4. Significance of Agreement 



Soviet fishing vessels ranging in size from relatively small side trawlers (125 feet- 175 feet) to large 

 factory ships have for some time fished in various waters off the United States coast. United States 

 fishermen in the western mid-Atlantic area found their catch of fluke, scup, silver hake, and red hake 

 decreasing. Stocks of red hake migrate offshore in the fall to spawn and congregate off the continental 

 shelf from Corsair Canyon in the northeast to Norfolk Canyon in the south. The center of abundance of 

 the red hake is about 100 miles southeast of New York City in the area of the Hudson Canyon.^*' 

 Intensive fishing by large Soviet fleets, consisting of as many as 200 vessels, in this region during the 

 three schooling months, when fish swim together in large numbers, is believed to have caused the decline 

 in hake catches.^ ^^ 



In 1966, Senator Warren G. Magnuson of Washington requested the State Department to approach 

 the Soviet Government concerning its fishing efforts on the West Coast, where local fishing interests 

 were alarmed because of the heavy Soviet activity off the coasts of Oregon and Washington during the 

 Spring of that year. When, in July 1966, the United States undertook conversations with Soviet fishery 

 officials about these matters, it also brought up similar problems which had arisen in the Western 

 Atlantic off the United States coast in the area between Cape Cod and Cape Hatteras. When an 

 agreement for the West Coast was reached in January 1967, the Soviet Union was not prepared to deal 

 with the Middle Atlantic problem, but agreed to talk about it at the annual meeting of ICNAF to be held 

 in Boston in June 1967. 



In June 1967 the Soviet Union was unwilling to come to an agreement concerning the middle 

 Atlantic fishing area, but an arrangement was made for the two countries to meet in Moscow before the 

 1967-68 Russian fishing season opened.^ ^ * 



The meeting was held and, after lengthy negotiations, the one-year agreement was signed. The 

 agreement is probably less than was hoped for by United States fishing interests, but it is generally 

 regarded as a large step in the right direction.^ ''^ 



In the opinion of Ambassador McKernan, the Agreement is an example of how a coastal State, whose 

 coastal fishing is adversely affected by high seas fisheries conducted by a distant water fleet, can 

 cooperate with the nation conducting such high seas fisheries in reaching mutually satisfactory solutions 

 which are preferable to drastic actions of a unilateral nature.^ '^ 



J. Agreement Between the United States and Mexico on Traditional Fishing in the Exclusive Fishery 

 Zones Contiguous to the Territorial Seas of Both Countries^ '''^ 



This agreement was made necessary by the laws passed in both countries in 1966 extending their 

 exclusive fishery zones from 3 miles to 1 2 miles in the case of the United States and from nine miles to 

 12 nules in the case of Mexico. The agreement appUes only to waters between the 9 mile and 12 mile 

 line from the coast of the mainland and islands of each country. Each country is given the right to fish 

 for species which it has historically fished in these waters of the other country. 



The fisheries most importantly affected are the shrimp fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico, the tuna 

 fisheries of the Pacific coast, and the fisheries for snapper, grouper and other market fish species on both 

 coasts.^ ^ ^ It was also agreed that the total catch of each of these fisheries by fishermen of each country 



2 69 



National Fisherman, January 1968, p. 2. 

 ^'"'New York Times, Nov. 26, 1967, p. 1, col. 5. 



2 71 



National Fishennan, January 1968, p. 2. 



273 



See Commercial Fisheries Review, January 1968, Vol. 30, No. 1, p. 1. 

 ^'''Exchange of Notes at Washington, Oct. 27, 1967, entered into force January 1, 1968, T.I.A.S. No. 6359. 



275 



National Fisherman, January 1968, at p. 2-C. 



VIII-147 



