assumed. The clarity of maximum physical yield as 

 an objective becomes even more dubious if the 

 fisheries are regarded as a whole, rather than 

 singly. If part of the capital and labor now used in 

 the salmon fishery, for example, were diverted to 

 catching flounders and dogfish it is probable that 

 we could expand physical output considerably. 

 Obviously this would be nonsense, but only 

 because the value of the catch, to consumers and 

 producers, would be reduced. 



Perhaps most serious, from the standpoint of 

 the industry subject to conservation regulations, is 

 the neglect of costs which can creep so easily into 

 a management program geared only to physical 

 yield. Any combination of measures which reduces 

 fishing effort to the desired level is as good as any 

 other if catch alone is the criterion. It is just as 

 essential to take the desired catch in the most 

 efficient possible way. Fishery stocks are not the 

 only resources which can be wasted. Emphasis on 

 this point in the recent proposed statement of 

 BCF objectives is welcome, but has yet to be 

 implemented. 



If a fundamental premise of our enterprise 

 economy (that market prices reflect consumer 

 preferences reasonably well) is accepted, the objec- 

 tives of fishery management are defined by the 

 same standards by which the performance of other 

 industries is judged. Following is a summary of 

 these objectives. 



1. Output and Resource Allocation 



Other things equal, it would appear that the 

 greater the production of fish the better. But it 

 must be remembered that in period of reasonably 

 full employment, more fish can be produced only 

 at the cost of lower output of other products. The 

 proper output would thus be that at which the 

 additional cost of the last units produced is just 

 offset by their additional value. Maximum physical 

 yield would be the optimal output only if the 

 labor and capital required to catch fish were 

 completely costless. Otherwise, a slightly lower 

 output would be preferable. With conservative 

 management, which would normally hold catch 

 slightly below the maximum obtainable, the differ- 

 ence between the actual and optimal yields would 

 usually be small. 



2. Efficiency 



Regardless of the level of catch, optimal per- 

 formance of the fishery would require that it be 



taken at the lowest possible cost. One of the goals 

 of management must be to take the desired catch 

 with the smallest number of units of the most 

 efficient types. 



3. Progressiveness 



Management should provide both the means 

 and the incentive for the development of improved 

 fishing methods and their adoption. 



4. Income Distribution 



In an ideal fishery incomes would be shared 

 among participants in accordance with their con- 

 tribution to production, and would be at least 

 equal to those which could be earned in other 

 occupations. 



This broader definition of the objectives of 

 fishery regulation by no means down-grades the 

 research role of the fishery biologist. The most 

 difficult and important task remains, as always, 

 quantification of the parameters determining the 

 dynamic characteristics of exploited fish stocks. 

 But there is a very real danger that the potential 

 gains from management based on this research will 

 be dissipated if the effects of alternative control 

 measures on efficiency and progressiveness are 

 ignored. 



The first goal of fishery regulation— reduc- 

 tion of fishing mortality below levels which 

 would prevail under free fishing— can be accom- 

 plished through one or more of four basic factors: 

 the number of fishing units; the average fishing 

 power per unit; the average time each unit is 

 fished; and the geographic distribution of the 

 units. Boiled down to the essence, this amounts to 

 saying that catch can be held to the desired level 

 by reducing effort or the efficiency of effort. 



Once economic costs are introduced as a 

 criterion of good management, all measures which 

 reduce fishing mortality by cutting efficiency 

 come under serious question. They may well be 

 more beneficial in terms of economic yield than 

 no regulation at all. But this usually begs the 

 important question: can we achieve the same 

 result by methods which do not impair efficiency? 

 It can be argued that non-economic considerations 

 may justify the use of inefficiency as a conserva- 

 tion technique. But those who do so are under 

 obligation, rarely honored, to account for and 

 justify the additional costs imposed on the eco- 

 nomy and the industry. 



VII-65 



