 

Pase 2 . December 5, 1995 

Once again, I thank you and your office for all your help and suppo~, and !look forward to 

seeing you on December 12, 1995, if not berore. 

Sincerely, 

C),..~~,Q) 

MAYOR, JOHN A. PETERSON, JR. 

JAP:jh 

Sent via regular mail and telerax (202) 225-!244 (with enclosures) 

Enclosure 

c: Seaside Park Borough CoLmcil (with enclosures) 

Gary Gallant (with encloMes) 
59 

Borough. or ~easide Park 

S!xth & Central Avenues · Seaside Park, New Jersey 08752 

Tht. F~n:~Ry R_esorl 

Congressman James Saxton, Chairman 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife & Oceans 

Committee on Resources 

U.S. House of Representatives 

\-11 ·805 O'Neill Hou~e Of!ice Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

(908) 793·0234 

December 5, 1995 

RE: 

·. .·. , I 

December.12, .. 1995, Testimony llcfo• 1e Subcommittee on Flshcl'ies, Wildlife nnd Oceans 

with Respect to H.R. 26SS, ns Well as 1\'MFS's Piau to Allow Commercial Fishing ror 

Striped Bnss in the EEZ Zone 

J:!ear Congressman Saxton: 

On behalf of the 9ther members of the Borough of Seaside Park Town Council, our residents and 

· many tourists, and all the businessc.s in our community, I wish to thank you and the members of your 

Subcommittee for ailowins me to present testimony today on the above issue concerning striped 

bass, which is a vital concern to our economy and the tourism industry of all New Jersey, if not the 

· entire East Coasi. Pa.renthetically, I must also note my appreciation for all the hard work and efforts 

from your office and other members of yom Subcommittee on behalf of related issues with regard to 

the Magnuson Act, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act. Our shore economy, my 

own community ·and the t\1 ture of New Jersey's second largest industry of tourism in general are 

intrinsically linked to the preservation of a clean, natural cn,ironment with a flourishing stock of 

marine and other species. 

To sum up my testimony to be presented today, I wish to offer my support for HR 2655 which 

would extend for five (5) ycnrs the current moratorium on striped bnss fishi ng in the EEZ, and would 

~!so require tlie implementation of a Fishery Management Plan before said moratorium would be 

lifted . . Related to my full support concerning this Bill introduced on November 16, 1995, I would 

again go ori record in total opposition to the National Marine fishery Services (NMFS) pending plan 

to reopen for conimercial net fishing of striped bass in the arorementioncd EEZ Zone, at a time when 

the species is just beginning to rebound from the devastating days when wholesale commercial 

harvesting of the species and other factors nearly depleted the striped bass entirely from the East 

Coast . I join with the various recreational fishing groups, particularly in New Jersey, and my own 

c()ns)ituents and t.ourists who are dismayed over the swiftness of the NMFS's proposal, as well as 

la~k or full .environmental impact studies for a comprehensive flshery manasement plan for the 

species: Some of my' more in-depth presentation of the many reasons to support HR 2655 and to 

oppose the NMFS's current proposal would include the following: 
60 

l, Etonomits And the EITects of RecrcMioMI :itripcd U~ss F'iihlng on Toul'ism 

/l.s you ar~ awa~e, tourism is the second largest ;ndusiry in the State of New Jersey, and this eight 

billiondollar($8,000,000,000) industry provides ·hree hundred and fifty thousand (350,000) jobs, a 

large propOrtion of which are directly related to he New Jersey Shore. In New Jersey alone there 

are over two thousand (2,000) tackle shops, mari11as, party and charw boats, all of which depend on 

fish like the striped bass. These businesses enploy approximately nine thousand nine hundred 

(9,900). people 'and generate sales or fishing tacl:le alone of over three hundred twenty-six million 

dollars ($~26,000,000) in New Jersey. Often c ted economic surveys show that the New Jersey 

Shore. (one h~ndred . twenty-seven (127) miles :ong) generates approximately two billion dollars 

($2,000,000,000) more i'n beach related tourism revenues In a ten (10) week summer season 

(approximately 'eieht ~inion dollars ($8,000,000, lOO) than does the total box office gate of every 

motion 'picture theater In the United States, in an entire year (approxim~te y 5.6 billion dollars In 

1993). ' . 

Further, iii. relaiing such general background a\J•mt tourism to recreational striped bass fishing, I 

would emphasi<:_e the: t9talripple economic effect or recreational surf fishing and particularly striped 

t;!ass fishing, )Yhicn boosts sales of fishing equipment, bait, clothing, gasoline, vehicles, boats, motel 

rooms, food, beach fees and many other expenditures which have a far greater economic benefit to 

~ew Jersey's economy than has been recognized. As striped bass fishing occurs primarily during the 

spring and fall seasons, the benefit to the New kscy Shore economy occurs at a critical time after 

summer residents have left the area. As such, in my own town of Seaside Park and up and down the 

Jersey Shore; the many bait and tackle shop!, sporting goods stores, sm~ll restaurants and 

lunche6nett.es, and then;alestate rental and sale tusinesses are entirely dependent upon rccreMional 

fishing· and eipeclalli the !nost popular surf fishhg ror striped bass. This overall ripple economic 

efl:ect has a vast positive benefit upon tourism oevenue and our state's economy and should be 

thoroughly studied and documented prior to imph menting any proposal to reopen the EEZ Zone to 

coinmercial.fishing, w~ich proposition could entirely jeopardize this substantial economic benefit. . . . 

Further, besides ihe obvious economic expcndi tur~:s cited above, recr c~tional striped bass fishing can 

certainly be. credited for a portion of purch~ses of extremely valuable beach bugS)' vehicles and/or 

boat purchases, many of which are in excess of fi~ y thousand dollars (SSO,OOO). Such lesser known 

economic pluses for r~crcationa1 fishing and striptd bass fishing in particular, can be further seen in 

tnc rec~nt enthusiasm for salt water fly fishins whio:h has generated thousands of dollars of additional 

tackle shop revenues. _If the National Marine Fishery Service is to err, it should err on the side of 

caution, and not jeopardize the pursuit of recreational striped bass fishing which forms a vital part of 

our Shore, and indeed, our entire State's tourism e:onomy. 

-, .. 
61 

2. The Strirtd Bnss Species hns not SignificAntly "Recovet·ed" ns Ruled Upon bx 

NMF§ • 

. NMFS has ·recently made the determination that the striped bass has significantly "recovered'' and 

has indicated that Its decision Is supported by scientific documentation. The methods used to reach 

this conclusion are not universally accepted even in the scientific community. Since the majority of 

·striped bass are spawned in the Chesapeake Bay or the Hudson River, New Jersey fisherman are 

dependent on migratory fish. The further from the spawning grounds, the fewer the fish. No striped 

bass fisherman i~ New 1ersey would agree that this fishery Is recovered. In 1993 and 1994 only a handful of legal striped bass were caught at nearby Island Beach State Park by several thousand 

fishermen; fishins bo.tb spring and fall. Island Beach auracts New 1ersey's highest density of surt 

a'riglers who recall the historic levels of striped bass. In 1995 there have been more fish, however, 

,95% v;ele less thin IS;' and few legal sized fish have been caught. On October I - 1,069 fishermen 

entered the Governor's Surf Fishing Tournament contest at Island Beach, and only a single legal bass 

was taken. This was during the peak season of the historic striped bass surf fishery and few fish were 

present. This anecdotal information is typical of the entire coast. 

Further, the historic striped bass fishery in Bamesat Bay that was nationally known in the 1950s, is 

non-existent. There were great numbers of school sized bass in Barnegat Bay, and now, only a small 

number near Barnega)lnlet are found. 

'finally, while I would certainly applaud the great strides made by the Congress, State officials and 

_various citizen's groups in the cooperative effort to restore the Chesapeake Bay, Its water quality, 

and the estuary system, I should note that 90"/o of the catch of striped bass in our area and southward 

:on the New 1ersey coast spawn in the Chesapeake Bay itself, and do to the general degradation of 

the Chesapeake Bay water, it is by no means assured that the current trend toward recovery of the 

striped bass species will continue. It's far too early to reach any kind of scientific based conclusion 

that the New Jersey coast will ever reach the historic levels of striped bass caught again in light of 

these factors, and I would emphasize that the Congress and the National Marine Fishery Service 

should use the utmost degree of caution in reaching any decision in this area. 

3, The Striped Bass Is a Unique Spccirs in 1'\ew Jmey. 

No other fish species attracts the numbers of anglers or the enthusiasm than does the striped bass . 

.The striped bass occurs in inshore habitats, is a challenge to catch, will readily hit artificial lures, and 

' possesses fine table qualities, all of which make the striped bass New Jersey's most sought after 

species. It is' for this reason that New Jersey has had a no sale law for many years and recently 

declared the striped bass a same fish. The highest and best use of the striped bass resource is 

re(reational fishing. 

- 3-

22-102 0 - 96 - 3 
62 

4. Rtcrutionol Fishing Impacts New Jersey's Ounllty or Urt, 

New Jersey residents value th~ir 127 miles of coastlhe, and one of the primary uses of our coastal 

waters is recreational fishing. As other species of fish have declined, the ability of fishermen to have 

an opportunity to catch fish has also significantly declined in recent years. 

Sludish stocks are down as are weRkfish and summer flounder. The reduction of these primary 

rweational fish species has been dramatic. The moderate Increase in striped bass stocks have 

partially filled the demand for recreational fishing. n.e opponunity that recreational fishing provides 

for New Je,rsey'~ residents, and especially children, sh·Juld not be underestimated as a ma]Ol factor in 

our 9~atity of life. : : 

5. Credibility or NMFS Is A! Stoke. 

For ~ore than ~S y;ars, New Jersey's coastal fishermen have supported the restrictions on striped 

bass. New'Jers~y'sn() sale, no commercial fishing, size limits, and bag limits have been, along with 

effort! in other states, responsible for the current increase in striped bass stocks. Voluntary 

compliance with the strict regulations has been except;onal and a credit to the collective conservation 

attitude of l:\ew '1ersey's fishermen. Many striped ba!s fishermen return all fish to the water as they 

believe that the~ will contribute to the recovery ofthe fish they love. 

To open the fishing to commercial netting now, under a questionable decision that the fishery Is 

recovered, will be viewed by thousands of New Jersey fishermen as a threat to the striped bass 

resourc~ as well as a severe impact on their trust in the regulatory process . . · .. ' , .· 

6. Tlie Proposi.l hnS not Bun Well Thnught-Out. 

Sine~ New Jersey has a no sale law, where v.11lthe c<•mmcrcially catrght fish go? We are creating a 

climate for violations by opening up commercial fishing in a state with no market. Additionally, what 

gear will be permitted? Will pair trawlers be permitt~d? Oill nets? What considerations have been 

given io insure that undersized fish will not be killed? All recent studies show few fish survive being 

caught in nets. The 28 Inch limit will certainly result in an extraordinary number of dead undersized 

fish which will find their way into the illegal market. This would be an unconscionable waste of one 

. of our ,most val~~ble marine resources. 

7. Enrorsement: 

As M~y~r or the sm~li New Jersey community of Seaside Park, I am well familiar with the fact that 

the current economic, social, and political climate make tax dollars and resources all too finite In 

providiris Federal, State, and local government servicr.s. With such limited availability of funds, It Is 

simply unrealistic to open up the EEZ Zone for commt~rcial fishina o( striped bass, and to also expect 

ihe exi_stinslaw enforcement mechanisms and personnel to have tho ability to efl'ectively regulate the sitllati~ . 

- 4-
63 

Where will these resources come from to enforce the proposed commercial fishery? There is 

presently inadequate 'enrorcement in New Jersey coastal waters due to cutbacks in both federal and 

state agencies. Fishing violations are now a constant problem in New Jersey as witnessed this year in 

the com~ercial111enhaden fishery, Time and time again boats were observed inside the L2 mile legal 

limit Many of the 'violations occur at night when enrorcement or size and catch limits will be 

ilnpossible, The. illegal netting in Raritan Bay has been dOCIJmented over many years and continues 

t,oday: · 

.8. Jm,n•ct ofMenhndrn Fishing, 

Altl1ough thi.s issue has not been documented, a con1mon belief of New Jersey's fishermen is that the 

larger bass which wer.e common in the past and are now rarely seen, now migrate further offshore 

due to over fishfng menhaden inshore. Larger bass follow the migrating menhaden which are now 

virtually eliminated by commercial vessels when they appear off our coast. Since the menhaden are 

absent near shore, so are the striped bass. A number of speakers made this point at the recent NMFS 

hearings at New Jersey sites, that as the striped bass are now forced further offshore In search of 

rood, they will become vulnerable to commercial nets. Since 90% of these larger fish are breeding 

females, there may be an unanticipated significant factor that has not been considered. It may also be 

true that the menhaden fishery also has a direct impact on striped bass as a bycatch, 

9: Potenti"l C"ta~trorhic Loss or the Striped S;lss Resource. 

Striped bass travel well known migration routes making them easy targets for commercial fishing, 

They are exclusively an inshore species and travel in large schools. They are a slow fish and once 

targeted, can be followed by commercial boats using modern navigation and fish finders, Ironically, 

a· species which is extremely wary and difficult to catch on hook and line will be vulnerable to 

commercial nets, 

In some years there are large concentrations of striped bass outside 3 miles in the EEZ Zone, which, 

ithis proposal is implemented, could mean a devastating blow to the striped bass resource. This 

nearly occurred ofT the coast of North Carolina and Virginia several years ago ns regulators did not 

nicognize that a concentration of fish had wintered far offshore and were vulnerable to commercial 

ov~r fishi~g . 

It would be an unfortunate occurrence to see a feeding frenzy of large commercial vessels including 

foreign vessels, · off the coast of New Jersey which would eliminate a resource that New Jersey 

fishermen have w·orked 25 years to bring back These fish would not even be permitted to enter the 

New Jersey marketploce and would therefore provide no economic benefit to our state. It is 

certainly true that a fishery offshore will be beyond the reach of New Jersey enforcement agencies, 

such as the New Jersey Marine Police and the New Jersey Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife. This 

fishery' would also take place beyond the view of most New Jersey fishermen who would not be 

aware until the fish are· gone, 

- 5-
64 

10. The 'EfTttl on PCB's on Strlned Bast Stork AS It Rtlntes to Potsnti~lly 

Reopening or the EEZ Zone h11• not Beeg Well Thon&ht ont. 

While others testified at the recent NMFS' hearing on the issue, and most particularly, Tom Fote, the 

effect _ofPCB's on any thought to reopen the EEZ Zcne to commercial netting of striped bass should 

be thoroughly e_xamined. Since the Hudson River fish still retain levels ofPCB's above acceptable 

levels for human consumption, and we now know tha•. the Chesapeake Bay and Hudson River striped 

bass populations Intermix, it is Impossible to segregate flsh that are contaminated from those that are ·not. · ' . , · :. 

_U. ~umonm• nnd Enclosures, 

In surri~ary,I V.:ouldagain offer my full support for HR 2655 which would extend for flve (5) years I 

the current moratorium on striped bass fishing ·n EEZ Zone, and would also require the 

implementationof a Fishery Management Plan befor~ said moratorium would be lifted. Related to 

this position, I would also)ndicate that the current p.-oposal to open the EEZ Zone for commercial 

fishing of s.triped bass is not In the overall public Interest It is absolutely premature to place 

additio~al pressure on a.species that is just beginning to make a comeback, the limits and parameters 

of which, have not be.en fully documented. Most importantly, the Congress should realize that the 

striped bass is notjust another tish species to New Jersey fishennen, as it represents a cultural and 

historic recreational tradition that is important to our -:itizens and our economy. 

Further, my own coastal community of Seaside Park is fully representative of the many &imilar towns 

which benefit far more from recreational fishing than any gains realized from commercial fishing to 

be realized from otherstat~s. Itis hard to equate in simple objective or quantifiable terms the value 

of memories such ~s my own, when I was a small boy wishing my father best of luck as be picked up 

the latesi fishing lure and traded a few fish stories at :he nearby Cap Colvin's Bait and Tackle Shop, 

and then trudged down to the beach in hopes of reveling in the excitement of catching a magnificent 

striper to proudly. bring home to his family. I as I: for the opportunity to preserve and protect 

recreational striped bass fishing for my children and grandchildren's generations so that they'll be 

able to happily tag along as I go to my town's still existent Cap Colvin's Bait and Tackle Shop (now 

run by Mr. Colvin's gri\nddaughtcr and her family, as 3 C's luncheonette) when I'll trade a few fish 

stories about whether t~ey are biting on clams or mo;t prevalent in nearby Island Beach State Park, 

or even down the street where my own memories and experiences v.ith this glorious recreational fish 

continue to Jive on. : Naturally, I would ask the Congress to realize that my own anecdotal 

information and personal memories are representative of many of the residents, tourists, and small 

business operators from up and down the New Jersey Coast who have voiced overwhelming public 

sentiment in opposition to the JI.'MFS'• proposal. As noted herein, neither the full economic input 

nor the environmental impact of this all too hasty decision have been addressed. Similarly, the PCB 

issue, sear restrictions,.overa11 enforcement and the all too limited public funds lend further support 

to reject the NMF'S,'s proposal and to support HR 2655. 

- 6-
65 

In closing, I can't help but note that in cert~in political arenas, and most certainly, with respect to the 

envir~nment in general, the public suspicion of government regulations end management plans has 

pushed the pendulum of public opinion and government too far. In showing most exemplary 

leadership on various ocean environmental issues, and specifically, with regard to the striped bass, I 

would ask the Subcommittee to recognize that striped bass have been regulated since the first 

settlement of the New World. As noted by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the 

Massachusetts Bay Colony prohibited the use of striped bass as a fertilizer for corn and squash 

plantings by our earliest settlers, and in 1669, Plymouth Colony ordered that revenues from the 

Fishery for striped bass be used to construct the first public schoolhouse in North America. (See 

Striped Bass: Restoring a Legacy, published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, distributed in 

tob~r 1995) .. I would ask that the Subcommittee end the Congress recognize the reasonableness 

or existing regufatio~s of striped bass so that we may preserve and protect recreational salt water 

sjlortOfishing foi' thi(species, and ironically, future eommerciRl fishing as w~lt, for generations to 

eome. In suppo(l of my testimony, I have presented a certified Resolution adopted on November 2, 

1995, from the Borough Council of Seaside Park, Ocean County, New Jersey, some representative 

Ocean County, New Jersey area newspaper articles documenting the public outcry over the }.'MFS 

proposal, a two (2) page March 1990 Fish and Wildlife Service summary concerning Striped Bass 

(Morone saxatilis), and a three (3) page table of sport fish dMa on Striped Bm on directed trips 

distributed by the New Jersey Division ofFish, Game, and Wildlife. 

Thanks again for allowing me the opponunity to testify on this most important issue. 

Respectfully Sllbmined, 

MAYOR, JOHN A. PETERSON, JR. 

JAP:jh 

Enclosure 
'(9··· ' .· . 

. ' . . . . 

. .J •.• 

. .• . 

. ..: . ·.. . ."'·· : 

·.: :: 

. St_riped Bass • ; · . A Resource at Risk . · 

::. : ' Sln;,. coloniAl daY,, E.st C~st IUhor• 

., · :man h&ve deUghttd lrl the strlpec! I>•• ~ a •: migratory fish knojvn lorltss~. o.nd flsht· 

::,: Ins ability. Strlpen, ~1\eri Called roclcJisb in :. theCh.S.peokeU.y,!l.avelons~tmpor· 

; · ~~ co~~~~nerdaland saa"ifish lro111 North :: C.:olina to Maine: BUt dw!nJ the put 

. deead' otriped ba'si niunbon ·"'"' d .. ·: ~llnedai~rmlnsty,espodollyllltheCh~p· 

. : eake,thooptwningllldnursoryg.oundfor 

nearly 110 porcent of the ~tlanllc popula· 

tlon. · · .. · . . : !'rol!lanicordcolll!norclolc.tdloflU <' li1itllon ·pounda In- 1973, th• harVest 

· · 'ropfod to 1.7 mDllon pourid. jw_tlO yW. 

.Aier. Sport r .. henntrl report in '"!ually 

66 

Striped B_ass 

(Marone saxatilis) 

kvere d'rop In their !l.arve<t, The decUne 

meant J loSJ of SO!rlt 7,0Cf; jobs and $220 

million In 1980, the latest Y<>ot for which. 

ures are •••"•ble. Causes tor the dtcli:le are numacus 

•nd Interwoven, and rr..ay Include ov<:· 

fishin& pollution, 11\d the •legrad>tion or loiS of habit>L · · 

Cause for Concern 

So al.lnnlns wu the decllno of th• Atlontlc llrlp<d bAiS In the 1970'o thu It 

boc.tme a m-atter of conr-esdi)N1 conctm ... 

