- 87 - 



appliec! by eithei" country to this species v.'itliin its 

 exclusive fishery zone may allect it throughout its migra- 

 tory range. Proper n^.anaaernent of Atlantic mackerel in 

 Areas 3, 4, 5, and G can thus be seen to require a joint 

 effort of the Parties. Unoer the /Agreement, fishermen of 

 each country Vvould be authorized to harvest mackerel only 

 in that country's zone, but both countries v-ouici agree in 

 the Commission on the annual TAG for all four areas. 



Another example is that of cusk in Subdivision 5Ze. 

 Unlike mackerel, this stock is not thouaht to range signi- 

 ficantly betv/een the undisputed fishery zones of the tvvo 

 countries. This factor alone might be thought to suggest 

 that cusk in 5Ze should be managed according to Category 

 E procedures. E^ut cusk in this area is currently available 

 to fishermen of both countries in the boundary region and 

 Canada's annual harvests of cusk in Subdivision 5Ze have 

 been substantially greater over time than those of the 

 United States. This is reflected in the countries' 

 entitlement shares (Canada G6 percent; United States 34 

 percent). In balancing their interests in this stock, 

 the Parties agreed that Category A procedures should govern 

 the management of cusk in 5Ze. 



Regardless of the specific category in v/hich a stock 

 appears, the Agreement, as mentioned, recognizes that 



