those that are classified as "possibly train- 

 able." Assume that training facilities 

 and programs are made available and 

 that individuals are willing to paticipate. 

 Communication from people involved 

 with Manpower Development and Train- 

 ing Act (MDTA) programs provided some 

 information as to typical wages MDTA 

 trainees can expect post-training. These 

 figures were used to derive expected in- 

 comes that the "possibly trainable" fish- 

 ermen in each target group can expect 

 if they receive training comparable to 

 those under MDTA programs. 



7. Estimate the training cost of those classi- 

 fied under "possibly trainable." 



8. Estimate the potential income-mainte- 

 nance burden on society imposed by the 

 loss of lobstering income of those who 

 are classified under "potentially hard- 

 core unemployed" and under "not in 

 the labor force." Fifty percent of current 

 gross income from lobstering was used 

 for estimation purposes. The rationale 

 for using this percentage is based on the 

 consideration that the net income from 

 lobstering is substantially lower than 

 reported gross income, although exact 

 figures for net income were not readily 

 obtainable. During the course of the 

 interviews, several fishermen indicated 

 that although they could not provide in- 

 formation on net income, roughly 50% 

 of their gross income could be considered 

 net, after allowing for business expenses. 

 The assumed percentage is considered 

 reasonable for illustrative purposes. 



The reason why the individuals in these 

 categories — "potential hard-core unemploy- 

 ed" and "not in the labor force" — and their 

 loss of income from lobstering are used as 

 the basis for measuring the income mainte- 

 nance burden on society is to indicate the 

 upper limit of the social burden. This yields 

 a relative measure of income loss and corres- 

 ponding welfare loss for a group of people 

 who are technically outside the labor force. 

 At least in the short run, the process of ad- 

 justment will be quite severe for a bulk of 

 this group. Conceivably, some low level, un- 

 skilled jobs would be available which would 

 moderate the impact. However, considering 



the high level of current unemployment and 

 the generally depressed conditions of the local 

 economies under consideration, it appeared 

 reasonable to assume that alternative sources 

 of income would be unavailable in the short 

 i-un, thereby imposing a burden on society. 



9. The estimated value of investment in 

 boat and gear by the fishermen in each 

 of the target groups is included in the 

 profile of socioeconomic impact of limited 

 entry because these values have definite 

 implications for compensation. 



Assuming zero salvage value of such capital 

 equipment, the stated figures provide the upper 

 limit of the compensation burden imposed on 

 society. It is reasonable to think actual com- ^ 

 pensation will differ from the stated figures 

 because of some positive salvage value. For 

 illustrative purposes, without making such 

 allowance, the quoted figures do serve as indi- 

 cators of upper limits of the cost of compensa- 

 tion that may be entailed. 



Using the above procedure, the following 

 tabulations were made to present a compara- 

 tive picture of the socioeconomic implications 

 of limiting entry of different groups by using 

 alternative criteria (Table 13). 



Group II is likely to cause the largest de- 

 cline in income from lobstering. It will be 

 partially offset by additional income from 

 lobstering by the remaining fishermen, income 

 fi-om alternative jobs for the displaced fisher- 

 men, and the savings in effort measured by 

 the fewer number of trap-days required to 

 capture at least 50% of the gross income lost. 

 In absolute terms, this group may present 

 the severest income maintenance burden on 

 society. By comparison. Group I is likely to 

 impose a relatively smaller burden on society. 

 On a per capita basis. Group III will impose 

 the severest burden on society. 



The proportion of the "potentially employ- 

 able" and "possibly trainable" among Groups 

 I-III are quite comparable. The proportion 

 of the same categories for Group IV is con- 

 siderably higher. This accounts for the rela- 

 tively small social burden indicated for this 

 group. However, it should be noted that this 

 underestimates the total real burden on society 

 in that there will be a dissaving in effort and 

 potential negative difference between their 

 current income from lobstering and their ex- 



171 