In 1979 the Congress al!K lor an Emcr· 

seney Striped e.. .. Researo h Study . . The otudy t. to assess the slz< of the migratory 

stock,determineau..,olilsdecllne,.,lcu· 

late the economic bnpor1mre, and rccom• 

mend measures ror restoration. 

Rcse.trchctsfrom the Fish. and WUdli(e 

Servfc._ State aaendtt 111d unh·ersitie:t 

hove round, lorexample,lhll ltMl stripod 

bass 11• very ou«eptible to loxle&:\15 liko arstnic1 topper, ~dmlum. alumJnu:n, wd mali,hlon. · · • . . Resurc:h In lhe Cheupoakt't N•ntl· 

cob and Choptank Flvt" oho~~ that high r:i clitytcve~s from heavy sprir:3 raiN 

ruct with aluminum In the soli, n ·.;s:ng it 

todlmlveir\thewatcrs; thc conlbir.;.!ion of 

hizh acidity a.'d aluminum tovels I! ~hal 

to newly hatthed strip<n. Studies also 

show that chlorln;uion o! rfnuer.t from 

Jewage plants ancl electric powc.c1!Jtions 

· advmcly illccts zoopla nkton, l"'dir.g 10 &Qrvitlol'l ot newly halched strlped bass 

· . th3.t (cod. on lt. The study Wm abo con· 

eluded that reducing fi>hlng prc:.,uro . would ha.vea.n [mmed tc po lttve ffcct by 

·. enabling rem•les with eggs to '!""~ An · AUant.kStatcsMarlneFi$h ryCom6-~ss on. 

) man>gement plan, a~ partly on r.>:om· ~ D'\cndations of the emergency study, Jets ' ·overall D'llntmwn •t.t~Umit s to reduce the 

: citch. Seasonal or totaJ closurt an.d vtrious 

. :·.otht; slze rcsl:rfctions are mc.tsures s~ tC$ 

. :: h;avli now el'l olctcd unde~ tht pbn. 

'Bringing the_.Stripei Back _. 

· . ~tchery production has l>ccn """'"' •.'. atteinf11 to restore striper rul\s from :-:orth 

.:J C.:Otina' and tho Cull of Mo>ico o.'\d In . 

'.: 'estobUshlng the ,p.c;,. In Inland ~'""· · The U.S. Fl•h and WildlilcS<r"l!ce'nr."aUy . produco>elsht to 10 mmion ~ngorlinp lor 

theso pi'0£'11111. Now lho Service and !!ole 

;_astrldcs an using thb experience lo try 10 
67 

' .. . ... . 

bobt~tt~c itnP.,(s dwindling Ches•p-.ke pounds .;,d reach. nwly fivo loct in length. Alter 2to 3 yeon, •\ the Juvonne stoge .&(population. . . · ,. · Strlpcdba»spawnlnlrcshorbracl<lsh (12·20 Inches), about hllthelcmolcs ml· 

.< .· Adult fish are caplurtd lor artlfkial waten~ut spond most olthclr adultlivesln gral• to the « .. n whcrithey matuf1!. The ·spawning ., they make their run.o 10 the occ&ri. On lho'At4nricCoastthcyrango mak>s, howtvcr; tend to ltay In tho cstuar• 

. • •pawning grounds. At just the rlsht 1110- · from tho St. Lawrenct )Uver In Canad•to . I.,, · · 

:nenl, lema leo are artificially "aulpped' of Florid•'• St.Johnl Ri.,.r, although they are · .-----.,---~...,.--,.., 

~hei.r ts8'· wh.ich ve then fertilized with !Z\Ost preYali~l tiOm Maine to North Caro-- : .milt from coptured m>les. The eggs are !inL . · .-· · . ·Stripe~ Facts 

li\CJ>bated In av.uiety ol movl"i water · ·. Maleotilpcrsmatureat2to3yearund 

"iU.rla. AJ the newly hatched ftsh dr- ' ipend mosto!thtitllv., le<ding nw their , 90,; oltlie Nonh .. st Atlantic 

.velop, they are led i diet olbrln.01hrlmp. nat:.! w•\ers. Femol" migrate alons the .,striped ba» population once Alter o ltwdays, they aro tn.RJIOI'I'O!Ito . coa•~ retumll\g lortllelt firSt ~me los pawn dcpe~ded on Che>apc•ke Bay 

halchc.y rearing ponds where they .. , 1 . at S.S Y"""· II t&k.s S<:veral Y""" lor ij"-wning g~und~ . riatunl diet ormkroscop!c orgo.nlsms and •p'awni~g loma)el t<>'re.~ch full productiv· . . •.• 

commercially prep.,ed fish food. • lly . .luuvorafo6-yw-i>ld kmale prod~ctt 

• . • In 3 to 5 months, the ftsh arow to I halt. millio~ esgs whue. lS ~r-old (OJ\ 

ltristh ol 4 to 6 ·lncllct. They an now past produce thr~ miUion. .. ·. · · the pOint ol giealest vulnerabDit)r and CJ~n . When W.tlif ~empcn.lurc:~ginslO rfse 

· · be 'roleal«! Into their na~ve Ch.,.pe•ke fn the . sprlns, ·mature fish b<gln .tllelr · . lr1butarlr-~ :· Some of the atriper1 will be · .&pawntns nlns 1n freshwater rivers and ·, 

· t..1sicd~"dbtet'!Y'aptw~t~cva luatethl 'tNarns, ch e~y ln tn'butarles Q/ the Che- · 

oucc.,. of the stocllng program and tho "p<>ke Bay. Olhel lmporti.nt areas In· 

fish's ab!Uty tO >urvlv~ In the Wild. . . elude lt.e Hudson River 1.nd riven alons · ·:. Thellrst slrlpcrs willbt slacked In the the North Carollnuout. · · 

tal! otl985. SeverAl million WiU butocked . Onde the female deposlls her eggs, . durins ~he a~.-year progr~ . .. . they ..... fcrt~ed by milt (•pOrml tjoclcd 

from the males.'!!e<auS<: th•Y are only s.ml·: 

· Life History , buoyanl, the egg> requ!re enough water 

. :. 1nt1 nvery striped bass gets tt:s n~e f1 ow.to stay su~pe:\ded for2 or3 da)'1 unto. 

from the seven or eight dar!<, con~nuous they hatch. · · 

line:> i.longthe side ollts body. Mo.t strip- Larval striped """ obtaln nutrlcnO. , wtighlng In morethon 30 pounds are !rom the yolk sac lor about 5 days alt<r' 

nales. The. fish can weigh up to 100 hatchlng.Atthisstag•theyartparticulorly 

vulner.able to pollution and predators. 

· ··· .. ·' ' 

• $tripod hs~ <Ommerdal <atch h» 'declined from 14.1 million 

poun(!sln the mly 1970's to 1,1 million pound•ln th• <>rl.)l' 1980's, 

• ihl•IO.yeardecline was responsiblo lor the loss of 7,000 

jobs and $220 million. 

• U.S. Fish and 1'111dlile Service and Maryland will stock Bay 

\V3Icrs with S(:veral million 

a tripod boss fingerlings during a y~r pilot program bcslnning In \98.5. . 

