incomes, a reduction in the number of fishing 

 units would have a significant effect on the 

 compliance problem. As long as regulations must 

 cope with an industry literally "bulging at the 

 seams," the difficulty of equitable enforcement of 

 conservation measures is bound to be severe. If, 

 however, the number of units is reduced sharply 

 by methods which require an investment in the 

 right to fish, the attitude toward illegal fishing 

 may be quite different. 



In addition, direct control over fishing inputs 

 would enable the industry to move in an orderly 

 fashion toward adoption of more efficient meth- 

 ods without fear of disastrous overfishing while 

 the conversion was in process. 



The importance of conservation methods which 

 not only prevent physical depletion but reduce 

 excessive economic costs was never greater than to 

 the U.S. fishing industry today. The fisherman 

 faces increasingly severe competition from im- 

 ported fish and also from a host of other protein 

 foods. Many segments of the industry are highly 

 vulnerable to imports, and any regulatory program 

 that operates through reduced efficiency is liter- 

 ally subsidizing a path into the U.S. market for a 

 variety of competitive products. 



To illustrate the practical application of a gear 

 limitation program, two entirely different situa- 

 tions must be distinguished; first, how should the 

 appropriate number of fishing units be determined 

 and allocated for a newly developed fishery (or an 

 established fishery for which a major new source 

 of supply is suddenly opened)? Second, how can 

 excessive numbers of boats and men be reduced in 

 an established fishery that has already reached an 

 unsatisfactory equilibrium with severe overfishing? 



The first step in any gear reduction or entry 

 limitation program must be to establish the legal 

 base. Careful legal research has established une- 

 quivocally the right of the Federal Government to 

 control entry to a fishery in cases where it 

 presently has jurisdiction over fisheries subject to 

 international agreement or carried on outside 

 territorial waters. 



The situation within individual States must be 

 established case by case. In Alaska, for example, a 

 specific provision in the State constitution guaran- 

 tees unlimited right to access to the fisheries for all 

 residents of the State. In Washington, by contrast, 

 it has been argued that the State would have the 

 right to institute a limited entry program of 



fishery management provided certain conditions 

 are met. Access to the limited rights must be 

 non-discriminatory; the legislature must consider 

 appropriate and relevant factors formulating the 

 program; and the program must be demonstrably 

 aimed at improving the general welfare rather than 

 that of the fishing industry alone. 



It seems Ukely that most States could develop 

 regulatory programs involving limitations of the 

 number of fishing units, subject to these criteria, 

 without further legislation; others may require 

 specific legislation. The proposed reorganization of 

 State and Federal responsibilities outlined in the 

 earlier section would make possible the institution 

 of a limited entry program in any interstate 

 fishery. 



Control over the number of fishing units in a 

 newly developed fishery would present relatively 

 few practical problems. Given a reasonably reliable 

 estimate of long run yield effort relations in the 

 critical ranges, the problem becomes one of 

 determining the number of optimal vessels, effi- 

 ciently equipped and fishing on a full-time basis, 

 required to take the desired catch. 



Since most yield effort relations will be subject 

 to at least moderate variability from year to year, 

 other backup control measures will be required. In 

 general, an optimal fishery would operate with 

 some excess capacity at all times. Occasional 

 unexpectedly large harvesting opportunities would 

 require short run extension of the number of 

 license units, while curtailment of fishing time, 

 quotas, or other restrictive devices would be 

 necessary when available catches fall short of the 

 long term average. 



The actual techniques employed as backup 

 measures to provide the necessary flexibility 

 would depend on the characteristics of the species 

 involved, the fishing gear employed, and the 

 seasonal availability of the fish. Their effective- 

 ness, in turn, would depend on the ability to 

 forecast year to year availability with tolerable 

 accuracy. The present state of fisheries science 

 would permit such flexibility to be built in 

 without major difficuhy, provided the basic fish- 

 ing capacity of the fleet in question was reason- 

 ably well adjusted to the average expected catch. 



The speed with which a new fishery should be 

 developed (the rate at which vessels should be 

 admitted to the fishery until an optimal number 

 can be determined accurately) depends in part on 



VU-67 



