in Canada. During this same period, the per capita con- 

 sumption of the fishes' principal competitors, such as red meat, 

 poultry, eggs and cheese has increased many times. So my 

 question is: 



Why, with such a good, economical and desirable food prod- 

 uct to market, and with all our technological advancements 

 in production, distribution and packaging, why is it that per 

 capita consumption of fish has not at least kept pace with its 

 market competitors? What is the matter with our fish 

 salesmen? 



And now my third question. This has to do with fisheries 

 management and administration. 



In the United States, the primary responsibility for fishery 

 administration and management rests with the states. All 50 

 states have fishery departments or services of one kind or an- 

 other, but maritime states, such as Massachusetts, Louisiana, 

 California, Washington and Alaska, usually have these services 

 the most highly organized. 



Federally, in the United States, the Fish and Wildlife Serv- 

 ice and its Bureau of Commercial Fisheries have both research 



and development responsibilities. The Bureau of Commercial 

 Fisheries used to administer the large and complex Alaska fish- 

 eries, but since Alaska became a state the Bureau's operational 

 responsibilities in this field have been reduced. 



In Canada, all 10 provinces have fishery departments or 

 fisheries services, but the principal responsibility here, except 

 in the province of Quebec and some inland fisheries, rests with 

 the Federal Fisheries Ministry. 



In addition, there are several international fisheries com- 

 missions which study and help with the management of some 

 North American fisheries. Some of these commissions have 

 research staffs of their own and all have administrative staffs. 



New commissions come into being when new problems of inter- 

 national concern arise. Four new conventions have been ne- 

 gotiated and commissions created since the end of World War 

 II. Canada is party to six such commissions and the USA to 

 seven currently operational. 



The point I am trying to make here is that our rather static 

 North American fisheries appear to be pretty thoroughly admin- 

 istered and managed. With 50 states, 1 provinces, two fed- 

 eral governments and at least six international commissions all 

 having a hand in the job, it might be expected that this job 

 is very thoroughly done. 



And then there is the cost of these services. I have not 

 taken the time to look into this aspect very thoroughly, but 

 costs have grown very substantially since 1950, even though 

 the fisheries have not. Washington, a typical sea coast state, 

 had a biennium appropriation of 6.7 million dollars for 1963— 

 65, which is about 3J4 million dollars a year. This, of course, 

 is the cost for only one state government, but I am sure it is 

 not the largest. 



The fisheries part of the old Fish and Wildlife Service, that 

 is the part roughly comparable to the present Bureau of Com- 

 mercial Fisheries, had a budget of about five million dollars 

 in 1950. The appropriation for 1965 of the Bureau of Com- 

 mercial Fisheries is 27.4 million dollars. 



In Canada, the Federal Fisheries Ministry, which includes 

 the budget for the Fisheries Research Board of Canada as 

 well as Canada's share of the international commissions (in 

 the U.S., international commissions costs are found in the 

 Department of State) had nine million in 1950. In 1963, 

 it was very nearly 26 million. 



The cost of the six international commissions to which Can- 

 ada and the U.S. are both party approached 3 million dollars 

 in 1963. About one-half of this latter amount however is 

 used to kill lampreys in the Great Lakes. 



On the basis of the above, this is the third question I would 

 like to pose : Is it possible that our fisheries are overadministered 

 and overmanaged? Are there too many units in government 

 dealing with this problem, thus absolving any one segment 

 from responsibility for the management and development of 

 this complex industry? And are the mounting costs of these 

 services under the more or less static development situation 

 really justified? 



I should quickly point out here that I do not consider the 

 amounts of money quoted as being too great for the progressive 

 and planned development of such a complex industry as wisely 

 harvesting and managing the internationally owned living re- 

 sources of the sea. In fact, I think the amounts are pitifully 

 small to cam' out a competent and effective jo'j. My real 

 question here is: Are we doing the right things with the steadily 

 increasing amounts of money we are spending? 



And now to my fourth and last question. This has to do 

 with fisheries research. The costs of fisheries research are in- 

 cluded in the totals for fisheries management and administra- 

 tion given above, but it may prove useful to look at this part of 

 management separately, and I am going to limit this query to 

 federal fisheries research, which has proven to be the best 

 supported and the most productive. 



