2) Information on Acceptance of Fisheries 

 Management Plans. — In the past, many efforts 

 to manage marine fisheries to benefit stocks of 

 fish and the consumer have failed, primarily 

 because the proposals have been massively 

 opposed by the fishing industry. 



When people oppose proposals that involve 

 planned social change, there are usually two 

 reasons: a) the change is not economically 

 profitable for them, or b) the change is not 

 congruent with existing social institutions.83 



If fisheries management plans under Public 

 Law 94-265 are to succeed, they must gain 

 enough acceptance in the fishing industry that 

 they will not invite massive opposition. To 

 gain that acceptance, it will be necessary to 

 understand the costs and benefits of manage- 

 ment and who is affected by each. 



In most cases, imposition of new fisheries 

 regulations is likely to represent a loss of in- 

 come to fishermen. This means that the costs 

 of management (in terms of decreased 

 catches) will be borne by the men currently in 

 the fishery. The benefits will be gained by 

 future generations of fishermen. Even if the 

 benefits of management were to occur 

 relatively quickly, the men currently in the 

 fishery would bear the costs, but they would 

 have to share the benefits with others who are 

 lured into the industry by improved condi- 

 tions. 



Solid information will be needed on the 

 way management plans will affect the costs 

 and receipts of fishermen, distribution of in- 

 come, and the traditional political, social, and 

 institutional patterns which will be disturbed 

 by changes. 



This phenomenon of present fishermen 

 bearing the cost of regulation while future 

 fishermen gain the benefits is another argu- 

 ment for accurate information on foreign in- 

 vestments in U.S. fishing vessels and govern- 

 ment subsidies of the foreign fishing com- 

 panies which may make these investments. 

 Such vessels may be able to bear short-term fi- 

 nancial problems more easily than American- 

 owned domestic vessels because the foreign 

 investment or subsidy provides a cushion. In 

 addition, the extra vessels made possible by 

 foreign investments and subsidies will make it 

 necessary to spread domestic allocations over 

 a larger number of vessels. ^^ This may have 

 social as well as economic impacts on the U.S. 

 fishing community. 



3) Information on Technological Change. — 

 Under the law, catch limitations may be 

 established for all species of fish. Foreign fleets 

 will be allocated that part of the catch which 

 the American fleet is incapable of harvesting. 

 If the American fleet expands, in time foreign 

 fishing efforts will decrease, perhaps cease en- 

 tirely in some fisheries. 



The boats that will do best under catch 

 limitations will be modern boats that can 

 catch fish quickly, before the allocation is used 

 up. The larger, better equipped boats, and 

 larger catches will require larger piers, better 

 maintenance facilities, larger processing 

 plants, and better transportation facilities. But 

 the U.S. fishing industry will not revive or ex- 

 pand if there are no markets for fish, if capital 

 for new boats and technology is not available, 

 if piers, transportation facilities, and other 

 kinds of infrastructure are not present. 



The people of coastal areas will have little 

 control over some of these factors, but it is 

 reasonable to assume that the impact of ex- 

 tended jurisdiction and fisheries management 



90 



