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