740 
diminish considerably. Each vessel, now operating at an average annual loss of 
$8,000 per year, could instead be earning a profit of $30,000, and annual income 
per fisherman would increase from $6,600 to over $10,000.” ® 
The only means for preventing such gross economic waste and for rehabilitating 
the domestic fisheries is by controlling the number of fishermen and vessels— 
for approximating to as high a degree as possible, the property conditions that 
are fundamental to our free economy. ‘‘Until and unless it becomes possible to 
reduce the amount of gear to the minimum needed to take the permitted catch, 
economic waste, widespread violation of regulations, and a threat to the very 
existence of the industry will remain.” ® 
It might be pointed out in passing that the necessity for some form of exclusive 
right of access is equally important for the development of a viable mineral in- 
dustry for the ocean floor. This is widely acknowledged. The problem is not one 
of proving the necessity for such rights, but of finding the institutions and means 
that can best provide and maintain them. The Commission’s recommendations 
for such institutions are generally excellent.” 
PROBLEMS OF CONTROLLING ACCESS 
With respect to the domestic fisheries, however, the institutions and means for 
providing some form of exclusive rights are far more difficult to achieve. This is 
due to several factors. First, most fish refuse to remain in one place and will freely 
swim across interstate and international boundaries. Second, there is a strong 
tradition of the freedom of the seas and the freedom of all citizens to hunt and 
fish. Third, open access to fisheries provides a form of unemployment insurance— 
a means of livelihood to which people can resort in times of depression. Fourth, 
the individual States have traditionally been given the power to regulate the fish- 
eries within their waters. And finally, the need for controls on access generally do 
not become apparent until after excess fishermen have already entered the fisherv 
and the interests have.already become vested.” 
In view of these difficulties, it may be asked whether or not the benefits of fish- 
eries rehabilitation are worth the costs and hardships that must be incurred in 
order to achieve the rehabilitation. My bias toward economic efficiency leads me to 
believe that they are, and to support wholeheartedly, the Commission’s recom- 
mendation, quoted above, on the objective of producing ‘‘the largest net economic 
return consistent with the biological capabilities of the exploited stocks.” Others 
may have different opinions and society may choose to reject this objective. But 
it should be made clear that the objective of fisheries rehabilitation cannot be 
achieved unless there are controls on access, and unless the difficulties, described 
above (as well as others), are overcome. 
WAYS AND MEANS FOR CONTROLLING ACCESS 
The Commission suggests a number of ways and means for establishing con- 
trols on access to domestic (and international) fisheries. Emphasis is placed 
upon the necessity for some form of interstate or Federal authority on the 
clearly demonstrated basis that individual States, by themselves, cannot adopt 
the necessary controls in most fisheries. It is suggested that the Federal Govern- 
ment be given statutory authority to intervene under certain conditions. Here 
again, I fully agree with the Commission’s recommendations. 
However, it seems to me that the Commission failed to emphasize certain 
opportunities that may exist for facilitating the initiation of access controls. 
These opportunities apply ‘to only a few fisheries, but they avoid one of the most 
intransigent difficulties mentioned above—the problem of reducing access to 
a fishery that is already over-capitalized and in which interests have become 
strongly vested. If such opportunities are seized, they would provide clear 
8 Marine Science Affairs, op. cit., p. 93. 
9 Report of the Panel on Marine pesour ces, p. VII—66. 
10 The major difference of opinion that I have with the Gommicsioncs recommendations 
lie in the means for allocating exclusive mining rights. I would prefer an auction mechanism 
to the ‘‘first come-first served’’ registry proposed by the Commission, first because it provides 
for a non-arbitrary allocation of “exclusive rights and second because it provides the fairest 
means for determining the value of the right, and the appropriate payment to the Interna- 
tional Fund. See Christy. ‘Economic Criteria for Rules Governing Exploitation of Deep 
Sea Minerals,” 2 International Lawyer 224 (January 1968). The summary of my position 
in the Report of the International Panel (VIII—-96—98) is inaccurate. 
For a fuller discussion of these factors, see Christy, ‘‘Fisheries Goals and the Rights 
CE OP CE Ey Transactions of American Fisheries Society , vol. 98, No. 2 (April 1969), pp. 
69-378. 
