latitude, west of the Queen Charlotte Islands and west of a line drawn between Langara Point or Langara 

 Island, Queen Charlotte Islands, and Cape Muyon or Dall Island in Southeast Alaska."" 



In November 1962, the Japanese government informed the Canadian and United States goverrmients 

 of its desire to negotiate a revision of the Convention. The first meeting was held in June 1963, at which 

 the Japanese delegation proposed to eliminate the abstention doctrine and provide for joint conservation 

 measures. It called attention to the intrusion of large Soviet fishing fleets into the Convention area. It 

 also pointed out that the Japanese bottom fish fleet operating off Alaska could not avoid catching a 

 substantial number of halibut in their nets which, under the treaty, had to be thrown back into the sea. 

 Because it was difficult to sort out and throw back the halibut, many of which were necessarily injured 

 in the process, and because the value of the Japanese bottom fishery was disproportionately greater than 

 that of the United States halibut fishery, the Japanese urged a change in the treaty to allow them to 

 retain these accidentally caught fish. The United States and Canada rejected the Japanese proposals. 



At a meeting held in Tokyo in September 1963, to further consider amendment of the Convention, 

 the United States agreed to drop the abstention principle as such but still proposed to require the 

 Japanese to refrain from fishing the stocks of fish subject to that principle. In return, the United States 

 proposed that all parties to the new treaty restrict their fishing east of the 1 75 degree line to waters and 

 methods used in the previous five years. This would prohibit Japan from all salmon fishing east of the 

 line and would prevent any expansion of Japanese halibut fishing in the same area. It would also prohibit 

 Canada and the United States from changing catching methods or exploiting bottom fish which Japan 

 had been taking east of the 175 degree Line. The apparent intent of the new provision was to create the 

 appearance of bilateral restraint, that is, restraint in fishing effort by both the United States and Japan, 

 and not merely by Japan. Japan did not accept these proposals. It claimed that they totally ignored the 

 three basic principles which Japan demanded: freedom of the high seas, equal access to the resources, 

 and joint control measures for the conservation of the fisheries. The Tokyo discussions produced no 

 results, and a third round of talks to amend the Convention, held in Ottawa in September 1964, ended 

 without agreement. No date or place was set for any further meeting. 



To increase the pressure on the Japanese, the United States Senate passed a bill on May 19, 1965, 

 permitting the President to increase import duties on fish products by as much as fifty per cent for any 

 countries whose practices were "found to be injurious to United States Fish Conservation Programs."'^ 

 Although Japan was not specifically mentioned, the sponsors of the bill made it clear that Japan was the 

 country to be punished.^' Moreover, during May, the newly formed Congress of American Fishermen 

 threatened a national boycott of Japanese imports, effective June 1, 1965, unless the Japanese agreed 

 not to fish for United States spawned salmon, east or west of the abstention line. At about the same 

 time, the Governor of Alaska proposed a plan to build a low dam across Bristol Bay which would stop 

 the migration of the salmon into the sea.* ° 



However, public criticism of Japanese activity decreased very rapidly as the 1965 season progressed, 

 when it became apparent that a record run was under way. Whether or not the allegations that the 

 Japanese fishermen were depleting the Bristol Bay stocks were true, the criticism became subdued in the 

 face of the largest run in history. The heated accusations of 1965 were not repeated in 1966, or at least 

 they appeared in a much milder form, both sides apparently being resigned to a continuation of the 

 status quo. 



As of early 1968, no new negotiations had been held, and none were planned, but both sides 

 continued to express their dissatisfaction with the present arrangements. 



^^Amendments to the Annex to the Convention, adopted at Seattle, Nov. 17, 1962; entered into force for the 

 United States, May 8, 1963, T.I.A.S. No. 5385, 14 U.S.T. 953. 



''^S. 1734, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965). 



■"S. Rep. No. 194, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. 4-7 (1965). 



*°Johnson, The Japan-United States Salmon Conflict, 43 Wash. L. Rev. 11-12 (1967). The account in the text is 

 based almost entirely on this source. 



V1IH15 



