95 



fleet by and large is technically outmoded. It 

 cannot mount the high seas effort required to 

 maintain a position of world leadership, and 

 it is incapable of attracting a stable and effi- 

 cient labor supply. 



The decline in the U.S. tishing industry is 

 even more surprising in view of the strength 

 of domestic demand for fish and shellfish 

 products. Although per capita direct con- 

 sumption has remained virtually stable over 

 the past 30 years, population growth pro- 

 vides a continuously expanding market, and 

 U.S. agriculture has made extremely efficient 

 use of the cost-reducing possibilities of fish- 

 meal as an ingredient in livestock feeds. As 

 a result, total U.S. consumption has risen 

 sharply since 1950, but all of the increase has 

 been met by expansion of imports rather than 

 increased domestic production. 



There is no reason why the United States 

 should be completely self-sufficient in fishery 

 products any more than in any other prod- 

 ucts. The aggregate welfare of the fishing in- 

 dustry, including its processing and market- 

 ing sectors, and of the American consumer 

 dictate the desirability of purchasing marine 

 products from the cheapest and best source. 

 It is noteworthy that the two healthiest seg- 

 ments of the U.S. industry, the tuna and 

 shrimp operations, are among the largest im- 

 porters of fish but have also expanded the 

 demand for domestic production. 



The Commission believes that important 

 segments of the U.S. fishing industry can be 

 restored to competitive, profital)lc operatioji. 

 To do so will necessitate overcoming a com- 

 plex of obstacles to efficient operation that 

 have severely hampered the T'.S. fleet even in 

 areas where U.S. technology and capital 

 should have given it a competitive advantage. 



Federal and State Management Roles 



A major impediment is the welter of con- 

 flicting, overlapping, and restrictive laws and 



regulations applying to fishing operations in 

 the United States. "With jurisdiction over 

 fishery management and development largely 

 in the hands of the States and with lines of 

 authority between State and Federal Gov- 

 ernments ill defined, the responsibility for ac- 

 tion is hopelessly splintered. Moreover, the 

 tendency toward parochialism in the indi- 

 vidual States has led to a mass of protective 

 legislation that militates against research, 

 development, and innovation. Consequently, 

 the fishing industry has been slow even to 

 borrow useful techniques from other indus- 

 tries, much less to pursue a progressive pro- 

 gram of its own. 



In part, the difficujty reflects the pressures 

 on the States to find some way to limit the 

 take from overexploited fisheries without ex- 

 cluding any of the participants. The inevita- 

 ble result has been rules which increase cost, 

 are awkward to administer, and are cumber- 

 some to enforce. But this is not the whole 

 difficulty. Although fish migrate freely across 

 State lines, the Commission was unable to 

 identify a single instance of systematic pro- 

 grams being prepared jointly by two or more 

 States for the management or de\elopment 

 of their fisheries resources. Rather, State laws 

 are a patchwork which lead to conftision and 

 encourage violations. Lobsters too small to be 

 landed legally in Massachusetts may be sold 

 in Ehode Island. The waters of the Chesa- 

 peake Bay are partly in Virginia, partly in 

 Maryland. Although the fish for the most 

 part are migratory and move freely from one 

 State to another, the basic management phi- 

 losophies and fishery laws of the two States 

 differ in several fundamental respects. Even 

 the oyster industry would benefit from mod- 

 ernization and coordination of the States' 

 laws, l)ut few States have reviewed their fish- 

 ing laws to eliminate outmoded and conflict- 

 ing provisions. 



