other examples of industry's response to successful 

 exploratory activities that could not be under- 

 taken by any individual segment of the industry. 

 The development of the Puget Sound and Pacific 

 hake fishery and the growing industrial fisheries in 

 the Gulf of Mexico also point to the stimulating 

 effect of fishing surveys that are properly planned 

 and executed. 



In a paper presented to the Indo-Pacific Fish- 

 eries Council, Alverson and Pereyra (1968) re- 

 viewed the contribution of exploratory fishing 

 activities to the abUity to predict the development 

 of major fisheries. Their findings show that in the 

 northeast Pacific, exploratory fishing surveys con- 

 ducted prior to the development of major fisheries 

 had predicted all the dominant species which 

 would subsequently sustain large scale commercial 

 fisheries. In fact, the initial survey data, when 

 reviewed subsequent to the development of large 

 scale foreign fisheries, properly portrayed the 

 probable magnitude of catches, geographic and 

 bathymetric distribution of catches, and the 

 species complex which would be exploited by 

 major ecological zones. The survey work also 

 provided the basis for a preliminary forecast of 

 maximum sustainable yield figures. When the 

 subsequently developed fisheries exceeded these 

 forecast production potentials, catches in all cases 

 subsequently declined and stabilized at lower 

 levels. 



Obviously, not all projects involving Federally 

 supported exploratory activities have been fol- 

 lowed by substantial increases in profitable pro- 

 duction by the fishing industry. But given the 

 examples cited above, backed by the simple logic 

 of the fact that sensible investment decisions 

 cannot possibly be made without reasonably ac- 

 curate data on resource location and yield poten- 

 tial, it would appear that investments in explora- 

 tion have been one of the profitable appUed 

 resource activities undertaken by the Bureau and 

 should be expanded sharply. 



C. Fisheries Development 



In considering Federal efforts in fisheries de- 

 velopment, efforts by the Bureau to improve 

 harvest systems, to improve the quality of prod- 

 ucts, or to develop new products must be 

 differentiated from direct financial aid to the 

 fishing industry in the form of loans, grants, and 



vessel subsidies. The latter accounts for the lion's 

 share of the budget made available for fisheries 

 development work in recent years. 



For example, in 1967 nearly $9 million of 

 Federal funds were spent for the construction of 

 fishing vessels, with funds dispersed in the way of 

 vessel construction subsidies, loans for improving 

 and upgrading fishing vessels, and fishing vessel 

 mortgage insurance. By contrast, the Branch of 

 Technology which is primarily responsible for 

 improving the quaUty of fish landed, reducing fish 

 processing costs, and developing new fish pro- 

 ducts, had a budget ranging between $1 .5 and $2.7 

 million in the years 1963 through 1967. In 

 addition to the funds allocated directly to the 

 Bureau for these purposes, approximately $1.5 

 million was made available through Saltonstall- 

 Kermedy funds for marketing and technological 

 work. Hence the total budget for technological 

 studies in 1967 was at a level of about $4 million. 

 To this we must add certain funds that were 

 expended for services, such as market news, 

 statistics, economics, information on foreign fish- 

 eries trade, and fisheries education programs. AU 

 of the latter influence fisheries development work 

 in one way or another. The dissemination of 

 current information is a vital part of the operation 

 of the markets for fish products and as a basis for 

 investment decisions by the industry. 



The service activities listed above received 

 nearly $3 million of the Bureau budget in 1967. 

 Of course, all of these funds cannot be considered 

 applicable to the development aspects of fisheries. 

 Much of the information garnered by the Branch 

 of Statistics and various branches of the Division 

 of Economics are also used in fisheries manage- 

 ment and must be considered a partial contribu- 

 tion to the funds expended for that purpose. 



Finally, only about $600,000 is now budgeted 

 to the Branch of Exploratory Fishing for fishing 

 gear development. With due allowance for the 

 inability to identify all budget items by function, 

 it would appear that approximately $6 million 

 used directly by the Bureau enhances development 

 of fisheries and another $9 million is paid out 

 aimuaUy directly to the industry with this objec- 

 tive. 



This summary view of the allocation of funds 

 to various sectors of development work in the 

 Bureau makes it clear that fishing gear develop- 

 ment and the ocean engineering aspects of fisheries 



VlI-42 