• At one tima striped bJ.$$ were 

usod to krtili:tcd fields, 50 great . were their numbcn. · 

• The continent's r.~ t public: · 

school was f1 oanct'dby piofltsfrom 

~~~ ~lt of ~tri~ b~~}~~ ,oth~ · , 

•Maximum Weight rccordr:d for 1 

· llripcd bass Is 125 pounds; age Is 29 

)'C&t'S (in captivity). ' ' · 

. . ~ .. ; 

•Most strlpcn weighing m~re:than 

: \{. . ...... ?0~ rou.n_ds ~ rcm3lc. .·.:.J :~·-. 

:.:~~ : ~A 6-yc~r old (cm3le striper pro-

. i .. : r :;,.:· ·~u~ $00,000 eggs; • 15-yCilr old 

;,,;.:,:\ ·,.~~:;,~ ~~"? rillion. . :\ .c: 
68 

Table 1. Sportfisb Data _on Striped Bass Directed 1rips 

·;_.: 

I I 

lasion _Tdp.l fSB Catch . . I 

" 

. ~ .. 

1~. ·. :' · 34os 2969. 24.2 

2~ 2203 1!1~0 16.2 .... ' ·. , 

3• \ 871.' ' 1823 14.9 ,· k ·. :- . , 4w· . 364' 3432 28.0 

s• . 650 589 4,8 

6*. 665. 1303 10.6 , .· 

7*, . 4i 150 ·1.2 

. ·.'::. 

11199 : 12246 

_1* ·• ~andy ·Hook t~ saaside Park 

2* • Ialand Beach State Par~ 

3• • tori& Beaeh ~·l&D4 

4* :· lr1.an~ine_ta Cape Ksy 

5* • Intracoastal Vatari 

<28" 

2372 

1665 

1205 

1739 

465 

1079 

98 

8623 

6• • Hudson liver 1nc1ud.ins Sandy Hook Bay 

7* • Otha.r · ' 

28'·38· >38" 

566 31 

294 2l 

563 55 

1603 90 

112 12 

198 26 

52 0 

3388 235 

.. 

I of 

Lesal 

Cf£ Catch 

0.87 16.5 

0,90 8.7 

o:97 17.1 

1,46 46 .• 7 

0.91 3.4 

1.96 6.2 

3.66 1.4 

1.09 
' Table 2.: 

·' 

: ~. 

.. . ~11\ '•i 

~ ~· . 

Feb · ... : 

, .. 

' liar . ; : 

-~~ ·. 

~pr . ~ 

M._y ~ : .· ' ::>~~ ~lift 

Jul · 

t, ;·:. 

-· .. 

~•P 

,Oct 

ilov .:; ... 

'»ec 

: i; ·-.· : 

Yur· 

.. 

.·,. 

" 

69 

Nev Je~s~y'• ~ecreat1onal catch per effort for 1991 thro~&h l993, ·by month, taken froa end·of•Jeason npo~tins forms, 

1991 1992 

:·· .. o.oo 0.00 

r: 

._:.: o.oo 0.00 ·:·: · 

0.40 0.67 

.. ;:· 0.76 1.10 

·' .... :i~. 0.65 0.81 

; ; -

O.S7 0.67 :·;· ·. ,. 0.52 ,0.57 ., 

0.41 0.47 . . 

0,70 0.47 .. 

0.76 0.60 .. .. ;.: 

i': 1.49 1.05 :· .. 

'.•· ·. 1.37 .• 1.19 -:. 

1.06 O.at 

. . Oct•i>ec .. ' 1.2i 0.99 . , ·.-: . 

199l 

0.33 

0.00 

5.10 

0.74 

0.90 

0.74 

o.sa 

o.sa 

o.u 

0.76 

l .S6 

1.99 

1.09 

1.25 
70 

Table 3. Stdpacl Basa Trophy fish Data for 1991 throuab 199S ~ompi,lt~ ftoa Encl•of'-Season lteportlns Foru 

.. , .;·· 

I rS:sh ' 

" < ~·· 2a • )a•. 

·:. 

.•... : 

' 

> 38" 

,Total 

!tel 28 • ia• 

,l, 

R.el > 38• 

I tesal s 1ae 

I Jtea~ecl 

.. ~~ .... 

I i'I .. ·.'·" 

1991 

6,572 

5,011 

1,777 

157 

'6,945 

1,028 

u 

1.06 

27.t 

56.4 

... 

2,396 

u.s 

1992 

15,690 

4.30 

t,609 

3,906 

523 

14,022 

1,966 

191 

O.lt 

21.1 

·' 

48.7 

5,451 

1993 

11,U9 

4.38 

8,623 

3,388 

us 

12,246 

1,902 

68 

,-·. l.Ot 

29.6 

54.4 

-· 4,427 

u.s 
71 

BpROUGH OF SEASIDE PARK ·.. ·.,,_:· 

Resohatlon or the p;..f:i):Ot and Boi'Ou&f! Council o~~ln& the ~~d . Cedcroll'l!gulatlo~ w~ich would ~it eommerc•ll ra.she~ 'lo lake sltl~d b:a$., In tede~l warers bx netting in the Exclusive Ec:ononlc Zone . ·whach C'ltends (rom 3 miles to 200 miles offshore. 

RcsolutJon No. 9S-193 .. . Adopted; Novcmbcr2. 1995 

· WHEREAS, the Nruional Marine F~herlu. Service has pro!)9$Cd changes 10 

elli.stina federal rtgulutlons which pn1hibh the laklng of striped bas$ by bolh c:onunettlal . and ~adona! fi$1\ennen; and •'. '';': . 

·; ' ; . WHEREAS, the existing R:gularions wca'C adopted in 1981ln ~nse to a SCYUO 

declilie.ln the a111ount oC staipcdbass c:~u&}lt in coastal waters from MalnC through NOtth 

Carolina; and . . : .~ .. · · · \vHEREAS, if adopted these changes would pem\it commercial fishcnncn to take • 5tri~ bass in (eden! waters by ncuint in !he Exctuslvc Economic Zone which extends fr~ 3 miles io 200 miles offshore: and 

.· : · . . WHEREAS, recre<~lional fishing is an Important se~nt of tourlml which Is the · · Second laricSt industcy in the State of New 1crscy and provules the economic folindatlon of . Ocean .County; and . . . •. ·:·· ... . 

·: ,. : :· WHEREAS, the proposed 1't-openln1 of the closed EE Zone 10 lllow netting of · stripe_d ~ass b)' commerc•nl tishem1en could seriously JeopQtdi~ the ~e stock of dlb 

populu spo~ nsh and threaten recreational r1Shlns and the businesses and tourism dollat1 

generated therefrom. , ...... ·· 

: . NOW, THEREFORE., BElT RESOLVED by the Borough Council of the Borough o~ Seaside Park, in the County of Ocean, State of New Jersey 1$ follows: 

.. • ·. 1. '-The Mayor and Boro\•sh Council hereby oppose the proposed changes whkh · ::. would pe1'ffiit commercial fishennen to Wee strl~d bass 1n Ccdcral waters by !letting . ·,. . ln_the.,~'\clu~ive Economic Zone whlcb extends from 3 miles 10 200 miles OITshore. 

2 •. The Mayor and Boroush Council urae the N:~tional Marine Fis~ Service 10 · co_ nduet a complete environmcmal and economic Malysis o£ the proposed cbanscs . . _and their impact on the recre:~tional fishing and tourismlndus!rics of Ocean County .. , ~d N~w Jersey. ; ·: 

. I 

3. ·The Borou&h Cletk is hereby directed to forward a certified copy or this R~oludon 

. to the following: . •,; ·. . . . .;. 

William Hoga11h, F/CM, National Marine riShcries Scrv~ · U.S. Senator Bill Br;adlcy · 

U.S. Senator Frank Lautcnbcra 

Congressman H. lames Saxton 

Conj,'I'CIISman Chlistophcr Smith Con~mAn Fronk P~tllone 

Ocean County Board ot Chosen Frecholdcra 

Ocean County Municipalities 

FOR: Mr. Andel'$iln, Mi$s Pase;Jc, Mr. Roc, Mr. Kelly, Mt. Moyse 

... 

.. · AOAINST: Nona ~8STAIN: NOM ABSENT: Mt, Clcnun 

( llcteb1 cclli!ylbis 10 be • l:uC 

copy or a RC!()IutiOll 3d opted b)' tbe 

BQtOUib Counctt oa Novcrobct 2, l99S 
72 

viking yacht company 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife & Oceans 

Committee on Resources 

U.S. House <>f Representatives 

Ht-805 O'Neill House Office Building 

Washington, DC 205.15 

December 12, 1995 . 

Re: . · Testimony Supporting H.R. 2655 (Atlantic Striped Bass 

Preservation A~o.f t995)1ntroduced by Cbaionan_Jim.Sn,tan . 

Dear Committee Members: 

I would like to thank the Committee for inviting me to testify this morning on the 

regulation of striped bass fishing in the ExchJsive Economic Zone (EEZ). 

I am the Chairman and Chief Executive Office< of the Viking Yacht Company (Viking) 

and have served in that capacity for the past 35 years. For the past five years, I have 

been President of the NJ Boat Builders Association, as well as a member of the 

Government Relations Committee of the National Marine Manufacturers Association 

(NMMA). I am also the Chairman of the New Jersey Alliance To Save Fisheries 

(AIItiance}. 

Viking is a premier builder of large sportfishing yachts. In 1990 we employed over 

1500 people and did in excess of $100 million in the manufacturing of these boats. 

As a result of the federal luxury tax that was imposed in January 1991 and repealed 

on August 13, 1993, our entire industry collapsed; presently the boating industry is 

in a regrowth period. At Viking, we are back to 600 employees and in excess of $50 

million in sales. 

The NJBBA is an organization of fifteen New Jersey builders of large boats, primarily 

sportfishing boats. 

The NMMA is an organization of some 1400 marine manufacturers, which includes 

better than 90% of all boat builders, particularly those who build boats that are used 

to fish. · 

The Alliance is an organization representing 800,000 recreational fishermen; 20,000 

marine industries; and various conservation groups. 

In these capacities I have been able to observe the erosion of the boating market in 

the United States as a result of the lack of fish to be caught by recreational fishermen 

owning boats. Over the past several years, there has been a general decline in all the 

'"ON THF BA~~ AIVFR"' NFW (.;RFTNA \JEW JERSFY 08??4 f609l 296·6000 
73 

fishing a·reas of the United States which; In turn. has caused many people who 

normally buy fishinr boats to seek other forms of recreation. A typical example of 

this problem is seen in the striped bass fishing along the Mid-Atlantic Coast, where 

recreational fishermen would once go out a'nd catch a. dozen fish in the bays and/or 

oc~a n. Today, many boats some times come back without ·even getting a bite. 

. - Unless this trend is reversed, the effect on the United States boating industry will be 

catastrophic . Although there are no statistics -as to how many people are g.ivjng up 

boating because of the lack of fish available ~o be caught, it is quite obvious that avid 

fishermen will not buy million-dollar sportfishing boats that we at Viking manufacture 

if, in fact; there art! no or little fish to be caught. This, of.course., is not only true at 

Viking; but it i.r. true of any manufacturer of boats ~sing· for recreational fishing 

throughout the United States. · 

At Viking our boats range' from $500,000 to $2.2 million and the average price of our 

bOats is $1 million. For every boat that we do not build because of the lack of fish, 

five production workers in our plant will lose their jobs for one year. Our marketing 

people at Viking project that we are losing at least ten boats per year as a result of 

the fishing crisis. This constitutes fifty jobs per year at Viking. If you project such 

numbers over the entire boat manufacturing industry in the United States, the present 

loss of jobs, as a result of the fishing crisis, is in the thousands, This loss of jobs will 

continue to increase unless there is a reversal of the fishing crisis . 

Striped bass has always been a fine fish of the recreational fishermen and is a prime 

example of what I am discussing here today. It is important to the boating industry 

that the EEZ remain closed to the commercial fishing of striped bass. Quite obviously 

striped bass in the EEZ must be caught by recreational fishermen from boats and not 

from the beach. 

It is our customers and our manufacturing jobs that will suffer if our government 

allows the overharvesting by commercial fishermen of striped bass in the EEZ. We, 

therefore, request you to keep the EEZ dosed to commercial fishing unless we can 

be assured of a viable plan, which can be enforced, to provide sufficient fish for 

boating recreational anglers. 

Again, thanking you for the opportunity to testify before the Committee, I remain 

RTH/pa Robert T. Healey 

Testimony on Regulation of Striped Bass Fishing in the EEZ 

Submitted by Robert T. Healey (Viking, NJBBA & NMMA) 

Page 2 
74 

Jersey Coast Angler Association 

1201 Highway 37 East Suite 9 Toms River, New Jersey 087~4 

phone 908-!066!!6!! ru 908-5066975 

Thomas Fote 

22 Cruiser Court Toms River NJ 08753 

pH 908-270-9102 fax 908-~06·6409 

Congressional Testimony on H.R. 26~5 

I would like to thank Chairman James Saxton for introducing H.R. 2655 and for the timely 

manner in which he convened this hearing. The issu!' addressed in this bill is important not 

only to the people of New Jersey but to people in all the states throuahout the migratory 

range of the striped bass. I would also like to thank Congressman Frank Pallone for 

cosponsoring the bill. While I have this opportunity, I would also like to thank Chairman 

Saxton and the full Committee, especially Congressrnan Wayne Gilchrest, for the excellent job 

they did on the reauthorization of the Magnuson Ac1:. 

My name is Tom Fote and I am the one of the three Commissioners representing the state of 

New Jersey on the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). I am also the 

Legislative Chairman of the Jersey Coast Anglers Association (JCAA), which represents 80 

fishing clubs in New Jersey and surrounding states. This is one time I can testify wearing both 

hats because both New Jersey's delegation to the ASMFC and the membership of JCAA are 

in total agreement. New Jersey's three Commissioners, Senator Louis Bassano, Division of 

Fish & Game director, Robert McDowell and I voted unanimously in opposition of the 

reopening the Exclusive Economic Zone (EZZ) when this xa~ proposed at an ASMFC 

Striped Bass Board Meeting. The Division ofFish & Ga :~ submitted written comments to 

the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) advising them that they would not support the 

reopening of the EEZ to resumed striped bass harve ting. The Division concerns were that 

they would not be able to enforce their laws and loop holes would be created. 

Senator Louis Sassano is sorry he could not be here in person due to his legislative duties in 

New Jersey, but asked me to convey his appreciation to Chairman Saxton and the 

subcommittee for the line job they are doing. 

The comments submitted during public hearings held by NMFS in the states of Massachusetts, 

New York, New Jersey, Virginia and Connecticut demonstrated overwhelming opposition to 

the reopening of the EEZ at this time. The fishermen of Maine and Pennsylvania, when made 

aware of the proposal to reopen the EEZ, requested public hearings in their states to voice 

opposition to this change in management. They wer~ denied the opportunity to participate. 

There was plenty of Pennsylvania representation at the New Jersey public hearings, with all 

present speaking in opposition. The ASMFC Striped Bass Board voted on December 7 the 

EEZ should not be open until we can fish at full fishery and until NMFS can assured the that 

all the legal problems arc addressed. 
75 

In this testimony, I will limit my corrunents to only three reasons that clearly detail why it is 

premature to reopen the EEZ at this stage of the recovery of the striped bass fishery. 

1) Lack of federal enforcement of striped bass regulations. 

ASMFC member states proved that they could work together to rebuild depleted striped bass 

stocks under the cooperative process established by the Striped Bass Conservation Act. They 

developed and instituted regulations that they could monitor and enforce within state 

boundaries. Member states have expended considerable time and money on law enforcement 

in recent years, to ensure that these regulations are followed . In November of this year, I 

actually had the opportunity to fish for striped bass seven times on the beach near my home 

and my vehicle was inspected on one of those days by a conservation officer to insure that I 

was in compliance with the laws regulating the fishery. When I asked the C.O. if he had 

written any summons that day, he remarked that he had cited three fishermen that morning 

and had intercepted approximately 500 that day looking specifically for striped bass violations. 

Enforcement in state waters has been strong and sustained, in stark contrast to the total lack 

of enforcement in the waters ofthe EEZ. There has been a moratorium on the harvest of 

striped bass in the EEZ for more than five years and during that period, the NMFS has written 

only one surnmons for illegal possession of striped bass in federal waters. I have not heard of a 

single instance of a boat being intercepted in the EEZ off New Jersey for the possession of 

striped bass, yet we know it occurs every year. I have seen the names of individuals that 

caught fish on offshore lumps in the EZZ in the fishing reports section of local newspapers. 

After reading these reports, I would call the outdoor writers responsible for the columns, 

remind them of the moratorium and ask them to infotm their readers again. When asked if 

they had been contacted by any one from NMFS to remind them of the closure, the answer 

was always "no." 

Bruce Freeman, then representing New Jersey at the ASMFC, and I always felt there was no 

law enforcement effort by federal authorities in the EEZ concerning striped bass regulations. 

We would ask the NMFS representative at Striped Bass Board Meetings about enforcement 

efforts and if the service had written any summons for striped bass violations that year. The 

answer would always be the same l:iQJ. One year, NMFS reported that they had finally written 

a summons and some of Board members laughed, since laclc of enforcement of the regulation~ 

had become a standing joke. However lack of enforcement just isn't funny! 

Please understand that 1 am not pointing a finger at NMFS or the Coast Guard for the low 

.priority on the enforcement of striped bass regulations in federal waters. They have an 

enotmous enforcement responsibility for species ranging from surruner flounder to the 

pelagics, and striped bass is the lowest priority on their list. The Coast Guard must also deal 

with search and rescue and other missions. In an ideal world, we should put more money into 

enforcement of fisheries laws, but with reduced funding, enforcement efforts will continue to 

decline in the coming years. I wu made aware of a recent Coast Guard notice that indicated 

there would be even less enforcement effort in 1997 and beyond for fisheries laws. 
76 

2) Protection of Historical Fisheries 

Striped bass has always been an inshore fishery, with the overwhelming majority of the catch, 

both commercial and recreational, coming from within state waters. Historically, the harvest 

was 90% recreational and 10% commercial outside ofChenpeake Bay. The traditional 

recreational fishery was accomplished from the beac11 or in estuary waters, where the average 

user was a blue collar or low income family member who could participate in the fishery with 

a small expenditure in money and manage to put a high protein food source on the table as a 

result of their !is rung efforts. 

The commercial fishery was comprised of small, indt pendent watermen working with small 

boats and utilizing gill nets, pound nets and hook and line. This was never a big boat, offshore 

fishery. By reopening the EEZ with the restrictions frescntly in place on almost every other 

commercially viable species, and with striped bass st•>cks continuing to rebound, the pressure 

to expand this into an offshore fishery using non-tracitional gear will be extreme, with even 

great problems as a result. Keep in mind that the least damaging methods of commercially 

harvesting striped bass are tended gill nets, pound nets and hook and tine. Once the fishery is 

open offshore, other gear types that generate large Vt)lumes ofbycatch and discards will move 

into the fishery. This will open the door to vastly increased non·hai'Ve!t mortality, which will 

have an extremely negative impact on the spawning !lock biomass and on the traditional user 

groups. 

3) Insuring the public of striped bass that are safe to consume 

As a commissioner on the ASMFC, my first concern is the protection and sustainability of our 

public re5ource marine fisheries. But there is the added consideration of being sure the public 

is not consuming fish that are contaminated with dangerous pollutants. I take this part of my 

job very seriously. We all should. When we discuss striped bass harvest and consumption, we 

must temper our discussion with the knowledge that ;)OJ all striped bass are considered safe to 

eat in large quantities and fish from certain waters are considered unsafe to consume at all. It 

is our responsibility to insure the public the safest po sible fish for consumption and to not 

back away from the unpleasant task of making this ar. important part of any management plan 

The recreational striped bass fisherman is, without a cloubt, consuming the greatest volume of 

striped bass. Therefore, it is the recreational fishermen who should be given the greatest 

opponunity to retain fish that are safe to eat. Unfortunately, under the present management 

regime, just the opposite is taking place. The recover; plan for striped bass forces sport 

fishermen to only harvest larger fish, the very fish that can be carrying the highest volume of 

dangerous pollutants, while special considerations are given to commercial harvesters to 

assure the fish they send to market are safe for consumption. One of my goals in the recovery 

of this fishery was to continue to reduce recreational size limits as the fishery recovers, so 

sport fishermen, the very people who consume the greatest amount of these fish, can eat the 

least contaminated members of the population. 

The necessity to accommodate a new offshore fishery, a fishery that will be based on striped 

bass exclusively over 28 inches, will make it impossible to continue to reduce size limits for 
77 

the historic user groups. The states that presently have PCB advisories in place for stripeti 

bass have instituted special commercial size limits to make sure they can control the fish going 

to market and assure the public that they fall within federally mandated PCB levels. The 

traditional subsistence recreational fishermen will continue to be forced to consume striped 

bass that are questionable with regard to PCB content, because present size limits mandated 

do not allow him to retain smaller, safer fish. 

At the same time, it will make it harder to control commercially harvested striped bass going 

to market. Be advised that areas with the highest level of contamination, areas like western 

Long Island, Hudson River, Raritan Bay and Delaware Bay, are presently closed completely 

to the commercial harvest of striped bass or are regulated by fish size to prevent these fish 

from being sold to unsuspecting consumers at fish markets and in restaurants. If the EEZ is 

reopened, there is no control to assure these fish are not going to market, since they all swim 

through federal waters during the course of their seasonal migrations, making them fair game 

for commercial harvest. Is NMFS and the FDA willing to post PCB advisories in every fish 

marlcet and restaurant to warn the public of the po~~ible health risks of consuming striped 

bass? Remember that pregnant women and young children are advised to NOT consume any 

amount of striped bass whatsoever from specific waters! 

If federal waters are to be reopened, the federal government must mount a comprehen9ive 

study of PCB contamination in federal waters, just as the federal government required of the 

states The federal government can not exempt itself from the very regulations it imposes on 

the states for protecting the public's health. 

In conclusion, it has been said many times by many people, "if' it ain't broke, don't fix it!" At 

present, there is no problem filling any state's allowable quota of striped bass from within 

state waters. There is absolutely no justifiable reason to reopen the EEZ to striped bass 

harvest with the resulting problems to the fishery and with the public health risks it will 

generate. HR 26SS and iis five year extension of the moratorium in federal waters, will 

provide the time ne«ssary to explore the problems and find suitable solutions for them. 
Tele!-11 \0nes: 

201 -899-1872 201-899-1873 

hx: 

20H99-3294 

78 

57 CHANNEL DRIVE • f'OINT PLEASANT, NJ 

J: ~M83 LOVt t1mN 

i<.u.D. FISilEl{~ii:NS DOCh CO-:OP 

"ri<UST!i:E: N ,J. CiEn.FOOD iiArtVESTOHS 

I>&SliJii:NT 1 OCE<•N COUNTY FARM 13UHE.<U 

.NY name i s J ames Lovgren an.d I am a 3rd. generation 

COmmercial fisherman who fishes out of the Fishermens dock 

co-op in Point Pleasa nt beach, N.J. I've been fiahing for 

over 20 years, and own and operate my own trawler the FwV. 

Se<s Dragon. I want to thank. congressmen Jim saxton, and 

Don Young for allowing me to testify before you today concerning 

H. !.{ . 2655, the stripe d bass moritorium extension bill. 

Coming from N.J. and attending all 3 N.M.F.S. public 

hP.aring s cocerning the E.&.l. reopening I can tell you N.J.'s 

r ec reational indus try is up in arms . I can also tell you that 

75% of those sports who testified jidn't have a clue about what the 

proposed N.H.t'.!;. regulations actuHly meant. The first Toms Hiver 

hearing that was cancelled due to inadaquete preparation was a 

s c ene out of the deep south in the 1920's. <'11 that was missing 

was the white hoods a nd before you knew it commercial fishermen 

would have been hanging dead from the end of fishing poles. If 

this country is going to go back to mob _rule, then apparently 

striped bass is whe re we will start. 

r\ N.J. department of agriculture study re~eased this year 

on the commercial and recreational fishing industries effect on 

the sta tes economy reached these conclusions using 1993 figures. 

Va lue of commerci a l fish landings; 100 ,000,000 dollars. Economic 

value a dded results in d total of 600,000,000, dollars generated 

by the commercial industry and its support industries. Economic 

value added to the recreational injustry is 762,000,000 dollars. 

These numbers prove that even thou;Jh more people participate in the 

r ec r ea tional industry , they are equally important financially. 

Employment figures show 9,100 people directly employed by the 
79 

l'g2. 

commercial industry fulltime, and 21,840 by added f.t.e. of its 

support industries. 9, 7oo f,'l'.E. depend on the recreational industry 

for their jobs. That means that more then twice as many pP.ople 

rely on the commercial industry for full time employment then they 

do on the recreational industry.! think these official N.J. statistics 

prove the always overlooKed aspect of the true value of commercial 

fisheries to N.J. *1. (note), 

I've been asked why are ~.J. commercial fishermen so interested in striped bass? ;~fterall it has b~en declared a gamefish, 

and is illegal to sell them in the state. The answer is twofold. 

First is regulatory discards; the throwing away of dead legal size fish 

in the name of conservation. The second is because this past summer 

the recreational industry declared wo.r on the commercial industry. 

They initiated a highly publicized n~t ban campaign, and decided that 

N.J. would be targeted as the first state. They have since declared 

striped bass as the first battle. 

No :one in the commercial industry wants a war with anybody. 

i'ie want to be able to continue to supply the public with a nutrious 

food product, relying on properly managed and sustainable fisheries 

and a clean environment.Nm.;r, I'm not a big fan of fisheries management, but there is certainly enough of it around to reach some 

resonable conclusions. 

Each coastal state has their mYn fisheries scientists and 

management system. 'l'he .~.::i.N.F.C. is a federal commision that attempts 

to reyulate coastal migratory species within 3 miles of the u.s. 

coast. N.M.F.S. manages all fisheries in federal waters from 3 miles 

out to 200 miles. Alot of public money is spent p~ying these scientists 

and managers to manage fisheries. They are doing their jobs. They 

say, and the commercial industry agrees, that the striped bass stocks 

an~ recovered. 

I should not be here today, I should be out fishing trying 

to provide for my family. You shou1d not be here here today. This 

(note) l."The sttltus and condition of N.J.'s marine fishP.ries, 

and seafood industries" N.J.D.O.t\.1995. Pg.xiii- xiv 
80 

Pg .3 

country has a million more se rious !'roblems to a ddress then having 

to wa s te time becilusP. th P. r e creatio-1ul industry does'nt like the 

conclusions reached by 3 different Layers of government sci~ntists, 

and fis hery manag P.rs . Did anybody sity budget? 

As written, the commercial i.1dus try opposes H.R. 2655. 

>ie f eel that the stocks ar~ recover·~d e nough to allow the limited 

dmount of harvest thdt would actually oc cur under the N .N. F .s. 

proposa l. Striped bass arethe most :ightly regulated fin fish on 

the e Gst coast, a nd each stdte has .1 predetermined poundilge quota thcJ.t 

cannot legally be overrun. S o wheth•:! r a bass is caught in state or 

federal waters, the total a mount of bass actually landed will remain 

the same. 

The N.~\.F.M.C. should not ha ·Je to devP.lOp a fishery management plan for striped bass, as requ Lr ed by H.R.2655. The A .S .H.F.C. 

already has an e ffective plan in plilCe that is one of the very few 

pl<1ns thut huv e e ffectively restored a depleted fishery to past 

l0ve l s. To require th~ r-: •. \.F.H.C. t ·) dew~lop a striped bass plan 

i s not only du p licous, it is a wast• ? of very valuable time and 

resourc es that should be spnnt manaqing other species of fish that 

need our immediate attension. This ~equirement is nothing more then 

a delaying tactic contrived by the recreational industry so that they 

can continue to hog the s triped bas.:; fishery. 

N.J.'s commercial industry, '"ill support H .R. 2655 provided it 

is amended to provide a 500 pound p <>ssession limit. 1\ 500 pound 

possession limit '"ill do a number o f things, the biggest one being 

thut it '"ill address the regulatory discard problem in f e d e ral wate rs. 

·"S the striped bass population has .Lncreased, th ~ amount of bass 

being caught incidently in other fi i heries has also increased. Hany 

of these fish are dead and present!( have to be thrown back to be 

eaten by crabs, instead of feeding; :1umans, and contributing to our 

economy .. A 500 pound possession limi·: will not allow commercial boats 

to catch a large amount of fish off of one state and unload them 

in another .. It would not be financi;llly rewarding enough to do so .. 

Traditional small commerci a l fishi~l operators would not have to 

worry about strange fishing boats from other states unloading 20,000 

pounds of stripers that would come· )Ut of their quota.Anglers would 
81 

Pg4. 

not have to worry so much about commercial fishermen "slaughtering" 

trip~rs off th~ Virginia and North Cdrolina coast during their 

,.linter r:tigration. 

It is a perfect compromiseaCommercial men get to utilize fish 

that they now- discard dead, this will help the m to pay their bills a 

little bit since the y are being forced to take reductions in almost 

every other f i s hery . ~ecreational anglers wont have to worry about 

commercial men running rampant thru the large schools of striped bass, 

ra p ing and pilaye ing everything tha t swims. 1\nd lastly it is a cautious 

d~proach to our valued striped bass stocks. 

o\ study done by the state of Conneticut convincingly proved 

thdt the depletion of the shad population in the Conneticut rive r was 

