LICENSING THE SMALLER COMMERCIAL FISHERIES 143 



in Table 10-4, will be available to all holders of personal 

 commercial fishing licences, which are totally unre- 

 stricted in number. 



Clearly, a better regulatory system is needed for minor 

 species. I have already proposed new licensing arrange- 

 ments that will remove from this category all the crab, 

 shrimp, prawn and groundfish. These account for the 

 bulk; the remainder in Table 10-4 support very small 

 fisheries. For them I propose the following: 



^. All other minor and unrestricted fisheries should be 

 administered in future under short-term quota permits 

 that identify the particular species or group of species 

 that the licensee is authorized to catch. These permits 

 should — 



i) Designate the north, west or south zone at the 

 holder's choice (as long as the stocks are under- 

 utilized). For the less mobile shellfish and Crusta- 



cea, particular subzones should be designated. 

 Where it serves a particular biological purpose, 

 the gear to be used should also be specified. 



ii) Specify the quantity of fish that its holder is 

 authorized to catch. For those species that do not 

 warrant restrictions on the hanest. permit hold- 

 ers should be free to designate the quantity to be 

 authorized within only the general limits on indi- 

 vidual holdings (proposed in Chapter 8). 



68. The residual species ("C*) licence should be abolished 

 since it will no longer serve a useful purpose. 



Many of these species are shellfish and other forms 

 that lend themselves well to mariculture leases. But few 

 of them are sufficiently valuable to warrant sophisticated 

 licensing arrangements. Nevertheless, wherever it appears 

 economically justified, the suitability of mariculture 

 leases should be considered for these small fisheries also. 



FOOTNOTES 



1 . Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Exhibit # 143. p. 4 1 . 



2. For an historical account of the development of the halibut fishery, 

 see B.C. Cook and P. Copes, Rationalization of Canada's Pacific 

 Halibut Fishery . Institute of Fisheries Analysis, Simon Eraser Uni- 

 versity, Discussion Paper 81-12, Bumaby, 1981; and James A. 

 Crutchfield, The Pacific Halibut Fishery. Economic Council of 

 Canada, Technical Report No. 17, The Public Regulation of Com- 

 mercial Fisheries in Canada , Ottawa, February, 1982. 



3. Revised Statutes of Canada 1970, c. F-I7. 



4. See B.E. Skud, Jurisdictional and Administrative Limitations 

 AflTecting Management of the Halibut Fishery, Ocean Develofv- 

 ment and International Law Journal , Volume 4, 1977. pp. 121-142. 



5. Annual Report . International Pacific Halibut Commission, Seattle, 

 various years. 



6. Figures provided by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 



7. T.B. Proverbs, Developments Signal End For Foreign Fishery, The 

 Sounder , Volume 9 No. 7, October-November. 198 1 . 



8. Deep Sea Trawlers Association. Supplementary Dcxument #S-36, 



D.2. 



9. WE. Johnson. B.C. Fisheries, The Potential and the Future, in 

 Summary of Presentations at the 31st Annual Meeting of the Fish- 

 eries Council of Canada . Fisheries and Marine Service, Ministry of 

 Environment. Vancouver. 1976: and B. Jones and G. Geen. Food 

 and Feeding of Spiney Dogfish ('Squalus acanthias) in British 

 Columbia Waters. Journal of the Fishenes Research Board of Can- 

 ada . Volume 34 No. 1 1, 1977. pp. 2067-2078. 



10. Masset Crabbers, transcripts of the public hearings. Volume 63, p. 

 13270. 



