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