INTEKNATIONAL FISHERIES COMMISSION" 9 



different types of fishing vessels with different seagoing ability, dif- 

 ferent methods of fishing to some extent, and different landing ports. 

 Xo uniform protection of a single class of fish (such as the spawners). 

 no close season, no size limit, or limit on gear, will be founcl to apply 

 equally and efficiently. 



The commission, therefore, finds itself forced by the aforesaid 

 conditions to a consideration of the treatment of each individual area 

 according to its needs. In thus acting it sees two alternatives. 



One of these is to follow the method used in adopting the present 

 close season, and on the basis of an exact and intimate knowledge of 

 the fishery in eacli area to close such seasons, protect such classes 

 of fish, or prohibit such gear as will reduce the amount of fish caught 

 to the amount which the species is able to replace. This alternative 

 has the same faults as has the })resent close season. It is necessary 

 to look forward to a compensating intensity of the fishery on those 

 classes not protected or upon all classes during tlie open season. The 

 degree of this reaction of the fishery is an economic nuitter, for as 

 long as the fishery pays, tliere is no doubt but that it will increase 

 gear and vessels to su|)ply the demand. The restriction can not be 

 effective unless it so raises the expense of the fishery, the costs of 

 operation, as to prevent this increase. In that sense the restrictions 

 become, if successful, economic handicaps adjusted to limit to the 

 required extent the fleet and the amount of fish removed. The results 

 of the present closure, the com])licated conditions to be met, the ex- 

 tensive and arbitrary powers which would be necessai'v to meet un- 

 foreseen changes in the economic world, and the widj' knowledge 

 necessary discourage the ado|)ti<)n of this alternative. 



The connnission feels that the effect of regulations so varied would 

 be difficult to forecast, and that in numy cases the results would be 

 harmful rather than good. The numner in which the fishery com- 

 pensates itself for the protection of a single category of fish, such as 

 sj)awners or young, has already been referred to in the discussion of 

 the close season and will be discussed further when dealing with the 

 closure of small-fish gi'ounds. The l)iological conditions underlying 

 the j)rinciple of j)rotecting spawning, mature, or young halibut are 

 still unknown, and it is imj)ossible to becerlain that the shifting of the 

 strain to any one of these classes rather than another is actually bene- 

 ficial. (Jreat fisheries exist which nud<e exclusive use of one or the 

 other. Many i-egidations. jjarticularly those regarding gear, may be 

 handicaps in the development of efficient-y or become causes of high 

 cost of operation, which limit the output j^er man and prevent tlie 

 sale of the catch at reasonable prices. Failure to dispose of the 

 catch causes a sui-plus. The existence of the surplus creates a de- 

 mand for further restriction of the catch per man or ))er vessel, with 

 .still higher costs of operation, so that the evil may be intensified 

 instead of relieved. 



'i'he connnissioji, therefore, regards this first alternative as unde- 

 sirable and ineffective, both from .scientific and administrative 

 .standjHjints. It would be at be.st, an attempt, by indirect methods, to 

 reduce the amount of fish taken from the bank.' The connnission re- 

 gards it as the part of wisdom U) ])roceed directly to a regulation of 

 the amount of fish taken from each area, by closure when such 

 amount reaches a juedetermined limit. 



