- 138 - 



2 . Settlement of the Maritime Boundary, Only 



Establishing a maritime boundary without an Agreement 

 would mean that, instead of competing for a given stock in 

 the boundary region on Bank Bank, both countries could 

 continue to fish competitively for that stock within their 

 areas of exclusive jurisdiction. The management and resource 

 sharing problems discussed regarding the "No Agreement" 

 alternative would be unresolved, since management jursidic- 

 tion over the stocks would be divided. The Agreement, on 

 the other hand, gives the United States primary or joint 

 management responsibility for all finfish on Georges Bank 

 except argentine, no matter where the boundary is delimited. 



Only if the U.S. position prevailed completely would 

 the U.S. retain most of the Georges Bank stocks. Even so, 

 such important stocks as mackerel, pollock, and herring 

 would continue to range across the boundary into the 

 Canadian undisputed zone. 



Any boundary outcome short of the full U.S. claim 

 would divide almost all the stocks on Georges Bank, includ- 

 ing those of the Northeast Peak, the most productive portion 

 of the Bank, particularly for scallps. Such an outcome 

 could also intensify competitive fishing pressure on the 

 stocks if either countr, or both, concluded that the nature 

 of the boundary settlement entitled it to increase its 

 share of the harvest. 



