Initially these models would include: (1) an 

 assessment of the resource base, (2) a popu- 

 lation dynamics model, (3) cost and earning 

 functions, (4) demand functions, including 

 provision for foreign trade flows, (5) exit-entry 

 functions based on profitability, (6) character- 

 ization of existing and alternative regulatory 

 constraints, and (7) a depiction of the social 

 response function, with some reference to 

 transfer costs. These models would originally 

 be constructed for each of the principal fish- 

 eries of Alaska, the Pacific Northwest, the 

 tuna fisheries, the shellfish and menhaden 

 fisheries of the Gulf and the Middle Atlantic 

 and lobster and groundfish in the North 

 Atlantic. Ultimately multispecies regional 

 models would be developed, leading to a 

 national model which would characterize the 

 entire U.S. fishing industry. 



Initial failures in the construction of these 

 models will suggest immediate research needs. 

 The output of each model will indicate the 

 sensitivity of each component of the model 

 for each fishei-y. 



(11) Artificial Propagation and Fishery 

 Management: With few exceptions, when we 

 identify a fishery which has excess capital 

 and/or labor in relation to the sustainable 

 resource base we recommend reduction in 

 these inputs. A Canadian fishermen's group 

 has eloquently phrased another course, that 

 is, expand the resource base. This would 

 especially be recommended if the incremental 

 returns from dollar expenditures on expansion 

 exceeded the incremental benefits from dollars 

 spent withdrawing inputs. 



At this time such a possibility could only 

 be anticipated for Pacific salmon. Several 

 factors could enhance these trade-offs, among 

 these being the possibility that demand rising 

 faster than costs would bring the cost of 

 hatchery production into a more favorable 

 light and a full realization of the political 

 resistance to withdrawing excess inputs. With 

 the further development of hatchery tech- 

 nology other fisheries, perhaps shellfish, may 

 be supplemented by artificial propagation and 

 rearing. As this occurs it will be necessary 

 to include the dimensions of this alternative 

 as an new subroutine in the simulation models 

 discussed in point 10 above. 



(12) Competing Uses: A new dimension, an 

 additional complication, has entered upon the 

 scene of fishery management, suggesting new 

 priorities here as it has elsewhere. It comes 

 under the banner of ecology, an old word 

 with new urgency. With the scarcity of natural 

 resources increasing relative to multiple de- 

 mands, and with the new insistence upon 

 quality in addition to (or rather than) merely 

 quantity, the management of coastal resources 

 has suddenly taken on a new dimension. Man- 

 agement of commercial fisheries will be obliged 

 to reflect this trend. 



Coastal fisheries must now be managed as 

 part of the total coastal resource. No sug- 

 gestion has yet been made as to how this 

 will be done. Suffice to say that such critical 

 issues as fishery tolerances to certain water 

 quality levels and the interrelationship be- 

 tween sports and commercial fisheries will 

 be critical issues. I will forego an attempt to 

 treat this issue in a few brief paragraphs 

 here, acknowledging the likelihood that the 

 next fisheries workshop will certainly treat 

 this area as one of its principal topics. 



With this general background on the princi- 

 pal issues in fisheries management we can 

 now look briefly at the workshop contributions 

 to summarize their contents. With these papers 

 serving as the stimulus the discussions at 

 the workshop inevitably revolved around two 

 related issues: (1) the necessity for develop- 

 ing short term models due to the extreme 

 urgency of resource management problems 

 in many fisheries and (2) the need to assume 

 the full responsibility for measuring all social 

 costs associated with alternative resource use 

 plans and to suggest ways by which these 

 social costs can be minimized. 



At the conclusion of this workshop one 

 was definitely left with the impression that 

 if significant steps cannot be made in both 

 of these areas in the near future (2-4 years) 

 then serious questions will have to be raised 

 about the utility of the bioeconomic, 

 socio-political research and planning which 

 we are conducting. In this light much of the 

 work reported at the workshop provides some 

 encouragement that progress will be made 

 on these issues. 



