Commissions may be designated as a joint regulatory agency, no States have done so. One commentator 

 has surmised: 



. . . The intention seems to have been to sanction formal, although ineffective, power in the interstate 

 agency to regulate the marine fisheries, allowing the fishing industry to brand attempts to establish 

 controls through other institutions as duplicating the Commission 's efforts.'^ ^ 



Being wholly advisory, enforcement of fisheries laws and regulations continues to be the responsibility 

 of the officials of the separate member States. Says Barton: 



Since commercial fishery groups generally enjoy effective access to the legislatures of the coastal states, 

 retention in the state of jurisdiction over fisheries in effect virtually eliminates the possibility of 

 regulations that are not desired by commercial fisherman. . .'^^ 



While vigorously advocating no outside regulation of fishing, the Commissions have been instrumental 

 in obtaining authorizations, appropriations, research, and other services from the National Government; 

 have promoted fishery research of mutual interest to both sports and commercial fishermen; 

 recommended uniform laws; and within the limited authority of the compacts, attempted to promote 

 interstate cooperation in the marine fisheries. Federal research, while promoted through the 

 commissions, is, in fact, either performed directly by the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, or through 

 State agencies, universities, or other research institutions, not through the Marine Fisheries Commissions. 



It must be noted that it was never the intention of the three marine fisheries compacts to provide 

 more than advice and recommendations to the member States and to the National Government. The 

 compacts were not intended to regulate fisheries in their respective regions, but, rather, regulation was 

 left to the States, as akeady mentioned, although two compacts were amended to permit such 

 regulation. 



2. Federal Management of Migratory Birds 



Turning to other alternatives for the regulation of living resources, there exist examples of Federal 

 assertion of jurisdiction in the analogous area of migratory birds, noted in the first section of this paper. 

 A brief description of the Migratory Bird Treaty and the Migratory Bird Conservation Act follow. 



a. Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction Migratory Bird Treaty, Act of July 3, 1918, 40 Stat. 755, as 

 amended, 49 Stat. 1555, (June 20, 1936), 16 U.S.C. 703-71 1, 50 C.F.R. 10, 15, 16. Under its treaty and 

 commerce powers,''* Congress has provided that except as permitted by regulation, it is unlawful to 

 hunt, capture, kill, purchase, ship, export or import, etc., any migratory bird included in the terms of 

 the conventions between the United States and Great Britain, 39 Stat. 1702 (Aug. 16, 1916), and the 

 United States and the United Mexican States, 50 Stat. 1311 (March 15, 1937)."'' The Act authorizes 

 and directs the Secretary of the Interior to adopt suitable regulations governing the taking of migratory 

 birds."* * It further provides that nothing in the Act shall be construed to prevent the States from making 

 or enforcing law or regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of the conventions, or from making 

 or enforcing laws or regulations giving further protection to migratory birds, if the open seasons 

 provided in the Federal regulations are not extended.*' 



barton. Interstate Compacts in the Political Process, University of North Carolina Press, 1967, p. 28. 

 "'Ibid. 



'^^ Bailey v. Holland, 126 F.2d 317 (1942). 

 "■'16 U.S.C. 703. 

 "*16 U.S.C. 704. 

 "'l6 U.S.C. 708. 



VIl-80 



