Certainly, fisheries research costs have risen proportionately 

 with general administrative costs, and whenever a dynamic re- 

 search director has been in charge costs have risen even more 

 quickly. 



In Canada, the costs of research are easy to separate out 

 because the Fisheries Research Board operates under a separate 

 budget which must be defended before parliamentary commit- 

 tees on its own merits. This is not quite as easy to do in the 

 Bureau of Commercial Fisheries budget, but approximations 

 can readily be arrived at. 



That the quality and quantity of fisheries research in North 

 America compares favorably with that carried out any place 

 else in the world I think is not an exaggeration, and I think that 

 North American fisheries scientists produce a very good unit 

 return of research results for the dollars expended. It is the 

 use that is made of research results by the people that pay for 

 the research that prompts my next question. Are our domestic 

 fisheries really profiting fully from our research results or are 

 we in fact doing our good research for the more dynamic fishing 

 countries? 



The budget for the Fisheries Research Board of Canada for 

 fiscal 1950/51 was 1.5 million dollars. For 1963/64, it was 

 5.6 million dollars, or nearly four times as much. I do not 

 have the breakdown for the 1950 fishery research budget of 

 the old Fish and Wildlife Service, but one-third of the five 

 million dollar total should not be far off. In 1965, the amount 

 appropriated for the management and investigation of resources 

 for the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries totalled 19.1 million. 

 These ever-mounting costs for national research programs, 

 especially that part dealing with the high-seas resources fished 

 by more than one country, leads me to my fourth and last 

 question. 



If, as it appears, that constantly expanding national research 

 programs do not insure progress and development in our fish- 

 eries, should we continue these national research programs at 

 the present and ever-increasing level, or would it be better to 

 have international resources in international waters studied 

 and managed by international staffs of scientists working for 



international bodies, where support for the research and man- 

 agement is prorated on the amount of the resources harvested? 

 Whenever we have tried this formula, it has proven quite 

 successful. 



In quick review then. As fisheries administration and man- 

 agement costs per pound of fish harvested in North America has 

 increased many times in the last decade and a half, my four 

 subquestions under the general question "Are our fishery re- 

 sources being properly developed and managed?" are: If they 

 are properly developed and managed then — 



( 1 ) Why have North American fisheries not developed at 

 least at the same rate as in many other important fishing coun- 

 tries of the world? Or at least kept up with effective demand? 



(2) Why has per capita fish consumption remained con- 

 stant for decades when competing products have constantly 

 gained consumer favor? 



(3) Are our fisheries perhaps being overmanaged and ad- 

 ministered, and by too many units of government, thus not 

 pinpointing responsibilities for management and development? 



(4) Can high and increasing costs of national research pro- 

 grams on international resources in international waters con- 

 tinue to be justified in the face of lagging development? 



Before I sit down (or get knocked down) I should quickly 

 point out the obvious truth that it is much easier to ask these 

 questions than to provide acceptable answers. I have been 

 trying to answer these same questions during a lifetime in 

 fisheries research and administration, in both Canada and 

 the United States, without any obvious signs of success. The 

 questions I have raised however are in my view pertinent and 

 should be answered if our fisheries are to get out of the doldrums 

 and begin a healthy growth. I think it is obvious that some 

 stimulus or stimuli other than those currently prescribed are 

 indicated. If Dr. W. M. Chapman, the man you have asked 

 to answer your and my questions, cannot answer them, then 

 I do not know who can, since as a very good fish doctor he 

 has spent a lifetime diagnosing troubles in our business and 

 prescribing cures; and with a large measure of success at that. 



Thank you. 