cu used overwhelmingly by predation by striped bass, and not by over 

harvesting by comme(ciul netters as it was assumed. This predation 

will continue in other rivers ahd other states until other fish 

spec ies ar~ depl eted and then the bass will turn to predation of 

their own youn ~ possibly causing their own stocKs to collapse again. 

I personally fr~el the N.M .F . S. proposal to ope01 the E.E.z. 

'"ill havP. no adve r sF! effect on the health of the striped ba ss s tocKs, 

but in the spirit of convromise a nd cil ution, a. 500 pound possession 

limit will allow alot of dedd fish to contribute to our diets and 

ec onomy without( a ffecting the bass population. If the E.E.Z. r e mains 

closed , these fish will still be caught and killed~ only they will 

become crab bait . 

Now is a criticul time for fisher~en~ fis heries manag e r s , and the 

fish themselves . Wi th some species of fish at historic low levels, we 

must a ll be c areful thut N"C~ do the right thing ,.,i th our fi~hery resourc e s. ,\nd strange as it sounds, too many striped bass might be more 

of a problem then too fe'"· o:;chools of 30 pound s tripers cun d ec imate 

other fish popul a ti ons just as easy as loss of habitat, or overfishing . 

'fhere i s a delicate balance he r e and we would be ve ll advised to take all 

things into consideration wi t.h regard to ,.,hat is a sustainable popul ation of striped bass . 
82 

l'g. 5. 

extended testimony 

3trip~d bass havP. made a remarkablP. comeback from the effects 

of loss of habitat, pollution, and cverfishing, and everyone involved 

in bringing the stoclts bct.ck. deserve our thanks. Commercial fishermen 

r ealize more then anyone the long hard struggle, and the sacrifices 

that had to be made to restore the striped bass population. Years 

of little or no catches caused economic hardship to many, and forced 

fishermen to either change fisheri es, or change jobs. ~ie understand 

the recreational fishP.rrt\C.lns concern about allowing con1mercia1 fishing 

of striped bass, but it must be pointed out that 20 years ago when 

the striper population collapsed, the re was little or no regulation 

governing the catching of these fish, or of the unchecked pollution 

of our waterways. 

Now therP. is a clean 1-1-ater act, and there are annual poundage 

quota's set for each state, und both recreational and commercial 

fi ries, based on ~ac h states historical participution~ Fisheries 

management has come a long way since passag~ of the 1-tagnuson t\.Ct, 

and the striped bass is testiment th t deplet~d fish stocks can be 

restored if enough hard work, and sa:rifices are made. 

Opening up the E.B.l. is not opening pandora's box. jtate 

and federal officiuls have agreed thit their population is now 

r estored, That doesnt mean its ope n s.ei:lson on striped bass. Hemember 

they are the most tiyhtly regulated fish on the east coast, and have 

been for years. Every state has a qu~t~ that can not be over run, so 

whe ther a fish is caught in state, or federal waters, the total amount 

of bass caught coast wide will remai ,_ the same •. \llowing striped bass 

to be caught in federa l waters will ,ave absoluteiy no effect whatsoever on the health of the striped bass stocks. lihat it would accomplish 

would be to stop some of the wasteful discard of d ead bass that are 

inadvertantly cauyht by fishermen t a rgeting other species. 

These reguldtory discards are a n extremely dis turbing aspP.ct 

of new fishery management plans. Perfectly good fish of legal size 

must increasingly be thrmfn over dea ,J when they are inadvertantly 

caught in other fisheries or out of 3eason. There is absolutely no 

conservation gains , no economic gain5, no ease of enforcement gains. 
83 

Pg .6. 

It is a total waste and can only be described as insane. 

&ec~ntly the ,\.,:LN.I?.C. ,.,ho regulate fisheries within 3 miles of 

the coast decided thut the \veak.fish population was near collaspe. 

'l'heir solution; closf"'! all f~deral waters to weakfish harvesters. 

Likr: striped ba~:;s, weakfish are a coastal migratory fish ~o~ho spend 

most of their lives in state waters. Uut they do ,.,ander and are frequen' 

ly caught il.S far out as the continental shelf during the winter. \'/hen 

they ure caught in federal waters they ure; 1 .almost all legal size, 

2, they ure all dead because being caught in deep federal wuters 

tnd.kes their u.i r bladders blow right out of their mouths. 

1996 will see millions of pounds of legal sized commerially 

ci.lught weakfish thrown over dead because the l"\.J.N.F.C. has not 

don~ their job. They should have clos~d the whole fishery down 

3 years ago but didnt because the recreational industry cried too 

much. So nm.,. they close down waters that they dont even regulate 

because it doesnt hurt thP recreational industry. If weakfish stocks 

are in such bad shap~ then put a total moratorium on catching th~m in 

all ,.,.aters. Heakfish reach sexual maturity in 1 year so the stocks waul 

recow~r pxtremely fast. ( they are already recovering because of 

increased m~sh sizes). The pain of not being able to harvest them 

,.,.auld then b8 shan~d equally by all. If a congressional hearing should 

bP. held on dny fishery matter it should be held on the closing of 

the S.E.~. to weakfish, because it is a total sham, and a disgraceful 

,.,.dste of perfectly good fish for no conservation gain. These fish 

u.re u.lmost illl caught incidently and ,.,ill be caught and killed 

whether there is u moritorium or not. 

Gamefish status of striped bass increases the amount of 

regulatory discards, so will extending the moritorium in the E.E.Z. 

ithether the recn~ational industry in N.J. wants to recognise the commeJ 

cia! fisherman's right to equal access to our natural resources or 

not, th~re are other states that do recognise these rights,. 1\nd 

these rightB are guarantied by the magnuson act under National 

standard .:;.4. \lhich reads; Conservation and management measures shall 

not discriminatP. bcb.;een residents of different states. If it becomes 
necosllllry to allocate or assign fishing privile«~ea a110ng varioua u.:>. 

fiaher .. n such allocation shall bel 

o\, Fair and equitable to aU :ouch fiaher .. n. 

u.a .. aonably calculated to pr•,..,ttt conservation. 

c. carried out in such a .,.n,..tr that no particular individual, 

corporation, or t>thf!r •mtity acquirots an "xcessive share of such 

priviledgea. 

Continued clOBurtt of the E.E.z. and gamefish statue are 

contrary to National .itandards o\,IJ, and c. Except for puffing up a 

fev e«~o's and providing fodder for o;he sport vriting propagandists, th 

effectA of ga .. fish status in N.J. l~ve been negative. Jf you 

wnt to eat. a basa in N.J. you bettnr catch it yourself or go N.Y. 

or i'tmnayvania, and buy one. This ruJaOVea •Ulions of dollars annually 

fro. N.J. •a econo.y. Jf a gill nettnr haa to throv avt~y d .. d baaa 

thia ia a vaste of a resource, and noney. Finally ga .. fiah at.atua dri\· 

a wedge betv-n the t- user groups and auovs one unfair and 

illGIIal dotinence of a public resource against the rules of the 

Hagnuaon act. Leta stop the vaste. ,\_nd H.R, 2655 and allov 

a 500 pound poesesaion lieit. 
85 

James LOVGREN 

17 L<IURllLHUR3T Oi(. 

B!UCKTO\'IN, N.J. 08724 

(908) 8409560 home 

(899-1872 worK. 

Extending the E.E.Z. moritorium will lead to increased 

discards of legal fish that will be dead and wasted with no 

benefit to the economy, or the striped bass population. 

3 different layers of fishery managers have declared 

the striped bass stocl<.s restored.Only political pressure from 

the recreational industry, 'vho wish to continue to hog a public 

resource,is holding up the opening of federal waters. 

Upening up the E.E.6. will not result in increased harvest 

of striped bass because they still can only be landed in certain 

states that have set poundage quotas which cannot be overrun. 

>lhether a fish is caught in federal or state waters does not 

matter, bea~use the quota limit is still the same. 

A 500 pound possession limit is a perfect compromise because 

it is not enough fish to ,..,arrant a directed fishery by new entrants, 

or out of state boats. It will prevent the waste of incidentally 

caught bass, by allowing them to be harvested when they are caught 

in federal waters. 
86 

STATEMENT OF 

JOHN H. DUNNIGAN 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION 

Before the 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

Committee <•n Resources 

United States Houst: of Representatives 

Washing :on, D.C. 

December 12, 1995 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, 

I am John H. Dunnigan, Executi ve Direct< •r of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 

Commission. I am pleased to have been invited h :re today by the Committee to testify on behalf of 

the Commission and its state members on .issues relating to H.R. 2655, a bill to authorize 

preparation of the federal fishery management pia 1 for Atlantic striped bass and to legislatively 

extend the cutTent moratorium on fishing for stliped bass in the EEZ. I would also like to thank 

you, Mr. Chairman, for your considerati on in sch•:duling this heati ng, which allowed the 

Commission 's Striped Ba~s Management Board to meet last week with theNational Marine 

Fisheries Service and review the publi(' record that has been gathered witll respect to tile NMFS 

proposal to remove the moratmium .on fishing for Atlantic striped bass in the EEZ. 

The Commission was formed over fift y years ago by the fifteen Atlantic coast states so that 

they could work better together to address their mutual interests in the valuable coastal fishery 

resources that they share off of their coasts. Over the five decades of its history the Commission 

has undertaken a number of ac tivitie,. largely in r-.:sponse to the cunent needs of tile time. For the 

past fifteen years, the Commission has been kno" n princ ipall y for its cooperative Interstate 

Fishery Management Program. Under this progn:m, the states work closely togetller and with tile 

federal govemment to develop and implement mu tual fishety conservation programs that address 

the interjmisdictional fishery resources that the states share. The program arises from the 

recognition that, because of the geographic range and migratmy nature of these resources, no one 

state nor the federal government has .,ufficient authotity to safeguard its own interests in tlleir 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN H. DUNNIGAN 

HOUSE SIJBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS 

H.R. 2655:Dttember 12, 199!\ page I 
87 

conservation. Only by working together can all jurisdictions achieve what is in their own 

individual best interest. 

The Congress recognized the importance and effectiveness of this program when it passed 

the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act in 1984. Under this law, states are required to 

implement the measures contained in the Commission's fishery management plan for striped bass 

or face federal sanctions. The Commission's actions, and the supporting federal legislation, were 

implemented to address a threatening situation for one of this country's most cherished and valued 

coastal fishery resources. During the 1970s the coastal population of Atlantic striped bass had 

declined due to many factors including overfishing and the loss and degradation of coastal fishery 

habitat. As a result of the cooperative action implemented by the states, working together through 

the Commission, the Atlantic striped ba..<s resource has been restored. The recovery program has 

been an unqualified success, and is recognized throughout the country as perhaps the best success 

story for marine fisheties restoration . The states and their federal partners have shown that 

fisheties management works. It works for the resource; but most importantly it works for the 

recreational and commercial fishennen who depend upon this resource. Fishermen today are 

harvesting striped bass in numbers that have not .been seen for many years; and thi~ r~ovei-y has 

been crucial to suppot1ing economically valuable fisheries that in many cases have few options. 

Given the wide recognition of the success of the sttiped bass management program, many 

believed that the model that proved so successful for stiiped bass could work for other coastal 

fishery resources as well. In response, the Congress passed the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries 

Cooperative Management Act in 1993. States are now required to be in compliance with all fishery 

management plans adopted by the Commission. Every year the Commission reviews the status of 

implementation of each FMP. The states' overall record of compliance since the new law took 

effect has been outstanding. 

The Commission and its state members strongly appreciate the leadership shown by 

Congress in taking these legislative steps, and in providing funding to initiate these programs. 

This Committee earlier this year approved and moved through the House of Representatives a 

reauthorization of appropriations for the Atlantic Stiiped Bass Conservation Act. The Commission 

looks forward to similar action from the Senate soon. Clearly the Congress understands the 

importance of these resource.> to valuable recreational and commercial fishelies; recognizes the 

substantial and effective role that the states, working together with the federal government, can 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN H. DUNNIGAN 

HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS 

H.R. 2655:December 12, 1995 page 2 
88 

play; and is willing to provide the political leadership and approptiate funding for a successful 

program. 

Mr. Chailman, the Committee today is considering H.R. 2655, a bill to authorize 

preparation of the federal fishery management plan for Atlantic striped bass and to legislatively 

extend the current moratorium on fishing for stripo~d bass in the EEZ. The bill would authorize 

preparation of a FMP by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council for that portion of the EEZ 

within the geographical authmity of the Council. It would require that the FMP ensure the 

effectiveness of state regulations and achieve the consetvation and management goals of the 

Commission's FMP. It would require consultatio,ts with the New England and South Atlantic 

Fishery Management Councils, the Commission, and each federal, state and local government 

entity affected by the FMP. Finally, the bill would, in effect, continue the current moratorium on 

fishing for Atlantic striped bass in the EEZ until authorized by the federal FMP referred to m the 

bill, but in any event for at least five years. 

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2655 was introduced after a proposal by the National Marine 

Fi~heri~ Service to remove the moratorium of fishing f~r striped b~ in the EEZ. The 

Commission this past summer supp01ted the NMFS proposal to gather public comment on this 

issue. This was based on the assumption that, so long as fishing mortality is controlled, it makes 

little difference where fish are harvested; and that given the recovery of the coastal Atlantic striped 

bass resource, fishermen should not be needlessly constrained. During the public comment period 

it became apparent that vast ~gments of the public continue to be concerned about the potential for 

expanding the fishery too fast. The Commission'! Striped Bass Management Board met last 

Thursday, December 7, and reviewed what NMFS had learned through public comment The 

Board, which speaks for the Commission on this r:tatter, decided to recommend to the National 

Marine Fisheries Service that it postpone lifting tho~ moratorium on fishing for Atlantic striped bass 

in the EEZ at least until the Board implements the full target fishing mortality rate envisioned in 

Amendment 5 to the fishery management plan. Lnder Amendment 5, the fishery is being 

reopened m stages, and is currently under an intetim target fishmg mortality rate. The fmal target 

is a fishing mortality rate that will allow the hatve!.t of the full maximum sustainable yield, and is 

currently scheduled to be implemented in 1997. 

The Board decided to recommend postpon•: ment of the withdrawal of the moratorium at 

this time largely because of three factors. First, it became clear in the public comment that there 

was relatively little sentiment among the public supporting the proposal. Second, during the public 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN H. DUNNIGAN 

HOUSE SUBCOMMITIEE ON FISHERIES, WILDI.IFE AND OCEANS 

U.R. 2655:December 12, 1995 page 3 
89 

comment it appeared that the proposal might raise the potential for some loopholes. As I said 

earlier. so long as overall fishing mortality is controlled it does not matter significantly where the 

fish are harvested. However, it could be possible that some states where fisheries would be closed 

might still allow the landing and/or sale of fish legally harvested in other jurisdictions; and that for 

a case like that, a mechanism to account for those fish has not yet been developed. The Board was 

concerned about whether the relevant management jurisdictions would be able to effectively close 

this potential loophole. There was also a related concern whether adequate authority exists under 

tlie law to effectively allow state landing and possession laws to control fish harvested from an 

open EEZ. These concerns are related to a larger issue that all coastal states have about the erosion 

of the protection that Section 306 of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act is 

supposed to provide to state fishery agencies. A third consideration for the Board was the fact that 

the Commission still has not allowed the fishery to expand to the ultimate target fishing mortality 

rate level. Amendment 5, which was adopted earlier this year, uses a conservative, stepped 

approach to phase toward the ultimate goal of a fishing mortality rate that allows harvest of 

maximum sustainable yield. Given that we are not yet at our ultimate target fishing mortality rate, 

it is prudent a~ this time not to expand the area in which fishing is allowed. 

However, the Commission's position on the proposed removal of the federal moratorium 

in the EEZ does not mean that it would supp01t the bill before the Committee today. To the 

contrary, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission would be opposed to the enactment of 

H.R. 2655. The Commission has consistently taken the position that it is unnecessary and 

ultimately counterproductive for Congress to become involved in the specifics of managing 

individual fisheries. Fishery resource conservation decisions should be made within the confines 

of the fishery management process, and that in fact has happened in this case. Congress and the 

states have invested in process for making decisions on the conservation and management of 

Atlantic striped bass. That process has given us the remarkable recovery of one of this country's 

most valuable coastal fishery resources. This program has been hailed far and wide as an 

outstanding example of successful fisheties management. Setting policy for Atlantic striped bass 

management ha~ involved the Commission, state fisheries agencies, federal fisheries agencies, and 

recreational and commercial fishennen. It has been a long, arduous process. but one that has been 

successful in developing and can)'ing out a conservative and prudent management program. 

Specific efforts to legislatively deal with particular problems undermine the hard work and 

leadership of the Congress in establishing a program that can broadly safeguard the public's 

interest in all of our coastal fishery resources. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN H. DUNNIGAN 

HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS 

H.R. 2655:D«ember 11, 1995 · page4 
!~0 

Mr. Chairman, you indicated in your inv•tation letter an interest in a number of specific 

issues that I will attempt to address. You asked 1bout the future outlook for the Atlantic sniped 

bass population. The future outlook for Atlantic striped bass is extremely positive. All along the 

coast the fishery is currently supported by year classes of fish that benefited greatly from the very 

restrictive state management regimes implemenb d under the cooperative interstate program during 

the 1980s. Given the conservative nature of the Commission's management program, these fish 

will continue as a part of the fishable biomass fer some time. In addition, recent years have seen 

the production of very large year cla~se~ of juve1ile sniped bass. The Commission was criticized 

in 1990 and 1991 for reopening the fishery ba~d on the 1989 year class; but the intervening time 

has only confirmed that this year class will be a ;trong connibutor to the coastal fishery for years to 

come. The 1993 year class, which will strulto significantly migrate along the coast next year, is 

historically high. The 1994 year cia% was very strong; and the 1995 year class in Chesapeake Bay 

was slightly above average. Spawning has recently been strong in all of the estuary systems that 

support the coastal striped bass fishery resource As our scientists have told us, this indicates very 

strong fisheries for many years to come. Pmdent conservation will still require that we control 

overall fishing mortality. The Commission's ma~age~ent program does that, and the prospect for 

the future striped bass fishelies along the Atlanti: coast is therefore very positive. 

You also asked about the effect of sttipecl bass fishing in the EEZ on fisheries that occur in 

state waters and on the implementation of state 1 ishing regulations. The short answer should be 

that there would be no effect at all so long as overall fishing mor1ality is controlled. However, as I 

described above, during the public heating procc:ss that NMFS conducted on its proposal, 

significant issues were raised conceming whether an EEZ fishery would create loopholes that 

·would detract from the effectiveness of state programs. The states and the Commission obviously 

have some concems that this could be a problem. 

Mr. Chairman, you also asked about the potential impact that commercial fishing interest 

from other states that fish off New Jersey's coast might have on recreational fishing in New Jersey 

waters. This requires some speculation, but it is difficult to believe that large numbers of 

commercial fishermen will redeploy their effons to the EEZ. Over the past few years, the problem 

for commercial striped bass fishetmen has not b<:en the need to go find fish, but rather the problem 

of staying away from them when pursuing other fisheries. Slliped bass are plentiful in traditional 

areas, and it is counterintuitive to think that commercial fishermen would put up with the additional 

expense and inconvenience of going offshore for fish that are readily available in inshore areas. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN H. DUNNIGAN 

HOUSE SUBCOMMJITEE ON FISHERIES, WJLI)LIFE AND OCEANS 

H.R. 2655:December 12, 1995 page 5 
91 

Before the current moratorium, there were few fish caught commercially in the EEZ; and we do not 

see any reason to assume that it would become a significant factor now. However, for the reasons 

stated earlier, it is the Commission's position that the EEZ moratorium should not be removed at 

this time. 

Mr. Chainnan, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission appreciates your interest in 

the conservation of the Atlantic striped bass resource. However, H.R. 2655 is not needed. There 

is an effective and successful management program in place, and further specific legislative 

regulation at this time is simply unnecessary. We would urge the Committee not to approve H.R. 

2655. 

Mr. Chainnan, let me thank you again for the opportunity to be here and for your strong 

commitment to effective fisheries conservation and management. I would be pleased to answer 

any questions that the committee may have. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN H. DUNNIGAN 

HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS 

H.R. 2655:Dc!canber 12,1995 page6 
92 

STATEMENT OF 

BOB PEELE 

DEPUTY DIRECTOR 

NORTH CAROLINA FISHEIUES ASSOCIATION, INC. 

BEFO~E THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHER:IES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS 

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 1995 

NORTH CAROLINA FISHERIES ASSOCIATION, INC. 

P.O. BOX 12303 

NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA 

(919} 633-2288 
93 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the members of the 

Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans Subcommittee for the opportunity 

to express the views of the North Carolina Fisheries Association on HR 2655 which was introduced on November 16, 1995. The 

legislation, if enacted, would extend the existing moratorium on striped bass fishing in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) for 

five years and require the implementation of a Fishery Management 

Plan (FMP) before the moratorium could be lifted. 

Mr. Chairman, we think that if this proposal is prompted by a concern for protecting the resource, it may be misguided since 

striped bass harvests from the EEZ has historically been minimal. 

From 1974 to 1982, before strict measures were taken to protect 

the species, the annual average of striped bass harvested from 

the EEZ was only about 6 percent of the total harvest. 

In addition, requiring the implementation of a Fishery 

Management Plan (FMP) before the moratorium may be lifted is 

frightening given the fact that the Mid Atlantic Council was instructed to develop such a plan more than 10 years ago and it 

has never gone beyond a draft proposal. In 1984 the New England 

Council stated that it would be willing to help develop such a plan only if it appeared that the Atlantic States Marine 

Fisheries Commission's (ASMFC) plan did not live up to 

expectations. 

So now we are in a catch-22. The ASMFC plan has been 

successful in restoring stocks, therefore there is no Council 

plan. And yet, although both recreational and commercial 

fishermen have sacrificed again and again, HR 2655 mandates that 

without a plan the moratorium will continue. 

Let me assure you that commercial fishermen of North 

Carolina recognize the need to protect marine resources through 

the implementation of FMPs. As we all know, a major factor of 

any FMP is the value and credibility of data upon which the plan 

is based. It is our belief that opening the EEZ will actually 

improve data. Currently, striped bass caught commercially as incidental bycatch in the EEZ, such as in North Carolina's flynet or dogfish fisheries, can not be landed and are thrown overboard. 

Fishery managers can only guess how many striped bass are returned to the ocean each year. Allowing fishermen to land 

striped bass will give managers a better accounting of stocks and 

fishing pressure. Better quality data will naturally lead to 

better management. 

Members of the recreational fishing community might argue 

that commercial catches need to be limited to allow the larger 

number of recreational fishermen to catch higher numbers of 

striped bass, thus fueling coastal economies through an increase 

in tourism. This argument maintains that since the recreational 

community is larger and means more to local economies, their 

catches should be increased. However, a recent white paper 

produced by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources this 

past August argues that a ban on commercial striped bass fishing 

1 

22-102 0 - 96 - 4 
would result in an additional catch of only 1 fish for every 17 

recreational fishermen. So the expected increase in catches for 

anglers might not be as large as expected, thus making the 

economic benefits of HR 2655 minimal. one point that seems to be continually lost is that striped 

bass are part of a nationally owned public trust resource. Every 

u.s. citizen owns a piece of the striped bass pie and, for the 

great majority, the commercial fishing industry is their only access to an important resource which the American public owns. The latest ASMFC calculations put the commercial portion of 

the striped bass harvest at about 21 percent. That is a very 

small portion when considering that the vast majority of 

Americans choose to pay to have their seafood caught and . delivered to restaurants and retailers where it can be accessed 

for their personal consumption. Along the east coast, 79% of the 

striped bass caught in 1994 were landed by anglers. 

Over the last 20 years there has been a growing trend to 

ignore the rights of the nonfishin~ public to their share of the 

public resource. This attitude has begun to foster the perception 

that elected officials are giving in to demands from a monied few 

that the fisheries be allocated only to those who can afford the 

expense of the fishing sport and/o~ choose to spend their time 

chasing their supper. HR 2655 in effect would continue to limit access to a public trust resource by the commercial fishing 

industry which, in this case, is just the delivery system for the 

American consumer. I have also heard the argumen~s that opening the EEZ to the 

commercial harvesting of striped bdss will erase any improvements 

in the stocks of the last 10 years due to a rush by commercial 

fishermen to harvest from the EEZ. Such concerns are invalid. 

If the EEZ is opened, striped bass landings from the EEZ will be 

subject to state quotas, as set by the ASMFC. No increase in the 

total poundage of commercially caught striped bass will result, 

only an expansion of the territory that can be fished. 

