as are submerged attached resources; the national efforts and energies de- 

 voted to fishing have thus dechned, or at least not expanded in the face 

 of growing foreign efTort. 



Thus, to raise the level of national efTort in the fishing area by heroic 

 means such as by a series of financial shots-in-the-arm, tariffs, quotas, and 

 exclusions cannot automatically be assumed to be in the public interest. 

 Any increase in effort, even control of the resource on a sound financial 

 basis, must first respond to the questions: to what purpose? how? and how 

 much will it cost? 



IS IT WORTH THE EFFORT? 



To what purpose do we wish to rehabilitate the domestic fishing in- 

 dustries? NACOA believes a rehabilitation effort is justified because the 

 program necessary to do so can be expected to: 



• advance established national policy, 



• invigorate maritime activity, 



• help reduce the present adverse balance of payments, 



• increase domestic employment, 



• contribute to the conservation and wise use of living marine resources, 



• provide for expanded recreational fishing, 



• arrest the trend toward total dependence on foreign fisheries, and 



• provide an additional source of high-quality protein to the national 

 food supply. 



How do we propose to do it? NACOA believes the decline in the fish- 

 ing industry should and could be corrected by providing a more attrac- 

 tive economic environment for individual venture and that at the same 

 time the United States can contribute to the rational control of a global 

 food resource. The time is now ripe, because of the threat to the resource 

 itself, to find common ground in an industry which historically is beset 

 with conflicting and fragmented interests. Before going into more detail 

 as to how we suggest fisheries rehabilitation be undertaken, can we gage 

 the required effort? 



How much will it cost, and is it worth it? These are tangled questions. 

 It is easier to ask for an assessment of costs and of benefits than it is to 

 provide the answers and then be persuaded by them. One reason we 

 think this has been especially difficult in the fishing area is because the 

 traditional approach has taken the point of view of one segment of the 

 industry at a time — the problem of the pelagic fishermen and the 200- 

 mile limit, of the coastal fishermen and Russian and Japanese competition, 

 of the sports fisherman and the disappearing sardine. Or the approach 

 has been ambiguous because only a part of the problem has been at- 

 tacked — such as limiting entry (but how do you get the States to agree 

 and how long will it take?) ; reserve an increased share of the catch for 



15 



