efficiency and technological development in 

 both the short and the long run. In short, 

 some system must be developed to limit the 

 amount of labor and capital employed in har- 

 vesting the allowable catch and at the same 

 time assure that the labor and capital is used 

 in an economically efficient manner. 



Various economic advantages can result 

 from limited entiy. Catch per vessel and fisher- 

 man employed will increase, thus increasing 

 wages and return on investment. The overall 

 value of fish landed may be increased in some 

 cases if the fishery management program re- 

 sults in a better marketing pattern. Labor 

 and capital employed in processing and dis- 

 tribution can be brought into better balance 

 with the volume of fish processed, thus realiz- 

 ing economic gains in these sectors. 



A number of complex problems must be 

 overcome in order to realize the fruits of 

 limited entry. In the first place, the question 

 of fisheiy jurisdiction must be solved. In the 

 case of international fisheries, the solution to 

 jurisdiction will necessitate some system of 

 national quotas. Once national quotas have 

 been agreed to and established, then each 

 individual nation can institute its own pro- 

 gram for harvesting its quota. Jurisdictional 

 problems also exist between States and be- 

 tween the Federal government and the States. 

 Many fish stocks are fished by fishermen from 

 more than one State. In the case of pelagic 

 fish, the fish may migrate through the waters 

 of several States or between international 

 waters and waters under the jurisdiction of 

 several States. Moreover, a specific fishery 

 may involve waters under the jurisdiction of 

 several States and the Federal government. 

 Consequently, no one jurisdiction or authority 

 by itself can come to grip with the problem. 

 Certain enabling legislation will be needed at 

 both the Federal and State levels of government. 



An important prerequisite to solving the 

 jurisdictional and legal questions will be a 

 thorough understanding of the concept of 

 limited entry, and the need for limited entry, 

 on the part of the fishermen, government of- 

 ficials, and congressional representatives. 

 Many individuals in commercial fishing today 

 are convinced of the necessity for a limitation 

 on the entry of labor and/or capital in those 

 fisheries that are fully exploited. However, 



these individuals are still in a minority. Some- 

 how, the problems -we are facing in many of 

 our fisheries, and the effectiveness of limited 

 entry in dealing with these problems, must 

 be brought to the attention of the rest of the 

 commercial fishing industry in a meaningful 

 way. 



One reason why many commercial fisher- 

 men are wary of limited entry proposals may 

 be because they have not been presented a 

 specific proposal to study and, hence, are 

 understandably cautious about embracing a 

 new concept without having some idea of 

 how they might fare under the new regime. 

 Thus, specific proposals likely will have to be 

 worked out and presented to industry as a 

 step in overcoming their resistance to the idea. 



A second reason why some people are sus- 

 picious of the concept of limited entry is be- 

 cause they have formed the opinion that 

 limited entry is a scheme to put the govern- 

 ment in monopolistic control of fisheries to 

 enable them to extract either the monopoly 

 profit or economic rent from the fishery. Econo- 

 mists may have contributed to this image in 

 their writings on objectives of fishery manage- 

 ment. 



From the viewpoint of the economist, pro- 

 gress toward a more rational fishery manage- 

 ment program will be a process of accepting 

 second best solutions. One of the first instances 

 in which we need to be willing to accept a 

 second best solution, at least initially, is on 

 the objective of a fishery management pro- 

 gram. If we accept the historical precedence 

 of "maximum sustainable yield" (MSY) and 

 seek agreement with the biologist on the im- 

 portance of harvesting the MSY as efficiently 

 as possible, it should be possible for the econo- 

 mist and the biologist to approach industry 

 with a common argument. The improvement 

 in returns to capital and labor in moving 

 from present management methods to a method 

 which achieves a reasonable degree of effi- 

 ciency in harvesting the MSY, will represent 

 the major share of total improvement in re- 

 turns that might result from any other man- 

 agement objective. As a starting point I would 

 suggest that the emphasis be placed on im- 

 proving the returns to labor and capital in 

 the fishery management program while de- 

 leting the argument for either seeking to maxi- 



10 



