38 MANAGEMENT OF HIGH SEAS FISHERIES 



sonable." Justification of the North Pacific Commission's action 

 seems to hinge on their interpretation of the ^vord "reasonable" in 

 Article IV 1(b). 



Article IV 1(b) of the North Pacific Treaty requires ''reasonable" 

 compliance of any stock with all the conditions of abstention. This 

 assumes obviously that all parties to the treaty are equally interested 

 in maintaining halibut productivity at a high level, and that each 

 one is willing to permit the others to develop, without interference, 

 sound management programs for stocks which require such control. 

 However, if any one of the parties to the treaty operates under a 

 different fishery philosophy and does not share in the objective of 

 management toward maximum sustained yield, then the "reasonable 

 compliance" of Article IV 1(b) becomes interpreted as "conclusive 

 compliance," meaning that each stock must comply strictly and com- 

 pletely with all conditions for abstention. This, it is suggested, is the 

 vieu' held by the Japanese, and is reflected in the recent "halibut" 

 decision of the Commission. Rini to its logical conclusion, this view 

 can mean that it is well nigh impossible for any stock of fish to 

 qualify for abstention. 



This difficulty is compounded by the use of the terms in Article 

 IV l(b)(i) . . . "more intensive exploitation of the stock will not pro- 

 vide a substantial increase in yield which can be sustained year after 

 year": (b)(ii) . . . "the maximum sustained productivity"; (b)(iii) . . . 

 "whether the stock is being fully utilized." It was demonstrated by 

 Thompson and Bell in 1934 that in the halibut stock any sudden 

 increase in fishing pressure would naturally result in an increase in 

 yield as the fishery reduced the accumulated stocks to a new and 

 lower level. Thus, any increase in fishing intensity would be ex- 

 pected to result in an immediate increase in total yield. However, in 

 spite of the fact that the increase in yield ^vould disappear eventu- 

 ally, this disappearance, because of the normal fluctuations that take 

 place in fish populations, might require some years; in fact, it would 

 require at least the same number of years to reach stability, as there 

 are age classes in the fishable population. The doubt about the 

 meaning of the phrase "year after year" could be resolved if it were 

 changed to read "indefinitely." 



As indicated above the condition of maximum sustained produc- 

 tivity is even more difficult to handle, as it is used without definition 

 in the treaty. The treaty speaks of the level of maximum sustained 



