20 



in which he can only protect the fish by incurring the wrath of 

 the fishing industry; a world in which efforts to please the 

 constitutency can mean biological disaster for a species. If 

 this view of the problem is correct, then the fishery manager 

 may be able to do little more than isolate all the managerial 

 options that will help to solve the biological problems of the 

 species, and pick the one which will cause the least social, 

 political, and economic disruption. In other words, the inform- 

 ation on benefits will do a manager little good unless it is 

 treated in terms of some kind of multi-goal analysis. Many 

 problems may be able to be handled via linear programming but I 

 strongly suspect that the data on benefits can only be converted 

 into optimal solutions for fisheries if some enormous econometric 

 modeling problems are solved. 



B. Cultural Compatability . In the past, many fisheries 

 management plans have apparently been effectively opposed by the 

 fishing industry because they threatened valued cultural patterns 

 and existing institutions. Obviously, plans will succeed best 

 in the political arena if they are compatable with existing 

 institutional arrangements, or at least do not threaten tradi- 

 tional patterns any more than absolutely necessary. 



This is not to say that fishermen are against all change, 

 and that no fisheries management plan should change any tradi- 

 tional patterns. Fishermen may oppose certain changes, but they 

 may be very happy to see other traditional features go. Of course, 

 imposing regulations on an industry that has hitherto been 

 unregulated is bound to cause a certain amount of disruption. 