Also, to continue the moratorium prohibiting harvest or possession of striped bass instead of addressing other related 

problems may be penny wise and pound foolish. Since 1980 striped 

bass studies have identified other causes besides overfishing for 

the decline in striped bass numbers. Habitat deterioration and 

poor water quality as a result of residential and industrial 

development in spawning areas have, and probably continue, to 

affect striped bass as well as other species. Perhaps it is time 

to address these issues rather than putting all the burden on fishermen to make up for what has become a lackadaisical 

environmental policy. 

Mr. Chairman, the bottom line on this issue, according to 

the North Carolina Fisheries Association, is simple. There is no biological need for a continuation of the EEZ moratorium on the 

harvest of striped bass. The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 

Commission and the National Marine Fisheries Service recognize 

that the Hudson River and Chesapeake Bay stocks are now fully 

recovered and support the opening of the EEZ. Even the Roanoke 

2 
95 

stocks, which are not deemed fully recovered by the ASMFC, are showing signs of dramatic improvement. Just this past August, an ASMFC newsletter hailed the improvements in the Roanoke stocks by 

stating: 

"Evidently, excellent juvenile recruitment, early sexual 

maturation, and low fishing mortality rates in the 

system have all combined to propel the adult stock upward 

toward pre-1975 levels. This means the local population 

will reach recovery somewhere between 1997 and 2000, ... " 

To be honest, Mr. Chairman, the North Carolina Fisheries 

Association disagrees with the ASMFC on the issue of the Roanoke 

stocks. We firmly believe the Roanoke striped bass stocks are fully recovered. Rock are numerous all over the Albemarle Sound 

and are now entering rivers, such as the Scuppernong River, to 

spawn where they have never spawned before. The point is that 

everyone seems to agree that the Atlantic coast striped bass 

stocks, except those of the Roanoke, have fully rebounded. As a member of Congress stated back in 1991: 

"A decade ago the striped bass appeared to be doomed. 

But through the sacrifices of commercial and recreational 

fishermen, and the work of enlightened state governments 

and the ASMFC, the striper has slowly, but surely, 

worked its way back. Our goal is to make certain that 

progress continues." 

Mr. Chairman, Congressman Studds was correct in 1991. The 

striper was recovering. Now, over four years later, the road to 

recovery for Atlantic striped bass is complete. After a decade 

of sacrifices, now is the time to offer some relief to the 

commercial fishing industry, not further prohibitions. 

Lastly, if the moratorium is continued in light of the 

recovery of Atlantic striped bass stocks and at the sole request 

of recreational fishing industry groups, then the commercial 

industry will lose all faith in the current fishery management 

system. For a variety of species, commercial fishermen follow 

the mandates of FMPs and quota allocations. They may not agree 

with many of the mandates, but they begrudgingly follow them in 

the hope that if they make sacrifices and follow FMP guidelines, the current management system will allow them to fish at better 

levels once stocks recover. This is in a sense an unwritten 

agreement between fishermen and regulators. However, HR 2655 

ignores the acts of good faith and sacrifices of commercial 

fishermen and the best scientific data currently available that 

proves striped bass stocks have recovered. To continue the 

moratorium will breach the faith commercial fishermen have in the 

management premise that compliance and sacrifices today will lead 

to better fishing in the future. In light of the full recovery, now is the time to allow fishing for striped bass in the EEZ, not 

further prohibit it. 

3 
96 

NATIONAL FISHERIES INSTITUTE, INC. 

1525 WILSON B<)ULEVARD ·SUITE 500 • ARLINGTON. VA 22209 

703 • 524 • 8880 • FAX: 703 • 524 • 4619 

STATBXBBT OF LBB WBDDIG 

BXICUTIVB VICB-PRISIDBBT 

.. TIORIL FIBBDIBS IBSTITUTB 

BUOU TBB 

ROUSB FISRKRIBS, WILDLIFB, ABD OCRABS IUBCOJOIITTBB 

OB 

R.R. 2155, ATLABTIC STRIPBD BASS PUSDVATIOB ACT OF 1!195 

DBCBKBBR 12, 1115 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am Lee Weddig, 

Executive Vice-President of th8 National Fisheries Institute, a trade association of seafood businesses around the world. I want 

to thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify before the 

Subcommittee today. 

Sound fishery management is an ever-evolving but yet imprecise science that has made qreat strides over the last several decades. 

There was a time, not so long ago, when our oceana were viewed as an unlimited source of fish and seafood. It was believed that no matter what mankind took from the sea, it was capable of 

replenishing itself indefinitely. 

Well, fishery scientists and managers alike have learned the 

hard way that this belief held no water. Unfortunately, the health 

of a number of fish stocks, including the Atlantic striped bass, 

plummeted as managers and fishermen coped to find solutions. 

Today, however, roughly a decade following the imposition of 

the Atlantic striped Baas Conservation Act, the reaarkable recovery of the striped baas represents a testament to the power of 

effective fishery management -·· fishery management baaed on the 

most complete and accurate science available. 

It is apparent that the National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission 

(Commission) and its member states have done an excellent job in 

managing the rebuilding of striped baas stocks with thorough research and analysis on its spawning stock biomass, recruitment, and mortality rates to make the finding that the stocks have 

recovered. 
comments of Lee J. Weddig, 

NFI Executive Vice-President 

December 12, 1995 

Page 2 

97 

Mr. Chairman, the National Fisheries Institute (NFI) has some concerns with H.R. 2655. Overall, NFI believes the legislation is 

inappropriate at this time for several specific reasons that I will 

discuss. 

First, the bill changes the process of managing the striped 

bass fishery. Striped bass has been managed primarily by the 

commission under the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act. In 

1977, the Secretary of Commerce gave the Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management council the authority to manage striped bass. However, 

the council never approved a fishery management plan (FMP) for 

striped bass, because a striped bass FMP was not a priority. It was not until the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act became law 

did NMFS, with its new authority, establish a moratorium on striped 

bass in the EEZ. This Act also gave the Commission the authority 

to develop a comprehensive interstate management plan within state 

waters. It is this authority that will be circumvented and 

duplicated under H.R. 2655. Even though the Council continues to 

have the authority under the Magnuson Act, today it has an even larger list of issues it must address and, as such, a striped bass 

FMP should not be a priority. 

Second, H.R. 2655 will duplicate the efforts that the 

Commission has already made. During this time of limited resources for fishery management, it would be unwise to direct the Council to 

begin the process to develop an FMP when an FMP created by the 

Commission already exists. 

In addition, NMFS has initiated a proposed rulemaking that 

raises the issue of opening the EEZ to striped bass harvest. NMFS 

has completed an environmental assessment and conducted several 

public hearings where concerns have been raised by affected 

parties. These issues should be analyzed before the EEZ is opened 

to fishing. NMFS is still in its fact-finding stage for this 

proposed rule and plans to consult with the appropriate councils 

before moving forward on any decision. one advantage of opening up 

the EEZ to the harvesting of striped bass is that fishery managers 

will receive a more accurate assessment of the bypatch of striped 

bass in the EEZ. This more reliable data will greatly assist 

managers in making more accurate management decisions. We think 

this process should continue and not be stalled by any legislative 

moratorium, at this time. 

Specifically, H.R. 2655 continues the current moratorium for 

at least five more years. This legislative moratorium will prevent 

the implementation of a refined and comprehensive FMP for the 

entire designated range of the Atlantic striped bass stock, as developed by the Commission. According to the Commission's plan, 
Comments of Lee J. Weddig, 

NFI Executive Vice-President 

December 12, 1995 

Page 3 

98 

fishermen are currently harvesting siqnificantly less than maximum 

sustainable yield (MSY) , but will be allowed to fish at MSY 

starting in 1997. It is our understanding that the Commission's 

Striped Bass Board met last week and determined that .the openinq of 

the EEZ should coincide with the its current plan to raise the 

allowable harvest to MSY in 1997. This should allow adequate time 

for any concerns regarding appropriate management to be addressed. 

OVerall, proper management of our nation's fisheries should 

rely on the best available science instead of leqislative intervention. 

Finally, one fundamental concern that I would like to address 

is the expanding effort of a larger anti-commercial campaiqn by recreational fisherman which ultimately could affect the supply of 

quality Alllerican seafood to its consumers. We are all aware of the 

efforts of some recreational fishing qroups to make striped bass a gamefish along Atlantic coast waters. This dasiqnation would 

severely impact the livelihoods of working families, small 

businesses and coastal co111111unities that depend on co111111ercial 

fishing. 

Equally important it would deprive all non-fishing citizens 

who enjoy the taste and nutrition provided by the excellent-eating striped bass of any opportunity to do so. The percentage of the 

population who go sport fishing in the oceans is vary small -- but 

B5t to 90t of the population purchases fish at retail stores or in 

restaurants. This majority should have the right of access to the 

striped bass resource access that is conveniently and 

inexpensively available through products provided by comaercial 

fisherman. If all citizens must share the burden of conservation, 

then all citizens should receive the benefits of healthier stocks. 

Rather than focusing on unreasonable user qroup allocations, we would encourage recreational anglers to work with commercial 

fisherman to practically address fair and equitable management 

proqrams that increase fishery populations. 

Thank you again for this opportunity and I welcome any questions froa the committee. 
99 

Testimony of the 

Seafarers International Union of North America 

On 

House Resolution 2655, 

"The Striped Bass Preservation Act of 1995" 

Before the House Subcommittee on 

Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

The Honorable James Saxton, Chair 

December 12, 1995 

The Seafarers International Union of North America (SIU) represents over 500 

commercial fishermen working in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) off the 

Eastern coast of the United States. It also has 85,000 members nationwide, 

many of whom enjoy recreational fishing in their free time. On behalf of 

these men and women, the Union is writing in respectful opposition to the 

proposed ban on the harvest of striped bass in the EEZ by commercial fishermen embodied in H.R. 2655. 

The Magnuson Act, and every fishery management plan promulgated under its 

authority, is premised on one very specific point: sacrifices made today to 

insure the health and rebuilding of fish stocks will be more than rewarded with 

opportunities to harvest fish when stocks recover. H.R. 2655 breaks that 

promise and sends absolutely the wrong message to the commercial fishing 

industry at a time when it is being asked to make a large number of deep 

Sacrifices for the good of this nation's marine resources. 

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission has declared all major stocks 

of Atlantic striped bass "fully recovered." And even with that, the Commission is taking a precautionary, risk-adverse approach to management, allocating very small quotas to the recreational and commercial fishing industries to 

insure that another stock collapse does not occur. In light of this recovery, the 

National Marine Fisheries Service is in the process of fulfilling its Magnuson 

Act responsibilities by generating regulations which would open the EEZ to 

the harvest of striped bass, but only under the very strict guidelines of the 

ASMFC's fishing limits and individual state's rules covering the allocation of 

its quota share. 

No biological goals are served !Jy the five year moratorium proposed in H.R. 

2655. Commercial striped bass quotas are too low to support a directed 

fishery. Instead, most Atlantic states have issued their commercial quota so 

that tishermen can land some of the striped bass incidentally harvested while in 

other directed fisheries. Instead of recognizing this fac;, however, many 
SIUNA Testimony oo H.R. 2655 

December 12, 1995 

100 

Page2 

sports fishing interests have used alarmist rhetoric to create the ntis-impression that the 

NMFS regulation would create a virtual •free-for· all• in the EEZ and threaten the future of 

the stocks. 

Nothing could be further from reality. In point of fact, the implementation of federal rules 

opening the EEZ will have no perceptible impact <m the harvest or income of Atlantic 

commercial fishermen. At most, it may mean that fishermen who traditionally work in 

federal waters may have the opportunity of landing a few striped bass each year that they 

otherwise would have had to discard. 

What is at stake is a vital principle. That principh~ is trust in government, belief in the 

fisheries management system and that the words 011r politicians and bureaucrats put to paper 

do indeed matter. What message would the failure to open federal waters to striped bass 

fishermen send to groundfish fishermen who face the biggest closures and most drastic 

fishing restrictions ever implemented in America's history? That message would be: Get 

everything you can now, because no matter what happens to the stocks, you will not be able 

to fish. 

The SIUNA supports others in the commercial fishing industry who are calling for a 

federally mandated cap of 500 pounds of striped bass, in addition to the 28 inch size limit 

included in the NMFS proposal, for fishing vesseh in the EEZ. The Union believes that 

even this proposal is more liberal than any state's c:urrent commercial restrictions, but its 

inclusion may help to allay fears of some that the IUie as proposed could create some type of 

uncontrolled harvest. 

In summary, the Seafarers International Union strongly urges Congress not to pass the 

striped bass moratorium. It sends the wrong message to the industry, and it is management 

by Congress, instead of the agencies and states who have the expertise to deal with these 

matters. The Atlantic striped bass is as abundant today as many fishermen have ever known 

it to be, and this fact alone may be cause for concern. Fisheries biologists are beginning to 

fear that predation by striped bass on other stocks nf recreational and commercial interest 

may be negatively affecting their abundance. 

Congress should be looking for ways to help the recreational and commercial fishing 

industries in the northeast. Putting new obstacles i1t their way and micro-managing healthy 

resources is not the way to accomplish this. Than I you for this opportunity to testify. 
101 

AMERICAN SPORTFISHING ASSOCIATION 

1033 North Fairfax Street, Suite 200, Alexandria, Virginia 22314 

703•519-9691 • FAX 703•519•1872 

JOINT STATEMENT OF 

THE AMERICAN SPORTFISHING ASSOCIATION 

AND 

THE NATIONAL MARINE AND MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION 

ONH.R. 2655 

THE ATLANTIC STRIPED BASS PRESERVATION ACT OF 1995 

SUBMITIED TO THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITIEE ON 

FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS 

DECEMBER 12, 1995 

Mike Hayden, President/CEO 

American SportrJShing Association 

1033 Fairfax Street, Sulte 200 

Alexandria, VA 22314 

JefT Napier, President 

National Marine Manufacturers Association 

200 E. Ralldolph Drive, Sulte 5100 

Chicago, IL 60601 

@) RecycLed Paper 
Mr. Chairman, we respectfully submit the fcllowing testimony on behalf of the 

American Sportfishing Association (ASA) and the :1\"ational Marine Manufacturers Association 

(NMMA) in support of H.R. 2655, the Atlantic Striped Bass Preservation Act of 1995. This 

legislation would continue the moratorium on all ha :vest of striped bass in the Exclusive 

Economic Zone (EEZ) for a period of five years. This legislation is in response to the recent 

proposal by the N a tiona! Marine Fisheries Service ( 'IMFS) to reopen the EEZ for striped 

bass fishing after a six year closure. Although we recognize the tremendous recovery in the 

health of the striped bass population, we have seri011s concerns that reopening the EEZ to 

striped bass harvest at this time would have substamial negative impacts on the states' ability 

to continue to enforce striped bass management plar s. In order to maintain the integrity of 

what has proven to date to be the most effective management plan on the Atlantic coast, these 

concerns must be thoroughly addressed prior to reopening the EEZ. In particular, we are 

concerned that the original justification for closing tile EEZ (i.e. the elimination of loopholes 

caused by conflicting state and federal regulations) has not been addressed and is as valid 

today as it was when the EEZ was closed in 1989. 

ASA represents the environmental and busin!ss interests of the sportfishing 

community. The primary goal of the ASA is to ens·ne the availability of a healthy and 

sustainable fishery resource. Nearly 700 members, spanning a broad spectrum of the 

sportfishing community (including manufacturers, n:tailers, conservation and advocacy 

organizations as well as state and federal fisheries agencies) recognize that a sound resource is 

the basis for a sound industry and, as such, are unito:d in their commitment to ensure proper 

management of fisheries. 

NMMA represents over 1600 members that nanufacrure recreational boats, engines 

and related products. Our members range from sm<~ ll proprietor's to Fortune 500 companies. 

We, as a recreational fishing and boating industry a,.e in a "recovery" as well . A large part of 

that recovery relates to selling fishing boats, engine:; and equipment. So whtie we place 

stabilization of certain species, like striped bass, on our priority list we must also consider the 

impact that a declining fishery has on our economy. 

Striped bass are extremely important to Atla:llic coast recreational fisheries and 

continued sound management of these stocks is vital to sustaining a vibrant and sustainable 

recreational economy. In the Atlantic region, accorjing to NMFS, over 30% of the 

recreational saltwater fishing trips in the North Atlantic alone targeted striped bass in 1994. 

In the North and Mid Atlantic regions, this amounttd to 3,927,204 trips (18% of all trips). 

The economic activity generated through these trips is enormous, amounting to over 

$270,000,000 to coastal communities from Maine tc• North Carolina. Nationwide, 13% of all 

saltwater fishing was directed at striped bass during 1991. 

Striped bass are one of the few (if not the only) fisheries in the North East Atlantic 

which are in stable condition because of proper maragement. According to the NMFS' Status 

of the Fishery Resources of the Northeastern United States for 1994, a full 60% of the finfish 
103 

resources are in fact overexploited! This record of overharvest is due in part to fishery 

managers' inability to resist short sighted demands (often emanating from a small portion of 

the fishery) to increase exploitation of stocks. 

The tremendous recovery of striped bass on the Atlantic Coast is undeniably a story of 

management success by halting runaway overfishing. From peak landings of over 12 million 

pounds in the early 1970's, striped bass populations crashed to landings of less than 4 million 

pounds by the end of that decade. The primary factor leading to this drastic decline was 

extremely high mortality rates caused by excessive overharvest throughout the striped bass' 

range. 

The mismanagement of striped bass leading to this crash was a direct result of the 

uncoordinated and often conflicting management actions by state agencies. Although a striped 

bass management plan had been in place since 1981 in an attempt to coordinate actions, states, 

reacting at times to constituent pressure to increase harvest, did not implement the tough 

actions that were necessary to increase fishery abundance. In 1984, passage of the Atlantic 

Striped Bass Conservation Act, which was endorsed and championed by the sport fishing 

community, required states, acting under the auspices of the management plan developed 

through the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), to implement 

conservation measures as out! ined in that plan. That legislation provided the groundwork for 

the tremendous recovery of striped bass that has occurred in the last decade. 

As part of the ASMFC management plan, member states not only agreed to restrict 

harvest of striped bass to ensure total recovery , but also determined that consistent and 

uniform regulations were needed coastwide to avoid the confusion and enforcement problems 

associated with conflicting state regulations. However, the ASMFC's management efforts 

were being hindered by a loophole in the plan which allowed continued fishing for striped bass 

in the EEZ (generally 3-200 miles offshore). Although the states could restrict fishing for 

striped bass in~ waters, ti1ey could not prohibit fishing in the EEZ and in many cases, 

because of interstate commerce laws, were forced to allow these fish to be landed and/or 

transported through their state . This created a tremendous problem with the enforcement of 

state regulations. 

To rectify this situation, during the 1988 reauthorization of the Atlantic Striped Bass 

Conservation Act, Congress granted NMFS the authority to regulate the fishery in the EEZ to 

facilitate state management efforts. Soon thereafter, NMFS, after conferring with the 

ASMFC, closed the EEZ to all harvest (commercial and recreational). This action greatly 

simplified state enforcement of their striped bass regulations and improved the effectiveness of 

striped bass recovery efforts. 

It is important to recognize that the actions of NMFS in originally closing the EEZ 

were taken primarily to increase the effectiveness of the implementation and enforcement of 

state management efforts and secondarily as a conservation measure. Currently , there are 

some fisheries taking place in the EEZ for species other than striped bass which nonetheless 

result in an incidental take of striped bass. From a biological standpoint, the percentage of 
104 

these striped bass which are now being killed by incidental take in select fisheries is, like other 

mortality (resulting from sources such as entrainment in power plants, site specific mortality 

from environmental impacts, illicit fishing activity etc) already incorporated in the coastwide 

model of striped bass and is subsequently accounted for within the management framework. 

Although the ASA and NMMA generally support reducing such incidental mortality by 

allowing the harvest (and subsequent designation of these fish to a state's quota), we are 

concerned about a number of enforcement problems that would develop by reopening the EEZ 

before addressing these concerns and which may a•:tually cause increased harvest of striped 

bass above the coastwide quota. 

The inconsistency of state regulations (including the wording of each state's 

regulations) reopens loopholes that caused the original problems prior to 1988. For example, 

if a state such as Massachusetts has a regulation which only permits hook and line harvesting 

of striped bass but a commercial vessel which han ested striped bass with trawl or gill nets in 

the EEZ enters state waters, is that vessel in violation of state Jaw? 

Further, five of the states and the District of Columbia, which are subject to the Striped 

Bass Conservation Plan, have regulations which, in one form or another, restrict the harvest, 

the sale or the import for sale of striped bass and, 1s such, have no commercial allocation 

under the Plan. Some states prohibit the harvest for commercial purposes of striped bass in 

their state waters, but allow the sale of striped bas1; which are harvested outside of state waters 

and imported into the state. These regulations var:r to such a degree from state to state that, 

under current Jaws, it may be possible to land fish caught within the EEZ and sell them within 

the state which has no commercial quota. How, tben, are these fish counted against the 

overall coastwide harvest of striped bass? Furthennore, how would striped bass that are 

landed outside of the 13 states subject to the plan te counted against the coastwide harvest? 

The answers to these questions raise other issues regarding the federal/state 

relationship in interstate commerce. By addressing the issue of striped bass in the EEZ, 

NMFS would establish a federal presence in the m1nagement of the population in the absence 

of a federal fishery management plan. Unlike the Magnuson Act which governs other 

fisheries within the EEZ, the Striped Bass Act (under which authority NMFS recently 

proposed reopening the EEZ) contains no provisio 1s outlining the extent of jurisdiction of the 

federal government. 

In attempting to clarify the answers to some: of these questions, we spoke with 

representatives from NMFS as well as a fisheries administrator from a state that is central to 

the striped bass management program. The response from the NMFS officials was that the 

conflicting regulatory/enforcement problem "was the states' problem." Incredulously, the 

response from the state official was that it "was a federal problem." Clearly, these responses 

indicate that this proposed action is being taken in haste without due consideration to the actual 

effect on the fishery or the state's ability to adequately regulate and enforce harvest. 

The sportfishing community, having been ~. primary supporter of the original Atlantic 
105 

Striped Bass Conservation Act and subsequent amendments, is very concerned about the 

continuing effectiveness of this act and the health of striped bass populations. Abundant fish 

populations are necessary to support a diverse sportfishing industry along the Allantic coast. 

No species is more important to this industry than striped bass. At present, the problems that 

would arise from reopening the EEZ, both legal challenges and management concerns, far 

outweigh extremely limited benefits, if any, that can be attained. Are we to create a situation 

which results in an increased harvest from the EEZ that is not attributed to any state's quota 

(as well as maintaining or even expanding the mortality which is currently taking place in the 

EEZ) simply in an attempt to appease a small segment of the fishery? Will this action generate 

a flurry of lawsuits regarding management authority, needlessly tieing up NMFS and state 

resources which could be better spent on finding solutions to other well documented fishery 

management problems? 

In closing, striped bass is one of the most important species on the Allantic coast to the 

sportfishing community. To reopen the EEZ would result in serious concerns over the 

enforceability of management plans and, perhaps result in furthering the conflicts created 

through the All antic Striped Bass Conservation Act between state and federal governments. 

We strongly support H.R. 2655 which keeps the EEZ closed to striped bass fishing until such 

times as these and other conflicts are thoroughly addressed and resolved. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on this important 

legislation. 
106 

Questions Submitted by the Hono~able Peter G. Torkildsen 

Before the Subcommittee on Fishe•ries, Wildlife and Oceans 

Hearing on H.R. 2655 

Atlantic Striped Bass Preservation Act of 1995 

December 12, 1995 

1. Is there any precedent for Con~Jress extending the moratorium 

on a fishery? Do you feel thai; it is Congress' role to 

micromanage the striped bass fishery? Should Congress 

micromanage any fishery? 

2. Why should the Mid-Atlantic Fi:>hery Management Council have 

exclusive jurisdiction over striped bass? There are many 

fishermen in New England who W•Juld not be represented 'if the 

Mid-Atlantic Council has exclu3ive jurisdiction. 

3. Striped bass is a success story. This fishery beat the odds 

and came back as a result of tbe conservation efforts of 

both commercial and recreational fishermen. In your 

opinion, why is this bill necessary? 
107 

57 CHANNEL DRIVE • POINT PLEASANT, NJ 

Telephones: 

201 -899-1872 

201 -899-1873 

Fax: 201 -899-3294 

Honorable Pete r •r orkild s e n 

u.s . Hous e o f Representa t ives 

Commitee on j e s ourc es 

Dea r Nr. Torkilds en; 

Than!( y ou for y our interest in regard to the proposed 

i\tlantic :;triped bass Preservation •\Ct of 1995,H.R.2655. 

I 'dll ans1<er your questions in order of presentation as 

written on your enclosed letter. 

1. I don't know of any precedent for congress e xte nding a moratorium on a fishery. s toc k depletion is a fairly recent occurance, 

sometimes with many causes,(loss of habitat, pollution, and overfi s hing to name a fe,() . Our state and federal gove rnments employ 

