and some, such as limited entry, coastal jurisdiction problems, and suffi- 

 ciency of biological information for resource management, remain crucial. 

 But they have been upstaged by this new need of the hour — assurance 

 there will be fish to catch in the future. 



It is NACOA's opinion that assuring the resource, and the program for 

 proper fisheries management which that goal implies, will provide the 

 basic inducements for investment and venture. Limiting entry, modifying 

 antiquated State regulations, developing new Federal/State guidelines, 

 and improving the resource will also be necessary, but there need be no 

 requirement for the kind of direct financial subsidy that can be both 

 expensive and self-defeating. 



We know this means borrowing trouble. In addition to adjusting and 

 negotiating the conflicting fisheries interests within our own Nation (prob- 

 lems of resource management in the midst of jurisdictional confusion exist 

 in inshore fisheries), we will have to assure our fishermen their fair share 

 on the international stage.* It is our opinion that biologically determined 

 regulations to assure a maximum sustainable yield could make worth to 

 all the nations involved the cost of current restraint for future benefit. 

 We believe the argument for rationalization of international agreements 

 on conservation and allocation of catch can be made persuasive and the 

 value of a share of the proceeds can be weighed by each nation as induce- 

 ment to an agreement. 



None of this is new. Resource management and bilateral or multi- 

 national agreements have arisen in response to specific fishery problems 

 over the years and Fishery Conferences have proved their value. But 

 they have in general been defensive efforts, evolutionary in nature, and 

 often too local and slow moving. Furthermore we have, as a nation, shied 

 away from approaching the problem of total conservation of fisheries partly 

 because a course of action which depends on international agreement is 

 not lightly undertaken, and partly because other elements of national 

 policy were believed to have been involved whose importance, fate, and 

 treatment can be quite separate.** 



What is paramount from our point of view is the need to establish 

 proper resource management as a matter of first priority. We must, how- 

 ever, be convinced that the price we pay for the potential benefit is justi- 

 fied. The Committee is aware that one reason for the decline of the fish- 

 ing industry in the United States is that for the last 20 or 30 years com- 

 mercial fishing has become less and less a factor in the life of the Nation. 

 Unfortunately, fisheries are not regarded as part of the national wealth 



* The preceding section on Law of the Sea discusses this in greater detail. 

 ** In arriving at some agreement on the rights and responsibilities of coastal nations 

 to the fish off their shores, the lumping of fisheries problems with those of off- 

 shore mineral resource exploitation occurs in the politics of international nego- 

 tiations if not in the actual agendas. Fishing and mining are totally different 

 activities, but political combinations for one regard can carry over to the other. 



14 



