lations existing at the state level, many of which have their 

 origins veiled in the mists of history but are still effective. 



In my State of California, for instance, these examples exist : 



One cannot harvest abalones commercially in Northern Cali- 

 fornia, although they are abundant there. 



One may not have a trawl net aboard one's vessel south of the 

 border between Santa Barbara and Ventura counties, although 

 trawl fishing is permitted off central and northern California. 



One may not reduce fish to meal and oil without a permit 

 from the Fish and Game Commission, which will not give one. 

 There is no way under existing law for the California Depart- 

 ment of Fish and Game to manage the taking of fish under 

 modern conservation methods, establishing crop limits designed 

 under scientific criteria to provide the maximum sustainable 

 yield; each case must go to the legislature. In Alaska none 

 may catch salmon with a purse seine vessel more than 50 ft. 

 long. In Washington none may use electronic fish finders 

 with which to locate salmon. In Alaska and Washington fish 

 traps and other fixed gear have been eliminated. They were 

 too efficient. In the North Pacific an American may not fish 

 for halibut by trawl, or salmon on the high seas by gill net. 



This is only the small beginning of a tabulation of the pro- 

 hibitions against efficient fishing in the laws of the west coast 

 states. Those for the Gulf and Atlantic states are not less 

 forbidding, complex, or archaic. Propriety forbids me men- 

 tioning the welter of laws applicable in Chesapeake Bay, where 

 the fishermen have been protecting their livelihood against the 

 activities of their more industrious or efficient colleagues by 

 legislative means since before the United States Congress first 

 met. 



This problem is so complex and difficult that it is not pos- 

 sible to attack it rationally to find out what its effect on the 

 nation's fisheries is without extensive legal, economic, social 

 and resource research on the state level. One of the principal 

 purposes of S.J. Res. 29, introduced by Senator Magnuson for 

 himself and others, is to provide the research base simply for 

 examining the dimensions of this problem. 



Sportsmen Versus Commercials 



A prime generator of the above-noted welter of state law and 

 regulations preventing the efficient development of the nation's 

 fisheries is the continual wrangling between sportsmen and com- 

 mercial fishermen over which one should be able to catch the 

 fish exclusively. 



In a lifetime of work in fisheries, my observations on this 

 subject can only be blunt. A very large part of this wrangling 

 has given the appearance of having been stimulated by pro- 

 fessional sportsmen and professional representatives of com- 

 mercial fishermen who desired the job insurance of such fights 

 going on continuously so that they could earn retainers for 

 appearing before legislatures. Another big part of this wrang- 

 ling has been stimulated by gear fights among commercial 

 fishermen where a group using one type of gear would team 

 up with the professional sportsmen to legislatively prohibit the 

 use of the other type of gear by their colleagues. All of you 

 are familiar with such examples and I do not desire to rake 



over old coals. Other causes of this wrangling just as ridiculous 

 and selfish will occur to each of you from your own experience. 



There remain, however, large areas of quite valid conflict 

 between recreation and food industries respecting the utiliza- 

 tion of ocean resources. Whether the food fish industry likes 

 it or not, the recreation industry is here to stay and vice versa. 

 There is no use in these two elements of the economy fighting 

 with a view to knocking each other out. The areas of valid 

 conflict are where there is a limited volume of a particular 

 stock of fish that can be taken without the stock being over- 

 fished. Then priorities for catch require to be established. 



Just how this may turn out in other states I do not know, but 

 in California some progress is being made in looking into this 

 problem in depth under the State Planning Commission. 

 Here it looks as if there are only about a dozen species of fish 

 of any volume importance involved in these quarrels. On 

 preliminary examination, I am satisfied that a cold examina- 

 tion of the facts will result in satisfactory accommodations 

 being reached on one of these species after the other and, 

 finally, in respect of the whole lot. 



Even this level of inquiry and action does not seem to be 

 required to settle many of those squabbles. The salmon of 

 northern California provide an example. For many years 

 these fish generated the most bitter squabbles in the state legis- 

 lature between the sports and the commercials. Some years 

 ago, both sides discovered that while they were fighting over 

 the catch it was such things as dams, irrigation diversions, and 

 other river works inland that were causing the damage. Upon 

 discovering this, they began to work together to save the salmon. 

 Out of the research that developed it became plain that with 

 each sportsman fishing for salmon on the sea able to take a 

 daily quota that satisfied his recreational desires, there were 

 enough salmon left over to support a substantial commercial 

 fishery plus a spawning escapement sufficient to keep the stock 

 in good condition. 



In such instances, it seems logical that there should be estab- 

 lished an overall quota which can be taken from the stock each 

 year while still allowing adequate spawning escapement. In- 



10 



