50 SALMON GEAR LIMITATION 



problem. As long as there is no restriction on new entry and no work- 

 able plan to reduce existing amounts of gear, the present situation 

 of low and unstable incomes, intense rivalry among owners of dif- 

 ferent kinds of gear, and over-all inefficiency will persist. In addition, 

 there is always the possibility that a strong increase in demand, 

 coupled with a poor season in Alaska, would result in a sharp jump 

 in prices and an even greater influx of unnecessary gear. The rotation 

 scheme would do nothing to prevent this kind of development. Fish- 

 ing boats can be built rapidly to enter what appears to be an attractive 

 operation, but it takes a far longer period of depressed earnings to 

 drive them out. 



A second proposal might allow the appropriate administrative 

 agency to designate the number of units of gear of each type to be 

 employed each season without reducing the aggregate number of 

 units available. Ignoring for the moment the practical problems of 

 selecting those who are to fish, the proposal rests essentially on the 

 idea that those unable to fish in Puget Sound will go to Alaska or, 

 in a few cases, shift to other types of fishing. The principal advantage 

 of this proposal is, of course, the additional flexibility it would pro- 

 vide. From the regulatory standpoint control over the number of 

 units fishing, plus standby capacity sufficient to harvest the largest 

 possible run, would be nearly ideal. Unfortunately, this proposal, 

 like the first, does little or nothing to resolve the economic problem 

 created by excessive costs in unutilized or underutilized fishing 

 capacity. To push this capacity off on Alaska, which already has the 

 same problems in acute form, is not a real solution. 



If we are to achieve improved management, assured long run 

 protection of salmon stocks, and badly needed improvement in the 

 economic health of the industry, reduction of fishing capacity to a 

 more sensible level seems essential. The problem of a practical and 

 legally acceptable method of accomplishing this objective breaks 

 down into several elements. ( 1 ) How should the reduction actually 

 be achieved? (2) How rapidly should this reduction proceed? (3) 

 On what basis should the restricted number of licenses be distributed 

 to individual vessel owners? (4) How should the reduction in gear 

 be distributed among the various types of fishing gear now in use? 



Adequate answers to these questions must take into account not 

 only the ultimate improvement in the economic situation of the in- 

 dustry and improved control over use of the basic resource, but 