many scientists and fishery managers to manage our fish stocks. 

'rheirs is not an easy job as fis hery management is still a developing science. 'rhese people are doing the best that they can considering the many complex issues involved in fisheries management. 

Congress absolutely should not, at this stage, micromanage any fis hery. The origina l S triped Bass Preservation Act 

was necessary because at the time fisheries managers did'nt have 

the tools (power), or the guts to enact such a drastic cut back 

in landings. Times, and regulations change. 

lihat congress should be doing regarding fisheries management is seeing that the managers have the tools to properly manage 

fisheries through reenactment of the Magnuson Conservation ••ct. 

Our legislators from coastal states,such as yourself, should educate 

our mid-western neighbors about the importance of the Clean ~ater 
108 

,\ct, and work through your differences to provide relief from those 

regulations that truly are unnecesnary or not cost effective, while 

still providing ade4uate and ne C<?S n<lry environmental protection, 

There are many similar problems with the '-letlands Preservation c~.ct, 

but it is a very importa nt piece o :: legislation that will,in time, 

ulong '~ith the Cleun •·-later ''ct, .\nd Nugnuson Conservation ,\ct, restore 

and iintain our fishery resources . i.ly micro- manageing the Clean 

:-later •\Ct, The \'letlands eserv.:~tion Act, and the Hagnuson Conservation 

.\ct, Congress ~<ill be doing what the fisheries managers cannot. CJur 

fishery resources, and O<lr public need a clean marine environment, 

and our Cony ress should be making nure '~e have it. 

2. In regard to the N, .,.r'.M.C. 's exclusive jurisdiction over 

::> triped Bass it should be point e d nut that the ,,,S,H.F.C. has management jurisdiction over all state waters (out to 3 miles offshore), and 

that these waters historically account for over 90% of all Striped 

!3ass landings •. \11 coastal states have equal representation on the 

' ' . ::; .M.F .c. although fishery politic s sometimes effects the equality 

of management plans. 

In regard to the small amount of Striped Bass caught in federal 

w<.t ters, the M,,,. r' .M.C. was given e:cclusi ve jurisdiction presumeably 

because that region historically <l<:counts for the largest amount of 

::>triped l.lass caught. 'rhe problem you point out is an important one 

because there are many species of ::ish that have large migratory 

ranges that overlap into other management regions. I assure you that 

there are fishermen in every region who feel that they do not have 

proper representation because thei:~ regional council does not have 

exclusive jurisdiction over a certain fishery. What may be good management measures in one region may be totally inappropriate in another. 

Each council does appoint a liaiso!1 to attend their neighboring 

regions meetings, but their effect.Lveness is limited by the. quality 

of their knowledge, and the power •Jf their persuasion. 

J. H.H.2655 is not necessary, bu·: in taking a cautious approach 

to this fishery, the M.<l.F.H.C •• sh•Juld extend the E.E.z. moritorium 

until Jan.l, 1997. '!'his will allow them ample time to address the 
109 

the many issues brought up by the recreational and commercial 

fishermen. I personally believe that their decision will be the 

same one, that the ;;triped bass stocks are recovered, and that 

limited harvest from federal waters should be allowed. All that this 

extension l<ill accomplish is the continued waste of a valuable 

monetary, and nutritional commodity as regulatory discard, 

unce again,thank you for your interest in this matter, and 

if I can be of any use to you concerning this subject, feel free 

to contact me. 

22-102 0 - 96 - 5 

Thank: You, 

;;incerly; 

;;::_L~ 

f 17 Laurelh?r'st dr, 

Bricktown, N,J, 

00724 
110 

Borough of Seaside. Park 

Sixth & Central Avenues • Seaside Park. New Jersey 08752 

Tltt Fom.ily Resort 

Honorable Congressmen James Saxton 

Dlainnan, Subcommittee on Rsheries, 

Wildlife and Oceans 

Committee on Resources 

US House of Representatives 

H1.S05 O'Neill Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

(908) 793·0234 

January6,1996 

RE: Additional Testimony with Respect to H.R. 2655 (Atlantic Striped Bass 

Preservation Act of 1995) 

Additional Questions Raised by the Honorable Congressman Pater Torkildsan 

Dear Congressman Saxton: 

I am in receipt of your December 13, 1995, C(lrrespondence in which you have provided 

the three (3) foii(JW{Jp questions raised by the Honorable Peter G. Torkildsen with 

respect to H.R. 2655 (The Atlantic Striped Bass Preservation Ark. of 1995). In this 

regan:l, I would emphasize several points made in my initial testimony submitted on 

December 5, 1995, and verbally expanded upon before your subcommittee on 

December 12, 1995. 

Further, with respect to the first paragraph of the additional questions raised by 

Congressman Torkildsen, I would note question 1: 

Is there any precedent for Congress extending the I'I'IOI'IItOrium on a fiehary? Do you 

feel that it is Congi'MS'& role to micromanage the striped bass fiehary? Should 

Congress micromanage any fiehery? 

The original Atlantic Striped Bass Conservatiro Ark. in conjunction with the applicable 

sections of the Magnuson Rshery Conservation and Management Ark. provide ample 

precedent for Congress imposing a moratorium, or any and all other applicable 

conservation measure on a fishery in general, or with respect to the specific striped 

bass fishery. 

Sttll Uge11d -Trinity LArul . Budc Plum Su . Srriptd Hus Air · Sea CuU 
111 

Further, the Congress has historically accapted its most important role of jurisdiction 

and management of various fisheries, as well as preventing the total depletion of 

fisheries for fub.Jre generations. V\lhat some have inaccurately labeled es a "recovery" of 

the striped bass should be interpreted as a positive indication of the direction taken by 

the original Striped Bass Conservation Act, as well as a reason for extending the 

moratorium until such time as full data can be gathered and scientific conclusions and 

long term projections can be assessed with a reasonable degree of accuracy so that 

immediate re-opening of the fishery does not entirely reverse the progress made and 

devastate the species along the entire East Coast. 

Rnally, I would respectfully dissent from the use of the term "micromanage• as long 

established scientifically based reasonable management of our fish and natural 

resources must remain within the jurisdiction of the Federal Government and the 

Congress. 

Qulllltion 2: Why should the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council have 

exclusive jurisdiction owr striped bass? Thera are many fishermen in New England 

who would not be represented if the Mid-Atlantic Council has exdusiva jurisdiction. 

My understanding of the procedures and regulations associated with the Council system 

show that one regional council does not have exclusive jurisdiction in matters related to 

striped bass or any other fishery. Historically, end logically, there has existed a lead 

Council which comes from the region which has the greatest proportion of a specific 

fishery located within its boundaries. Such would be the case with respect to striped 

bass whose numbers end major spawning areas exist in the greatest percentages 

within the jurisdiction of the Mid-Atlantic Council. Nevertheless, as demonstrated by 

testimony before the Committee, as well as by testimony before recently concluded 

hearings of the NMFS, public input and opinions and positions taken by all the other 

regional councils have indeed been part of the deliberating process concerning whether 

or not to continue the moratorium imposed upon taking of striped bass in the EEZ.zone. 

Ironically, there are significant numbers of recreational surf fisherman who frequent my 

own town of Seaside Park and other New Jersey's coastal communities, who actually 

reside in states not given any voice in a regional fishery Council. Ideally, the input from 

these individuals and their elected federal representatives, as well as input from all other 

regional Council's should be taken into account prior to the enactment of any regulatory 

or legislative action being imposed with respect to striped bass or any other fishery. The 

system thereby does indeed provide a voice for fisherman in New England, as well as 

those within the jurisdiction of other fishery management Councils. 

2 
112: 

Question 3: Striped bass is a success story. This fishery beat the odds and came 

back as a result of the conservation efforts of both commercial and recreational 

fishermen. In your opinion, why is this bill necessary? 

I would again re-emphasize those points made in my previously submitted written 

testimony and expanded upon in my verbal comments before the Subcommittee on 

December 12, 1995. Most importantly, I W'Juld again state that whatever degree of 

recovery of the striped bass fishery that currently exist has occurred simply because 

Congress had the foresight and wisdom to enact the moratorium currently in place. It 

would not be prudent or scientifically supportable at this point to react to a distinct 

minority of individuals from certain geographic: locations who wish to immediately lift the 

moratorium and open the fishery up in the EEZ zone. The more prudent course, as 

recommended by H.R. 2655 [Atlantic Stripe Bass Preservation Act of 1995) would be 

to allow up to five [5) years of additional time in which to fully assess the impact of the 

moratorium previously imposed and to allow a full assessment of data and scientific 

literature and study on what effect if any, thn lifting of said moratorium would impose 

upon the long term future of this most vital recreational resource which forms a 

substantial part of our cultural and the economy of my own coastal community. It is my 

understanding that significant numbers of individuals from all states represented by the 

Subcommittee, including Massachusetts, have testified before the National Marine 

Fisheries Service to urge that the moratorium be kept in place for commercial striped 

bass fishing in the EEZ zone. I would urge your support for H.R. 2655, and I thank you 

very much for allowing me the opportunity tJ present some additional testimony and 

comments on this most vital Bill. 

Respectfully submitted, 

l~1C2C) MAYOR JOHN A. PETERSON, JR. 

JAP:jh 

Sent via Federal Express No.: B471502B52 and telefax to: 202-225-8244 

c: Honorable Peter Torkildsen sent via Federal Express No: 8471502874 

Ms. Kathy Miller- sent via Federal Express 1\lo.: B471502B63 

Seaside Park Borough Council 
113 

JERSEY COAST ANGLERS ASSOCIATI01, 

Working For Marine Resource 

1201 ROUTE 37 EAST, SUITE 9, TOMS RIVER NJ 08753 

PHONE 908-506-6565 FAX 908-506-6975 

ThomasFote 

22 Cruiser Court, Toms River, NJ 08753 

ph 908-270-9102 fax 908-506-6409 

Re: Questions pertaining to H.R. 2655 

Dear Congressman Torkildsen, 

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your questions on the subject of maintaining 

the closure on the taking of striped bass in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) as detailed in 

H.R. 2655. 

Question l : Is there any precedent for Congress extending the moratorium on a fishery? Do you 

feel that it is Congress' role to micromanage the striped bass fishery? Should Congress 

micromanage any fishery? 

The extending of the moratorium on the taking of striped bass, or any other fishery under 

the jurisdiction and management of the National Marine Fisheries Service for that matter, is 

within the purview of Congress. It was Congress that instituted the Atlantic Coast Striped Bass 

Conservation Act that authorized NMFS to take whatever steps were necessary, including 

imposing moratoria, to rebuild and then maintain the striped bass fishery in the first place. 

Congress took these steps because this extremely important fishery was on the verge of 

total collapse and it is within the discretion of Congress to tell NMFS how long the moratorium 

must remain in place to complete the rebuilding process and allow the states to explore the legal 

ramifications of a reopening of the EEZ. It is our worst fear that when the EEZ reopens, states 

will be unprepared for possible legal implications and could inadvertently lose the ability to 

manage the fishery within their legal boundaries. 

Please keep in mind that the National Marine Fisheries Service has a poor record of 

protecting certain fisheries. The New England ground fish debacle is a perfect example. With 

striped bass, you have the majority of the user groups coastwide telling NMFS to keep the EEZ 

moratorium in place until we can assess the impact of the most recent expansion of the harvest 

quota. The user groups are saying, "keep it closed," with the exception of a very small minority 

in specific geographic locations. Yet, NMFS is listening to that vocal minority that wishes to 

reap the fast rewards of the recovery now, rather than wait until the recovery can be better 

assessed and future harvest more controlled. 
114 

Question 2: Why should the Mid-Atlantic Fishe1y Management Council have exclusive 

jurisdiction over striped bass? There are many fishermen in New England who would not be 

represented if the Mid-Atlantic Council has exclusive jurisdiction. 

The Council system is set up in such a manner as to have one regional council, usually 

the one that has the greatest proportion of a specific fishery within its boundaries, take the lead 

role in a specific management plan so as to redu.;;e duplication and increase the productivity of 

the management process. The lead Council does not have exclusive jurisdiction in matters 

pertaining to that fishery and the process is set up in such a way that participation by other 

regional councils in drafting a fishery managem1:nt plan is required. 

Since the majority of the striped bass fishery is located within the states that make up the 

Mid-Atlantic Council, including the major spawning areas (the Hudson River, Chesapeake Bay, 

and now with the rebounding of the stocks, the Delaware River), it is only proper that the MidAtlantic Council should be the lead Council for a striped bass management plan for the EEZ. 

Public input into the system would be established through hearings held both within the states 

that make up the lead Council and also in areas outside that Council's boundaries, to be sure 

that the public's interests are heard. 

Question 3: Striped bass is a success story. This fishery beat the odds and came back as a result 

of the conservation efforts of both commercial and recreational fishermen. In your opinion, why 

is this bill necessary? 

It is the belief of most fishermen involved in the striped bass recovery that the single 

greatest reason the recovery has reached its prestnt state is because of the moratoria put in 

place and because Congress saw fit to give the lead role in managing the fishery back to the 

states. The states made the hard decisions, closed entire fisheries within their boundaries where 

necessary. They were remove from the Beltway politics that have often precluded the National 

Marine Fisheries Service from making hard deci ions to rebuild the stocks. On a state level, 

fishermen were able to put enough pressure on officials responsible for rebuilding the fishery to 

take the prudent road and do whatever was necessary to save the fishery. 

As you know from my earlier testimony, Congressman Torkildsen, I am the Governor's 

Appointee from New Jersey to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. I attended the 

last Striped Bass Board meeting that was held in your state in early December. There were 

more than 25 representatives from your home state in the audience, some of which are your 

constituents. They came from the commercial, recreational and charter fishing industries and 

not one spoke in favor or reopening the EEZ. In fact, every one testified that the EEZ remain 

closed, many quoting H.R. 2655. Most of them were there representing large associations, 

speaking on behalf of hundreds of individuals. Everyone I've talked to from your home state 

before, during and after this meeting, were in opposition to reopening the EEZ. You can obtain 

all the spoken and written comments from your state by call the ASMFC office for transcripts. 
115 

If you would like a list of people and organizations from Massachusetts that I've spoken 

with concerning H.R. 2655, I would be happy to provide you with names, addresses and phone 

numbers, because they have all taken the position that the EEZ should remain closed. They are 

far too concerned with the importance of the striped bass fishery to risk taking this unnecessary 

step at this time. That is why there was such a cry from states throughout this fish's range not to 

reopen the EEZ. It was this cry that Congressman Saxton responded to by authoring and 

introduce H.R. 2655 and we ask that you support its passage. 

~~Tomorrow 

4,.-.7~ Tom Fote 
Telephone (609) !l96-6000 

116 

NEW.BSU 

• 111ANCETOSAIE ..-s 

Post Office Box SOl, New Gl'ctna, Nl Olln4 

Fax(609)!l96-3956 

January 2, 1996 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

U. S. House of Representatives 

Room Hl-805 O'Neill Building 

ATTENTION: Kathy Miller 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Subcommittee Members: 

I would like to thank Mr. Saxton and the Subcomr.:tittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans for the 

honor of participating in this process. This issue is ve-y important to the recreational fishing industry 

and its many ariglers and also to commercial fishermen coastwise. 

Mr. Torkildsen asks some very good questions and my responses are as follows: 

I. Is there any precedent for Congress extending the moratorium on a fishery? Do you feel that 

it is Congress' role to micromanage the striped bass fishery? Should Congress micromanage 

any fishery? 

Answer: Congress must step in now anc. protect this valuable fishery from the 

n:tismanagement problems and confusion that exi rts within the process. The ASMFC stated 

in March 1995 that this fishery was recovered and recommended to NMFS that the EEZ 

should be reopened for harvest. On December i, 1995 at an ASMFC hearing in Braintree, 

Massachusetts, all commissioners who were ,Jresent voted unanimously to reverse the 

March 1995 recommendation. Incidentally, new conflicts with the science have developed. 

At the Senate Hearing on December 12, 199S regarding reauthorization of the Atlantic 

Striped Bass Act, Bureau ofWiidlife and Fisherio:s' biologists reported to Senator Chaffee's 

committee that striped bass stocks were not f.Jlly recovered. This is in total contrast to 

biol6gy reported by the ASMFC. 

When mechanisms start to fail us and there are doubts, n:tissing components and unresolved 

jurisdictional enforcement issues, the answer is 'yes, it is time for Congress to protect the 

resource until the Agency, the Council, the Commission and State Councils can sort out 

and solve these problems". This will give us the time needed to implement an effective 

fishery management plan absent of fear from another fishery stock collapse. Yes, Congress 

should always have a management option to step in and n:ticromanage any fishery when 

n:tismanagement from the normal process threatens a public resource. 
117 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

Attention: Kathy Miller 

January 2, 1996 

Page2 

2. Why should the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council have exclusive jurisdiction over 

striped bass? There are many fishermen in New England who would not be represented if the 

Mid-Atlantic Council has exclusive jurisdiction. 

Answer: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Council and the New England Fishery Council should 

be brought into the process if there is to be any harvest in the EEZ. This is the Councils' 

jurisdictional area and no F.M.P. has been devised for striped bass harvest. The MidAtlantic and New England Councils need to coordinate effective management plans with 

theASMFC. 

3. Striped bass is a success story. This fishery beat the odds and came back as a result of the 

conservation efforts of both commercial and recreational fishermen. In your opinion, why is 

lhis bill necessary? 

Answer: Striped bass is a success story; that is true. However, it was a success only 

because the indisc.riminate and uncontrolled commercial netting was totally shut down for 

a number ,of years. Also, recreational bag limits were dramatically reduced. As stocks 

started to rebuild, very controlled commercial harvest in state waters was allowed and the 

EEZ remained closed. There was no _magical management process. All prior jurisdictional, 

enforcement and by-catch problems are still with us. 

In addition, there is no significant concentration of sexually mature female striped bass 

anywhere. In November and December the smaller concentrations migrate south to North 

Carolina waters and remain in the EEZ prior to their inland spawning migration in early 

spring. These often larger fish are very vulnerable and contribute significantly to the entire 

NE striped bass population. 

This Bill, H.R. 2655, will insure protection and allow time for all the above-mentioned 

problems to be resolved. Yes, Mr. Saxton's Bill H.R 2655 is necessary! 

JD/pa 

cc: The Honorable Peter Torkildsen 

vr-¥ 

Executive 

lL~n=o Director 
.~ 

~ ~·;~ __ ,- .. ·. ' ,; -- ...... #-, 

1. 

118 

North Carolina 

Fisheries Association, Inc. P.O. BOX 123<3 

New Bem. N.C. ~tMt 

Questions Submitted by the honorable Peter G. Torkildsen 

Before the Subcoaaittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

Hearing en HR 2655 

Atlantic Striped Bass Preservation Act of 1995 

Deceaber 12, 1995 

As Answered By The 

North Carolina Fisheries Association, Inc. 

Is there any precedent for Congress extending 

moratorium on a fishery? Do you feel it ts Congress' 

role to microaanage the stri1~ bass fishery. Should 

Congress micro-nage any fishery . 

the 

The North Carolina Flshnries Association does not feel 

congress should micromanage any fishery. The Magnuson Act 

passed by Congress created the current management system 

containing regional councils and requirements for fishery 

management plans. One goal of Magnuson was to take 

!114naqement decisions out of t.he hands of individuals 

unfamiliar with fish species and give decision making 

authority to regional partie• familiar with the specific 

fisheries. When Congress manages a fishery, this regional 

approach that ensures local input is circumvented. 

3. Striped baas is a success story. Thia fishery beat the od~ and came back as a result of the conaervation efforts 

of both commercial and recreational fishermen . In your 

opinion, why is this bill necessary? 

HR 2655 which would extend the current moratorium on fishing for striped bass in federal waters for an additional 

five years is not needed . Since striped bass stocks along 

the east coast are showing dramatic signs of improvement, 

there is no biological need t~r a continued moratorium. 

The commercial industry hae ~acrificed greatly to ensure the recovery. Now that the stock.'l have recovered, the 

sacrifices of commercial and : ecreational fishermen alike 

should be rewarded, not punished by further prohibitions. 

The vast majority of co~•ercial catches of striped bass occur in federal waters, or the Exclusive Economic Zone 

(EEZ) . HR 2655 which continuos the moratorium only in the 
119 

EEZ is simply a move on the part of recreational interests to limit commercial activity, thus ensuring larger 

recreational catche~ in the future. 

Continuing the moratorium will breach the faith 

commercial fishermen have in the management premise that 

compliance and sacrifices today will lead to better fishing tomorrow. In light of the striped bass recovery, now is the 

time to reward the sacrifices of fishermen, not punish them 

further. 

One point that is often forgotten is that striped bass are part of a nationally owned public trust resource . Every 

citizen of this nation owns a piece of the striped bass pie. 

Host Americans who do not have the time or financial means to fish themselves choose to have their seafood caught by 

the commercial fishing industry and delivered to restaurants and retailers where it can be accessed. By limiting 

commercial catches, HR 2655 would continue to limit access to a public trust resource by the commercial fishing 

industry which, in this case, is just the delivery system 

for the American consumer. 
120 

·k- •• I ng yachT company 

*"* Letter Sent Via Fax to 102-125-1542 ••• 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

U. S. House ofRepresentatives 

Room Hl-805 O'Neill Building 

ATTENTION: Kathy Miller 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Subcommittee Members: 

January IS, 1996 

I would like to take this opportunity to extend my thanks to the Subcommittee on Fisheries . Wildlife 

and Oceans for hearing my testimony on this very imponant issue to the boating industry. 

Below please find my responses to Mr. Torlcildsen's qt,estions: 

I. Is rhere arry precedent for Congre.u ertending the moratorium on a fishery? Do you fee/that 

it is Congress' role to micromanage the striped ba::s fishery? Should Congress micromanage 

any fishery? 

Answer: We know of no precedem for Congress ex1ending the moratorium on this fishery. 

The only success story in the history of fisheries has been the return of the striped bass from 

a near collapse. This was the result of a total moratorium. This fishery is recovering but 

is not fully recovered. 

NMFS, with strong pressure from North Carolina conunercial fishing interests, attempted 

to lift the very moratorium that is bringing back this fishery. Based upon ASMFC scientists, 

they concluded the fishery was fully recovered and 1 hat lifting the moratorium wowd have 

no impact. US. Fish & Wildlife biologists testified before the Senate committee for the 

reauthorization of the Atlantic Striped Bass Act that this fishery was not fully recovered, 

which is in contradiction to the ASMFC and NMFS scientists. Only after 2000 recreational 

fishermen in New Jersey overwhelmed the NMFS public hearings did NMFS pull back their 

directive to reopen the EEZ. 

NMFS, by admission. has no successful fishery management plan; and what was achieved 

by the moratorium on the striped bass, they werec about to destroy. Unless Congress 

establishes a precedent and micro manages the striped bass fishery, we: will never have a 

successful fishery management plan. 

"ON THE RASS RIVER" NEW GRETNA NEW JERSEY OB224 1609\ ;>Qfi.fi(l()(l 
121 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlift: and Oceans 

Attention: Kathy Mil'er · 

January 15, 1996 

Page2 

2. Why should the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council have exclusive jurisdiction over 

striped bass? There are many fishermen in New England who would not be represented if the 

Mid-Atlantic Council has exclusiv.e jurisdiction. 

Answer: The New England Fishery Council and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Council should 

work jointly with the ASMFC and manage this fishery with all the states involved to work 

out their jurisdictional problems. 

3. Striped bass is a succe.<., .5tory. This fishery beat the odds and came back a.5 a result of the 

conservation effort5 of both ~om mercia/ and recreatio1ial fishe~men. In your opinion, why is 

this bill necessary? 

Answer: As stated in answer # 1, true, it is a success story but only because a total 

moratorium was in effect for many years. Now, with partial h:uvesting being allowed, the 

stocks have recovered to that allowable degree. 

There has been no real magic as far as a management plan. All prior jurisdictional by-catch and 

enforcement problems still exist with this fishery. Mr. Saxton's bill, with Congressional protection, 

...,111 allow management to work out these problems and put an effective management plan in process. 

This is why Bill H.R. 2655 is necessary. 

RTH!pa 

cc: The Honorable Peter Torkildsen 
122 

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS 

JOHN H. DUNNIGAN, Executive Director, Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission 

ANSWER: H.R. 2655, the Atlantic Striped Bass Prc:servation Act of 1995, would extend the 

cWTent moratorium on commercial harvest of striped tass in the federal waters of the Exclusive 

Economic Zone (EEZ) for at lea~t five years, after whi;h the fishery could be opened if the 

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council develops a:1d the Secretary of Commerce approves a 

fishery management plan for that fishery. The basic pattern of the Atlantic Striped Bass 

Conservation Act is to allow the Secl'etary of Comme~:e to tailor rules to the needs of the fiShery. 

We are not immediately aware of similar moratorium action that Congress has taken with respect 

to a fishery. at lea.~t not one in which the states are the lead panne~ in management The 

Commission believes that the Congress. the federal ag,:ncies. the States and the fiShing 

constituency have all invested a lot in the e.>Cisting pr<Xess. and that Congi'tSS does not have to 

intervene in this case. This should be the case as a ger.eral rule for fiSheries management (i.e .. 

defer to administrative processe.~ developed pursuant Ul statutes such a.~ the Atlantic Striped Bass 

Conservation Act. the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act and the Magnuson 

Fishery Conservation and Management Act), although specific facts would have to be evaluated 

individually. 
123 

2 Wby should !he Mid-At!aotic Fishery Mana&ement Council have exclusive iurisdiction over 

