—Preferential treatment of nonfishery products in the tariff structure, and nontariff controls which are 

 not applied to the benefit of the U.S. fishing industries. 



Much research is required to assess the impact of local, State, and Federal laws regulating conmiercial 

 fisheries activities, particularly regarding the efficient and beneficial use of labor and capital in the 

 harvesting segment of those industries. In addition, studies should be undertaken of the effects of broad 

 U.S. trade poUcies and other government actions on domestic commercial fishing industries. Such 

 research and studies are a desirable precursor to specific detailed recommendations for reorganization of 

 fisheries management arrangements. 



In addition to the barriers already named the evidence that we have collected indicates that some 

 portion of the difficulties contributing to the stagnation of many of the commercial fishing industries in 

 the United States is attributable to organizational inadequacies, particularly at the interstate and Federal 

 levels. 



We have not found a single instance where two or more States have initiated coordinated measures 

 and have carried them out for the efficient management of migratory marine species. The history of 

 three regional Marine Fisheries Commissions shows that they have not initiated binding, comprehensive 

 plans for specific endangered fisheries. Nor is there indication that the States individually can initiate 

 efficient fishing exploitation practices of endangered migratory species based on sound scientific, 

 economic, and legal concepts for the range of migratory species makes individual State action ineffective 

 if other States having jurisdiction over a part of the migration range do not join in the managerial effort. 



The Resources Panel has concluded that the role of the Federal Government must be reoriented 

 toward resource development and the concentration of manpower and financial resources on National 

 fisheries missions. Studies of fishing management and regulatory concepts must be undertaken and new 

 management techniques instituted calling for increased coordination among the States, and a greater 

 Federal role in determining National fisheries poUcies and priorities. With these goals in mind, we now 

 turn to discussion of alternative institutional arrangements under which the needs might be met. 



B. Alternative Institutional Arrangements 



1 . Marine Fisheries Commissions 



a. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission While administering fisheries under the principles noted 

 in Part I, the coastal States have found need for interstate cooperation and advice. The grandfather of 

 interstate compacts for marine fisheries was the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Compact,^" formed in 

 1942 and since 1949 comprised of all of the States of the Atlantic Seaboard from Maine to the Atlanfic 

 coast of Florida. The Compact created an Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, composed of 

 three representatives from each member State; the executive head of the State agency charged with 

 conservation of fisheries resources, a member of the State legislature, and an interested citizen.^ ' The 

 purpose of the Commission is; 



to promote the better utilization of the fisheries, marine, shell and anadromous of the Atlantic seaboard 

 by the development of a joint program for the promotion and protection of such fisheries, and by the 

 prevention of the physical waste of the fisheries from any cause. ^ ^ 



It is charged with inquiring into and ascertaining methods, practices, circumstances and conditions for 

 bringing about the conservation and the prevention of the depletion and physical waste of the fisheries 



^°Act of May 4, 1942, 56 Stat. 267, as amended, 64 Stat. 467 (Aug. 19, 1950). 

 ^'W., art. III. 



VII-78 



