Exhibit B compares the per trip per- 

 fomiance of one of the less successful 

 trawlers (Vessel A) and one of the more 

 successful trawlers (Vessel B) during the 

 year 1956. Vessel A is equally as active 

 as Vessel B during the January to April 

 period v/hen its per trip productivity ap- 

 proaches that of Vessel 3. In the January 

 to April period the percentage share of 

 receipts obtained by Vessel A is about 

 equal to that obtained by Vessel B. 



Only in the May and August and Septem- 

 ber through December period, when the per 

 trip productivity of the Vessel A is much 

 below that of Vessel B, is the former much 

 less active than the latter. It is during 

 these two periods that the percentage share 

 of receipts obtained by Vessel A is much 

 below the percentage share obtained by 

 Vessel B. 



In both the May to August and Septem- 

 ber through Decerriber periods more than 35 

 percent of the per trip receipts of the 

 less successful traviler were used to defray 

 trip and joint expenses, more than )il per- 

 cent of per trip receipts went to cover net 

 crew earnings and 3.8 percent of per trip 

 receipts were paid to the captain as a 

 bonus. The tra>;ler operator received less 

 than 20 percent of the per trip receipts. 

 The less successful trawler operator re- 

 ceived less than $900 per trip during these 

 latter two periods with which he must pay 

 gear, repair and maintenance expenses, and 

 other vessel expenses. 22/ 



A comparison of the less successful 

 trawler and the more successful trawler of 

 Exhibit B also illustrates the effects of 

 broker payments and minimum guarantees at 

 low levels of production. Despite the vast 

 differences in per trip receipts and the 

 percentage share of receipts devoted to 

 trip and joint expenses of the two trawlers, 

 there is little difference in the percent- 

 age share devoted to crew earnings . In 



the September through December period, 

 trip and joint expenses accounted for 36 

 percent of Vessel A«s per trip receipts, 

 and only 22 percent of Vessel B«s per trip 

 receipts. Yet k3 percent of Vessel A's 

 per trip receipts were devoted to wages 

 and only I4O percent of Vessel B's receipts 

 vjere devoted to wages. Thus, while approx- 

 imately 80 percent of Vessel A's receipts 

 were devoted to trip and wage expenses, 

 only 62 percent of Vessel B's receipts 

 were devoted to trip and wage expenses. 



The existence of rigid trip and wage 

 expenses makes it mandatory that consider- 

 ation be giv^n to the expected level of 

 landings and receipts from any increased 

 activity. Thus, while it is true that trip 

 activity influences travrler landings and 

 receipts, it is equally true that the level 

 of traveler landings and receipts influence 

 trip activity. 



h. Vessel Expenditures 



The year to year behavior of gear, 

 repair, and maintenance expenditures, the 

 substantial differences in the level of 

 these expenditures, and the contrasting 

 behavior of insurance expenditures are 

 other illustrations of the interdependence 

 of the factors of a fishing unit. 



a. Gear, Repair, and Maintenance 



Yearly variations in gear, repair, 

 and majjitenance expenditures do not of 

 themselves reflect the interdependence of 

 the factors of a fishing unit, for such 

 variations are expected by New England 

 vessel owners . These variations have also 

 been discovered in other vessel investi- 

 gations: "Individual items of cost, hox^- 

 ever, such as fishing gear and repair ex- 

 penses, shovj wide fluctuations". 100/ The 

 influence, however, of other factors of 

 a fishing unit on gear, repair, and main- 

 tenance expenditures is indicated by a 



99/ Vessel A of Exhibit B as of July 20, 1956 had accumulated $37,000 as its share of 

 the receipts produced up until this time. On August 31, 1956, its share of receipts was 

 still $37,000 despite the fact that ih the interim it had made h trips which added 

 $l)i,000 to total receipts. The vessel received no part of this added revenue. 



100/ Hildebrandt A. G. U. Statistical Analysis of Cost and Earnings in the Fishing 

 Industry. Technical Meeting on Cost and Earnings in the Fishing Enterprise, p. 120. 

 F'.A.G. London, 1958. 



6k 