~~~ 2:=aS"!:a!~~;~:!i;~J!,j;w Enrland who would not be cepresengd jf the 

ANSWER: It is our understanding that the Secretary of Commerce has designated the MidAtlantic Fishery Management Council as the lead for Atlantic sniped bass under the Magnuson 

Fishery Conservation and Management Act pursuant to the authority contained in Section 304 

(f){l) of that law. Under normal Magnuson Act procedures. this would require consultation and 

coordination with the New England Fishery Management Council and the South Atlantic l_'ishery 

Management Council. However. given the comprehensive nature of the cooperative interstate 

fishery management program for Atlantic striped bass under the auspices of the Atlantic States 

Marine Fisheries Commission. it does not appear that there is any benefit to be gained from having 

a separate federal fishery management program as envisioned by H.R. 2655. 

3. SJri~ bass is a success smcy Thjs fishery beat the odds and came back as a result of the 

COO$CM!tion efforts gf both commercjal and rccrcatjonal fi5bcnnen. In ygur opinjon why js this 

· bm rn R 26551 necessary? 

ANSWER: The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commis.~ion believes that H.R. 2655 is not 

necessary at this time for the effective management and prudent conservation of lhe Atlantic saiped 

bass tcsOUICe. The be.~t way to successfully manage this n:source is through the cooperative 

intcrswe and stale-federal pn:x:ess established under the Atlantic Saiped Ba.~ Conservation Act 
124 

NATIONAL FISHERIES INSTITUTE, INC. 

1525 WILSON 80UL.£VAAO• SUrTE SOO • ARUNGlON. VA22209 • 703JS24..MB0• F~ 7CXJIS24-4619 

January 10, 1996 

The Honorable James Saxton 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlif~, and oceans Committee on Resources 

805 O-Neill Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Kr. Chairman: 

I am writing to respond to your request to answer questions submitted tor the hearing record by congressman Peter Tor~ildsen on H.R. 2655, the Atlantic Striped Ba~s Preservation Act of 1995. 

QUESTION 1. Is there any precedt•nt tor conqress extending the 

moratorium on a fishery? Do you feel that it is Congress' role to 

micromanage the striped bass f i shery? Should congress micromanage 

any fishery? 

ANSWER 1. To my understanding, Congress has never legislated the 

extension of a moratorium which would prohibit the opening of a fishery in federal waters. As a general rule, congress should not 

micromanage the striped bass fishery, or any other fishery. Fisheries are best managed based upon scientific analysis by 

managers who have expertise in the fishery. Congress should 

intervene only when it is apparent that the management process has 

broken down. In this instance, we believe that intervention is 

premature, especially if the opening of federal waters will have 

little or no negative biological impact on the striped bass stocks. 

It is apparent that fishery managers and fishermen themselves do 

not want to see striped bass stocke plummet again. 

QUESTION 2. Why should the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management council 

have exclusive juri&diction over Htriped bass? There are many fishermen in New England who would not be represented if the MidAtlantic Council has exclusive jurisdiction. 

ANSWER 2. Because striped bass is predominantly caught in state 

waters and is managed successfully under the Atlantic States Marine 

Fisheries commission, we feel that the development of a fishery 

management plan for Atlantic striped bass developed by one regional 

council is not practical. The National Marine Fisheries service 

has the authority and clearly stated the concerns in their proposed 

rule to open federal waters to the harvesting of striped bass. 

H.R. 2655 does direct the Mid-Atlantic Council to consult with the 
The Honorable James Saxton 

January 10, 1996 

Paqe 2 

125 

New Enqland and South Atlantic councils and the ASMFC. However, 

the opening of federal waters affects such a small portion ot 

historical landinql that the devalopment ot a FMP by the MiltAtlantic Council would be given a low priority. By having NKFS 

address this fishery management process directly, interested 

parties residinq in all states along the Atlantic coast can expect fairness in developing the management plan. 

QUESTION 3. Striped baas is a success story, this fishery beat the 

odds and came back as a result of the conservation efforts of both 

co1111ercial and recreational fishermen. In your opinion, why is 

this bill necessary? 

ANSWER 3. H.R. 2655 is not needed at this time and overstates the 

nee!! and means for legislative protection of a stock that has made a remarkable recovery. In fact, it this leqislation was to pass 

congress it would set a danqerous precedent for the future 

management of fisheries, and especially coUiercial fbhinq. 

The NFI looks t'orvard to working with you to resolve your concerns. If you have any further questions, please feel free to 

contact me at (703) 524•8884. 

Sincerely, 

-g~ 1,:)~ 

BILL WRIGHT 

Governaent Relations 
CONGRESSMAN FRANK PALLONE, JR. 

Sixth District of New Jersey 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 21. l995 

CONTACT: Ted Loud (202) 225-4671 

PALLONE PRAISES SAXTON STRIPED BASS LEGISLATION 

Says E.E.Z. Excl;•lSion Proposal 

Helps Further Goal of Game Fish Legislatio.n 

Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr., D-N.J., announced his cosponsorship of legislation 

introduced by Rep. Jim S~"ton, R-N.J., that autlmizes a five year extension of the current 

moratorium on the haNest of striped bass within the U.S. Exclusive Econ.omk Zone (EEZ). 

Pallone has been a fierce opponent of attempts to reopen federal and state waters to 

commercial fishing for striped bass and has sponmred legislation to make striped bass a 

game fish. 

While Pallone supports Saxton's efforu, l.e urged his colleagues and ftsherman to 

reaffmn their suppon for game fish stafilS for striped bass. 

"If we really want to protect the stocks, if we really want to preserve the thousands of 

jobs associated with the recreational fishing indu! uy. we need to paos a game fish 1?!11." 

Pallone said. 

"The EEZ exclusion legislation will at least ensure continued protection of striped 

bass in federal waters. Given the tremendous level of interest in New Jersey, I'm looking 

forward to participating in next month's hearing.' 

Pallone is a member of the House Subcommittee on Fisheries, Oceans and Wildlife 

which has jurisdiction over fisheries management. Saxton is the Subcommittee's Chainnan. 

The Subcommittee is scheduled ttl hold a llearing on the legislation on December 5. 

Jarlier this month, Pallone provided testimony to federal officials opposing the 

reop('ni.ng of the EEZ to striped bass fishing. Atlantic Striped Bass Stoeks began declining in 

-mort: -
127 

the 1970s. Commercial harvests of striped bass declint:d precipitously in the period between 

1973 to 1983 from 15 million pounds down to 3.5 million pounds. 

Pallone also said that he though! tbat the morar.orium should be amended to allow no5ale recreational harvest in accordance with the laws of the state in which the fish is landed. 

"I believe that this is a good first step and it maintain~ the current starus quo. But I 

think the stock has recovered to the point wht:re limited recreational harvest could be 

allowed. I intended r.o work with Chairman Saxton and others to see if this makes sense and 

po~sibly fwd a way r.o accomplish this, • Pallone concluded. 

### 
128 

New Jersey Alliance To Save Fisheries 

POSITION PAPER 

On the Proposed Opening of the 

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) 

To Striped Bass Harvest 

The New Jersey Alliance To Save Fishe1ies asks that the proposed lifting of the 

moratorium to harvest Striped Bass in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) be rejected. 

No change should be consider~d until: · 

• Biological studies r~arding impHct to stock viability, vis-a-vis By-Catch 

mortality, are thoroughly studied; 

• Conflicts between the interacting Federal agency, Atlantic States Marine 

Fishery Commission (ASMFC), and various state regulatory agencies 

must be resolved before any mmagement plan can be effective. The 

reopening of this fishery could exacerbate the present conflicts. The 

agencies involved in this manauement regime are the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS), ASMFC and every State fish and game 

agency. The Mid-Atlantic Fish~ry Council should be brought into the 

process on this specific issue. 

Fish caught inside the EEZ poss.bly will be landed, transported and sold 

within a state that has no commercial quota. How then ar& these fish 

counted in the overall coastwise harvest of striped bass? Furthermore, 

how would striped bass that are landed outside the thirteen (13) states 

that are subject to the Plan be c:ounted against the coastwise harvest? 

How will we account for the like·ly increased by-catch? 

If the EEZ is reopened, the NMFS has established a federal presence in this fishery's 

management despite the absence of a Fer:leral Fishery Management Plan. 

Therefore. we recommend that the NMFS maintain the closure to striped bass harvest in 

the EEZ while all the above-stated conflicts are addressed and resolved. 
Robert T. Healey 

Chairman 

129 

NEW IERSEYALLIANCE To SAVE FISHERIES 

"On the Bass River" 

New Gretna, NJ 08224 

(609) 290-6000 Fax (609) 296-3956 

James Donofrio 

Es.ecutive Director 

(908) 869-9463 Fu (908) 869-0721 

FISHERIES CONSERVATION ALERT 

PROPOSED REOPENING OF THE EEZ TO STRIPED BASS HARVEST 

Background: 

Pending Issue: 

Motive: 

Major Concern: 

Tbe Facts: 

Take Action: 

The striped bass along tbe Atlantic Coast from Maine to North Carolina were depleted to 

near extinction in the early 1910's due to commertial overharvest and poor management. 

In 1988 the Natio~al Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) implemented a moratorium on 

striped bass harvest in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), 3 to 200 miles. At the same 

time several states instituted gamefuh status in their waters (up to 3 miles). Gamefish 

status prohibits the sale and commercial harvest of a species. As a result of these 

measures, striped bass stocks have been in recovery. 

In late September 1995, NMFS announced its plan to reopen the EEZ to commercial and 

recreational harvest of striped bass. A series of federal hearings are in process in some of 

the above coastalsiates, with a comment period ending on November 15, 1995. 

Thereafter, a determination will be made. 

It is believed that commercial fuhing lobby groups in North Carolina are exercising 

enormous pressure to reopen tbe EEZ for their benefit in conjunction with the striped bass 

migration to their wintering grounds. These wintering fish represent the main breeding 

stocks of the entire northeast striped bass population. We believe any harvest in this area 

will revene the recovery which is now in progress. 

NMFS, in their baste to accommodate a few commercial interests in North Carolina, have 

no federal fishery plan to preserve these stocks. Tbe EEZ should not be reopened for 

harvest until a plan is developed that will ensure preservation of spawning fish and full 

recovery of the entire population . 

.f There are conOicting laws in coastal states effecting Striped Bass in the EEZ. 

.f No statistical study shows that Striped Bass will not be depleted to near extinction . 

.f Recreational fishing for Striped Bass generates over $270 million annually to the 

economies of the above coastal states. 

Please request the postponement of the reopening of the EEZ for one (I) year to aile 

broader input from the states effected and development of a proper management plan. 

Immediately contact (Nov. 15 deadline): 

RoliQJid Schmitt~11. Dir~ctor, National Marine Fisheries Service, 

1335 East-West Highway, Room F, Silver Springs, MD 20910 

Phone (301) 713-2239 Fax (301) 713-2258 
130 

MARINE PATRO~ SECTION 

OVBRVl:BW 

The North Carolina Marine Patrol addresses the overal l l aw enforcement efforts of the Divisior. of Mari ne Fisheries. It is the 

police arm of the Division's efforts to meet statutory and rule 

obligations to the Department of lmvironment, Health and Natural 

Resources . 

