93 



was shortened drastically — at one time to 24 

 days on one major fishing ground — with sub- 

 stantial undesirable effects on fishing and 

 marketing costs. 



Boats and men must find oft'-season em- 

 ployment, which invariably involves some 

 loss in labor time and idleness of equipment 

 that cannot be recovered. Processing capacity 

 must be enlarged to handle the ])roduction 

 peaks and it remains underutilized for much 

 of the year. Higher storage costs are incur- 

 red, and the risks involved in holding frozen 

 inventory over longer periods of time ulti- 

 mately are borne by the fishermen in the form 

 of lower incomes. The resulting higher costs 

 of the i)roducts of these fisheries make them 

 vulnerable to price competition from im- 

 poi'ted fish and other lower priced protein 

 foods. 



Finally, the economic absurdity of delib- 

 erately imposing higher costs on the fishing 

 fleets involved provokes resentments which 

 lead to violations pf the conservation regu- 

 lations and to great difficulty in enforcing 

 them. 



The Commission recommends that vol- 

 untary steps be taken — and, if necessary, 

 Grovernment action — to reduce excess fish- 

 ing effort in order to make it possible for 

 fishermen to improve their net economic 

 return and thereby to rehabilitate the 

 harvesting segment of the U.S. fishing 

 industry. 



The goal of domestic fisheries management 

 must be tiie development of a technically ad- 

 vanced and economically efficient fishing fleet 

 with the minimum number of units required 

 to take the catch over a prolonged period of 

 time. This goal must be achieved in fisheries 

 which are now heavily overcapitalized with- 

 out seriously dislocating those fishermen who 

 entered the industry in good faith. 



The existing international law of fisheries 

 makes it impossible for the United States 

 alone to move toward the economic objective 

 of maximizing the net economic return of 

 U.S. -flag fisliing vessels participating in in- 

 ternational fisheries. If, for example, the 

 United States alone sought to limit the num- 

 ber of its vessels in such fisheries, other na- 

 tions could increase the number of their ves- 

 sels and prevent the United States from in- 

 creasing its share per unit of effort. 



Within those fisheries to which the United 

 States has exclusive access, action might be 

 taken at the Federal or State level, as ap- 

 propriate, to control the input of fisheries ef- 

 fort. But any action to limit entry must be 

 tailored to local conditions and needs and 

 designed to accommodate local practices. 

 Fishing is an ancient business, and its prac- 

 titioners often are less concerned with eco- 

 nomic efficiency than with the simple fact 

 of making a living from the sea. Fishermen 

 may be perfectly aware that a half-dozen 

 modern, efficient ships could harvest the per- 

 missible crop with high monetary return, 

 but they still may prefer a system under 

 wliich a number of fishing families can eke 

 out what, to them, is an adequate living of 

 the kind they prefer. Because sucli fishing 

 communities form the constituencies of im- 

 portant elements in State legislatures, their 

 desire to maintain the status quo has a 

 strong influence on fishing legislation and 

 on regulations of State agencies. 



The Commission recognizes that needed 

 changes must be made, in the interest of 

 simple equity, at a pace which does not com- 

 pel individuals to leave an established way 

 of life. Steps to improve fishery management 

 should be carefully devised, tested prior to 

 implementation, and applied in selected 

 fisheries as they become i-eady for such ac- 

 tion. The Federal (lovernment can assist 

 by providing both opportunities and incen- 



