K)lU^ DIUKIIVKS 



apprivichcs, ones thai confln-t less with |iri\.ilc incentives 

 and arc more condueive to sell-reguliilion. As lar as pos- 

 sible, I have recommended regulations that do this. 



ConlUct, VcstitJ Interests and liM-rtia 



While those involved in the fisheries generally recog- 

 nize that major changes are essential and urgent, they are 

 apprehensive when particular proposals are advanced. 

 This apprehension is rooted primarily in the environment 

 of conflicting interests that embroils the fisheries. To 

 effect constructive change, this special charactenstic of 

 the fisheries must be recognized and dealt with. 



Conflict has characterized the Pacific fisheries from its 

 beginnings. Hostilities have e.xisted between various sec- 

 tors of the commercial fishery, Indian and recreational 

 user groups, between fisheries interests and other indus- 

 trial activities, between federal and provincial govern- 

 ments, and between Canada and foreign nations. The 

 continuous conflict can be traced to a number of causes. 

 Undoubtedly, the most important is the common- 

 property characteristic of the resource, which distin- 

 guishes it from most other natural resources. Since all 

 groups draw from the same pool of resources, they com- 

 pete with one another to protect and increase their 

 shares. The inevitable conflicts are aggravated by the rel- 

 atively low incomes and recurrent economic stress associ- 

 ated with the fisheries. 



Under pressure from users, the government has often 

 intervened to protect one user group from another. The 

 measures taken have sometimes created obstacles to 

 efficient allocation and use of the natural resources, and 



protluced a regulatory morass which cannot be recon- 

 ciled with any logical long-term objectives. Moreover, 

 tew have had the desired result of eliminating conflict for 

 long. 



Conflict arises from other sources as well, from the 

 international problem of shared stocks and interceptions, 

 overiapping constitutional responsibilities, and the 

 impact of other industries on the fish habitat. 



In addition to conflicting intcrest.s, vested interests 

 pose an obstacle to introducing changes. The strongest 

 resistance to regulatory reform typically comes from the 

 regulated groups because they have adapted them.selves 

 to the prevailing system. 



Because of these conflicting and vested interests, policy 

 changes will usually benefit some at the expense of oth- 

 ers. Thus, politicians and resource managers have found 

 it diflficult to make the major reforms needed. The result 

 is a profound inertia in the fisheries, a resistance to major 

 change in spite of general agreement that worsening cir- 

 cumstances have made such changes essential. 



For these reasons, I have gone into great detail in 

 recommending changes. My concern is to lay out a plan 

 of reform that states clearly what particular measures are 

 proposed and what their impacts would be on diflferent 

 groups. The kind of pohcy changes that I propose in this 

 report will call for the concerted attention, for some time 

 at least, of all the players — the fishermen, processors, 

 competing users of the habitat, the public service and the 

 legislators. If this is forthcoming, the effort will be richly 

 rewarded. 



FOOTNOTES 



1 . Native Brotherhood of British Columbia, Exhibit # 198, p. 42. 



2. Pacific Coast Salmon Seiners Association, Exhibit #76, p. 8. 



3. American Fisheries Society, Exhibit # 148, p. 12. 



4. D. Pepper, Exhibit #197, p. 3. 



5. Native Brotherhood of British Columbia, Exhibit # 198, p. 2. 



6. B.C. Packers Limited, Exhibit #98, p. 1. 



7. The Fisheries Association of B.C., Exhibit #63, p. 36. 



8. Terms of Reference, Appendix A. 



9. D. W. Ellis, Exhibit # 188, p. 14. 