Marine Patrol officers are granted the general powers of peace 

officers throughoUt North Caroline., enforcing all matters Wl.tnl.n 

thci• reepective eubject mAttere a~d territori~l juriodiction. Additionally, Marine Patrol offi<:ers are authorized to arrest 

without warrant for felonies, breaches of the peace, assaults upon 

themselves or others in their preE:ence, and other offenses which 

threaten the public trust and peace, or subvert the auJ;;Q.ority of 

the State of North Carolina. · 

The Patrol's marine resource enfor:ement obligations include: 

1) 370,312 acres of water and bc•ttom closed permanently due to 

pollution . 2) 50,000 a.cres closed to shellfishing periodically due to storm 

water runoff and waste treatmet1t plant breakdown. These areas vary W1CI.el.y. and must be pollt••<l cU!<l .f:J"'LLull.<::<l Lu jJJ..ULec t. t.ho: 

public health. 

3) ~.ooo miles of ocean and estuarine shoreli ne. Nort h Carolina 

has the largest estuarine are.l of any Atlantic coast state. 

4 l 21,941 commerical fishing lic•mses sold in 1~94. 

5) 11,785 shellfish and crab lic~nses sold in 199~ . 

6) the one million- plus sports Eishermen utilizing our coast 

yearly. 

7) routine patrols of the entiro! coastal area, to include the 

waters, fish houses, and wholesale/retail establishments . In 

addition, operations are condu::ted throughout the entire state 

to guard against the sale of lllegal seafood products. 

ACCOHPLISifMPITB 

January through July, l~~J enforcement activities (warnings and 

citations) total 871; for the satne time frame in 1~94, 1,101 . January through July, 1995 activit ies total 1,770. Seven-moD~ 

eD.t'oraaent act.ivJ:t.:te• w.Dt: .t':t:am a total of 871 .:tn 1993 to 1,770 1zl 

1995 -- &a inare••• of l03t. 

Annual totals (12 months) for 199 ~ statewide enforcement efforts 

show the issuance of 727 warnings and 938 citations; 1994 annual 

totals show 1,214 warning• and l,so• citations issued. Annual (12-

-th) enforo~t aotivitie• •how an illo:r•&se of 63' from 1993 to 

1994. 
Marine Patrol Section Overview 

Page Two 

AGCOMELISHMINTS !Cont'dl 

131 

An inspection form and procedure was established in l99S to better 

document officer interaction with the ~eneral public, fishermen, 

and dealer network. The revised weekly activity reporting form 

l:llAvw,. !:f.<.c.st:c~· .:ict:,..£1 ~r Mtlo.:t:ia.c X'at:rol 01o!:.ivit:y (r:at:io o£· 

enforcement hours to enforcement actions). Statistics are now detailed to show patrol hours (by boat, vehicle and aircraft), and 

(.C,JLCA.1. .J.lJI:ilfJf!:CC:.lOnoO' or ind1.vJ..dua.~., ~.ll:dl lAVUI:IIC..:Wt .u.~-..J w.Uv~'--'LIW.~0/1-of;.•:/..~ 

markets. 

Aotivity report• for the period January through .Tuly 1994. show 

total hours, with number of citations and warnings issued. Totals 

for the period show 32,339 enforcement hours exerted, and 1,101 

actions taken a ratio of 1 action per 29 hours. !Inspectionb 

not resulting in a warning or citation were not recorded.) 

For the same tiJIIe frame (January through JUly) in 1995, totals show 

22,621 patrol hours, 1,053 citations and 717 warnings issued, and 

29,419 inspections. Ratio ie now 1.3 actions per hour. 
132 

North Carolina Marine Patrol 

Coastal Law Enforcement Districts 

Headquarters 

9 Oftleen 

8Htllera illtrfct. 16 Ollleen 
133 

THE SUNDAY STAR-LEDGER, Qj!cember 3, 1995 

=-~ ·-zrr=ry-·= ·-· Trrrir~~·= ~-zyn 

Saxton pushing 

bass moratorium 

Rep. Jim Saxton (R-NJ) addressed the American Sportfishin!t'Associatlon (ASA) Northeast Region81, meeting at Hershey Motel, Seaside ' 

Heights, yesterday and presented a positive tone to prospects for hiS re- cently introduced bill to maintain the 

moratorium on striped bass fishing in 

fedetal waters. 

Saxton is chainnan of the Hous~ 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Oceans . and Wildlife, and has signed on several 

other congress- men including 

New Jersey representatives 

Frank Pallone 

(D) and Chris 

Smith (R). Most 

importantly, 

Alaska congress- man Don Young, 

who's chainnan or the full committee, is also a cosponsor. Saxton emphasized that additional cosponsors are needed in order 

to make hiS bill a high priority, and 

readers are urged to contact their con- gressmen about signing on. There's a strong push in North Carolina to open 

up federal waters as great numbers of 

large, pre-spawning bass winter over there and are easy targets for draggers. Though the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) proposal calls for state 

laws to be observed should federal wa- ters open up, they will be dependent on the Coast Guard for enforcement and 

that agency is backing off fisheries due 

to a lack of funds. Commercial fishermen have discussed the possibility of going to court 

to use the interstate commerce clause 

in order to get the right to transport 

stripers from federal waters (if opened) 

through non-sale states to legal mar- kets. This is just one or the possible 

loopholes that may be opened by the 

NMFS proposal, and with the lack of 

enforcement, you can bet that once netting of bass starts offshore it will soon carry into state waters at night. 

SAXTON'S SUBCOMMITTEE 

sent the revised Atlantic Striped Bass 

Conservation Act to the Senate earlier 

this year and he has contacted Sen. John cn8ffee (R-R.I.) about having hiS 

amendment added to the Senate bill 

presently beilrg considered. Senators 

Bradley and Lautenberg should be 

asked to help in thiS effort. 

The ASA is unanimously behind 

Saxton's bill and will be working to add 

cosponsors to it. Th~te will also _be an effort made at Thursday's meetmg m Braintree, Maine, to have the Atlantic 

States Marine Fisheries Commission 

(ASMFC) take a position against over- turning the federal moratorivm. Even some inshore commercial groups are in 

favor of that position since the opening 

of federal waters may result in their 

having to share state quotas with draggers. The state-by-state reports at yesterday's meeting didn't present as rosy a picture of striper abundance as that 

painted by John Field of the ASMFC 

during Friday's sessioli. Brad Burns of 

Maine said they had loads of small bass 

up there, but fewer 28-inch bass and a relative scarcity of 36-inchers. George Scocca ofNor'east Saltwa- ter said the western end or Long Island 

Sound is clogged with school stripers 

from the Hudson River stock, but Montauk has been on-and-off lately and the 

south shore migratory run has been disappointing - particularly in terms 

oflarge bass. Though Maryland's fall season got 

off to a fast start, stripers became 

much more difficult to catch as the 

weeks rolled by and Capt. Richard Novotny of the Maryland Saltwater Sportfishermen's Assn., like many others 

present, feels that too m~y bass are being removed from the biOmass. I'll 

have more about what went on at the 

ASA meeting the last two days in future columns. 
As

... .... ~ o· ·~ 

Government to protect big w

I 

t is almost certain that the big 

striped bass that winter off the 

coasts of Virginia and North Carolina will be protected from a direct 

fishery this year. 

The word from Washington is that 

the National Marine Fisheries Service 

is moving very deliberately on its proposal to open 

federal waters to fishing for 

striped bass. 

A few North 

Carolina netters had 

been hoping 

to legally target the fish 

in December. 

This winter fishery, drst direct and 

later as a bycatch to the spiny dogfish 

fishery, is regarded by some as being an obstacle to an even more rapid re- covery of the striped bass stocks be· 

cause the fish are traditionally all ma- ture breeders. Sources close to NMFS said yesterday that the government is aware that 

it has an image problem after the New 

jersey hearings, and satisfying a few 

commercial netters by opening federal 

waters is a poor way to enhance it. 

What the service has done is extend 

the public comment period on the proposal to Dec. 7, possibly longer, and is 

studying the enormous amount of tes- timony and letters on the issue. 

Meanwhile, protection for the 

striped bass may be coming from another direction as Rep. H. James Saxton, R-NJ., introduced a bill Friday 

that would authorize a five-year extension of the moratorium on fishing 

for bass in federal waters. 

Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-NJ., 

whose own bill making the striper ex- clusively a recreational fish was rem- traduced early this year, is co-sponsoring the five-year bill to be known as the Atlantic Striped Bass Preservatioh Act of 1995. 

Saxton said that he agrees with the 

NMFS belief that the striped bass 

stocks have grown substantially in the 

last few years through various conser- vation measures, but be wants protections put in place to avoid another decline. 

"A well-re,searched~ scientificallybased manag~ment plan will keep us ·from making the same mistake 

twice," he~d. "My approach to protecting the striped bass population 

simply calls for this common-sense 

measure." 

Saxton, who is chairman of the 

House Subcommittee on 

Wildlife and Oceans, said 

bass is too important to th

tional fishery to gamble w

ture. 

"We just can't tum our 

striped bass population," 

effect, we'd be turning ou

local economy, which der

of dollars each year from 

Saxton said a congressi

on the bill is scheduled fo

The Capitol. 

Surf anglers enjoyed pr

best three days of the sea

Sandy Hook through nort

Branch this week, accord

Giglio of Giglio's Bait and 

Bright. 

"The fish are everywh

"One guy caught 40 bass 

limit." 

Giglio caught four him

hour on clams at daybrea

Tom, had six and nephew

lio, had four. Most were 2

inches. 

Buddy Brazaitis of Clar

33-pound bass, and Jamie 

Red Bank had an 18-poun

Giuadagnino of Freehold 

pounder, one of two bass 

Capt. Jerry Ciriello's Fred

Leonardo. 
135 

rauone JOms cnncJSm 

of NMFS bass meeting 

T be echoes from the angry 

aowd of striped bass fishmnen 

wbo were denied aa:ess to the 

federal fishery IIWiagement process 

Monday night in Toms River were heard as far av«J as Washington yesterday. 

The bearing drew an~ 600 to 700 peqlle, making it the largest in 

New Jersey since the mamgement process began. Many wbo attended termed 

it the absolute woo;t. 

Rq~. Frank Pallone Jr. D-NJ. was ootiaged at the failure ci the Natiooai 

Marine FISh· 

tries Service to ICCOIIU1lC). 

date the 

crowd that 

clamored to 

be heard on the subjed of 

JOHN reopening 

GEISI:R fedenl wa- ters to the 

harvest of . striped bass. 

Pallone has been in the forefront of 

striped bass cmservation eforts since 

be was a state 1~. His bill to make the striped bass a fish exclusively 

for sport fishermen is known ooa5twide as the "Paalone bill. • In a lf!ter yesterday to Rolland 

Schmitten, director of NMFS, Pallone 

said be opposes . of the bass 

fishery in federal :"' 

''There is no way that you or any 

member ci your agency could kmw iny 

opinion from the record d the Toms 

River bearing because my lifice, lilce 

other interested parties. was probibited 

from presenting testimony that night. 00 

be said. 

'1t is OUir.lgoous that reaeational 

and rommen:ial fishermen. charter and 

party boat owners. spming goods re- tailers and manufacturen, environmentalists and academics were shut out d 

the bearing JrOCeSS." be said. ''Due to exlreme mismanagement 

and an apparmt unwillingness to listen 

first-hand to those wbo will be afeded 

by NMFS decisions, these people were either not allowed to speak or, even worse, not even allowed into the bearing." be said. "So poorly managed was the hearing that many ci those wbo 

gained entr.moe could not bear the 

speakers or be heard above the din of 

theaowd." 

Pallone urged Sclunitten to not only 

extend the comment period. but to schedule another bearing in New Jersey in an appropriate forum. 

tackle shops and marinas were buzz. 

ine vesterdav as fishennen shared their 

feelings of frustntion and anger and some called their legislaton to express 

their concern over this latest NMFS fi. asco. 

1-i another NMFS bearing scbeduled 

in Toms River in the &ping. nearly 100 tuna fishermen turned out at the designated time, and the goverrunent did not show. At a NMFS liuelin tuna meeting 

in Belmar a few weeks 1gb, 220 fisher. men 3lleDded aDd ~ did not bother to record the CXli1U1leDts. 

Two pod bly U,. 

Barnegat Bay striped bass fishermen had their best two days of the season this week with six fish over 35 

pounds weighed in at N"ICk Latorre's · 

Bayway Bait aDd Tackle, Forked 

River, Lacey Township. . 

Scott Eno d Waretown nailed a 42-pounder yesterday, and Doug 

Blood of Lacey had a •?-pounder. Eric 

Suscbke of Trenton caught . a 

40-pouncler on Monday, Joe Daily of 

Forked River had a 42-pounder, Jerry 

Edwards had a 43-pounde:r and John 

Majkowski of Waretown bad a 35-pouncler. 

Fluke fishing was interesting along 

the beach, and Capt. Bobby Bogan Jr. 

of the Gambler out of Point Pleasant 

Beach said most anglers had four and 

five fluke plus a nice showing of small 

blues. 

Capt George Bachert of the Fisher- men. Atlantic Highlands, found slow 

fluke fishing along the Staten Island 

shore, and better action around the 

terminal channel. 

Capt. Rob Semkewyc of the Sea 

Hunter out of Atlantic Highlands said 

five anglers bad their limits of fluke 

on the morning trip. He fished Raritan 

Reach and expects good fishing for at least a week. · 

Surf fishing was slow in many areas yesterday, but a bluefish blitz erupted 

in the Seaside Park surf in the morn- ing. and anglers bad a field day with 3-

to 7-polllld fish. 

The Spring Lake Live Liner Fishing 

aub ·won the Team MuDet Invitational Striped Bass Tournament with 

104 points over the weekend. George 

Tompkins paced the winners with a 

20-pound bass, the largest in the con- test 

The Shark River Surf Anglers 

placed second with 63 points, and the 

Morunouth Beach Cartoppers placed 

third with 32 points. The Asbury Park 

Fishing Club was fourth with 24 

points, Team Mullet fifth with 15, and 

the Berkeley Striper Club sixth with 

13. 
13Ei 

• Asbury Pill: Press Wednesday, Nov. 15, 1995 09 

Anglers upset at proposal 

to allow netting of stripers: 

T he sea turned as angry yesterday as some of the fishermen at Monday night's striped bass 

hearing in Toms River. 

The fleet stayed tied at the dock, 

but the pitch of the rhetoric in the 

tackle shops and marinas was high. 

The recreational fishing community is 

still stirred up over the government 

proposal to net striped bass in federal 

waters. 

jim Donofrio, executive director of 

the New jersey Alliance to Save Fisheries, said his phone rang all day. 

"We sat hack and watched a lot of 

these fisheries being decimated," he 

said. "A lot of guys in the party and 

charter-boat business, and a lot ot 

tackle shop owners, took the hits. 

"We didn't send our kids to the 

hearings to cry, we didn't ask for federal aid," be added. "We went out and 

got other jobs if we bad to. We took our lumps, we stood tall, but we're not 

going to stand by and see them ruin 

the striped bass stocks agaiJL" 

Last Friday, New jersey officials 

traveled to Washington, D.C.. to talk 

to legislators and National Marine 

Fisheries Service officials about the 

striped bass proposal. In addition to 

Donofrio, the officials included · Dave 

Arbeitman, president of the Thousand 

Fathom Club; john Koegler ot the jer- sey Coast Anglers Association; and 

Bob Healy, a member of the board of 

directon of the New Jersey Alliance. 

Arbeitman said the mission was to impress upon Washington the importance of the fishery to the recreational 

industry. 

'They listened," he said. "We sat 

down with four people from NMFS, 

and we definitely got .our point 

across." 

JOHN 

GEISER 

Arbeitman 

said support 

came from 

new sources 

such as Rep. 

Wayne Gilchrist, RMd., whose 

Chesapeake 

Bay netters 

will lose in 

the struggle for quot• if federal waters are opened to striped bass fishing. 

Rep. Robert E. ,\ndrews, D-NJ., wrote NMFS directo.: Rolland Schmit· 

ten that he is oppo5( d to the lifting of 

the moratoriwn. 

In his letter, he ~'Ole: ''While I am 

optimistic about the recovery of the 

Atlantic striped basl. stock, I remain 

extremely cautious about any rush to reopen the federal fishery. 

· "A resumption of striper fishing at 

the proposed levels <OU!d result in the same conditions thai caused the destruction of the stock in the 1970s. I 

firmly believe that affording gamefish 

status, on the federal level, to the Atlantic striped bass is the only way to 

truly ensure protecti•m of the stock." 

Tom Fote, one of New jersey's representatives to the Jersey Coast Anglers Association, said he bad breakfast yesterday with Paul Perra and Dr. William Hogarth. both of the National 

Marine Fisheries Service's oflice of 

fisheries conservation and managemenL 

''We stopped in at Betty and N'ICk's 

(bait and tactle sbop in Seaside Park), 

and I explained that years ago there 

was a whole line of shops here," he 

said. ''The shops went when the 

striped bass stockt declined. They 

were pretty impressed." .. 

Earl Etzel, vice commodore of th~ 

Forked River Tuna Club, said . his 

group is unified in its support against 

opening federal waters to striped ha!;s 

netting and was well represented 

among the 525 fishermen who atteoded Monday night's hearing. ' -

The club held a striped bass tounla' · ment over the weekend, and}erry'Ed•_ 

wards won with a 40..3$-pound has.s. 

Bill Whitson was second with ·. a 

31-pounder and Mike King third wltli one that went 18.25 pounds. · 

Edwards has caught five stri~rs 

over 30 pounds this season. Whitsoq 

fished with George Broome, the vet" 

eran bass fislierman whose daughter. 

Kathy, has won honors in the club's tournament twice in past years. 

King fished with Bill Ridgeway, i!n, 

other veteran bass fisherman. They 

have placed among the top angletS iii 

many of the club's tournaments. -· 

The weather was had over the 

weekend, but 38 boats were in the 

tournament and 23 stripers were caught. Chris Sullivan of Forked River 

caugb! the smallest bass, a 31-inch. 

9-pounder •. 

Etzel said anglers interested in the 

club's tournaments next year or wanting information on the club can phone: 

(609) 693-5353. • 

Greg Bogan of Brielle Bait and 

Tackle said big stripers have finally 

started to show around Manasquan 

InleL 

AI Bauer of Brick Township caught a J5.pounder on his boat, Kristen B. 

Bauer, and sons AI and Eric, and 

daughter Kristen, were trollillg 

bunker spoons east of the inlet lfhen 

the 46-iDch bass hiL They also caught 

bluefish and weakfish. 
60 

Saxton bill will pro

in federal wa

Though it appeared a few weeks a severe decline. 

ago that the National Marine Fisheries Not only will the Saxton bill ex- Service (NMFS) proposal to reopen tend the moratorium for nve years, but 

federal waters to striped bass exploita- it also requires that a ftshery manageLion couldn't be stopped, the lntroduc- ment plan be prepared before ending 

tion of a bill by Rep. Jim Saxton (R-NJ) lt. The mere nllng of this bill should be 

has changed that outlook completelY. enough to prevent NMFS from going 

spe

bi

wh

so

gr

Zi

To

Saxton's bill, H.R. 2655, has been ahead with their plan since Saxton Is 

titled the Atlantic Striped Bass Preser- chairman of the House Subcommittee dre

vatlon Act. It authorizes a nve-year ex- on Fisheries, Oceans and Wildlife, 

t.ension or the current moratorium on which holds· the pursestrlngs of the in 

retaining stripers in federal waters be- agency. 10 

yond the three-mile state zone. sto

Despite the increase in striped REP . .' FRANK PALLONE (D·NJ), Ma

bass stocks alter years of sharply re- also now a member or the subcommit- sch

duced harvesting, Saxton agrees with tee, has cosponsored that bill and is a 

most sportsmen that It makes sense to nrm opponent or reopening federal wa- tio

•xercise extreme caution in order not ters to striped bass exploitation. He's anc

to dupticate the mismanagement of the even more concerned with solving the tor 

species during the last period of a bun- striped bass problem once and for all ou

dance in the 1960s and 1970s that led to by making that species a game ftsh as Riv

wh

pre

ing

taln

con
188 

() 

ISBN 0-16-052234-X 

90000 

9 80160