in the name of efficiency. The aim here is to cut down 
the capital and labor employed in harvesting the com- 
mon property resource and thus to avoid waste. Lim- 
ited entry means curbing the amount of fishing effort 
allowed. 
To succeed, limited entry could mean some who 
now fish in a particular fishery would no longer be 
allowed to, or at a minimum, no additional effort 
would be allowed beyond that now taking place. At 
the same time, most limited entry proposals con- 
template a transition period or some form of “grand- 
fathering” to accommodate present operators. The 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act explicitly 
permits che Regional Councils to recommend, among 
other approaches to fishery management, systems of 
limited entry according to certain specifications. One 
explanation of the purpose of this approach is as fol- 
lows: °° 5 
“The primary purpose of this technique is to 
reduce the congestion and economic waste 
that occurs from the open access condition 
of common property fisheries. Limiting ac- 
cess would also greatly facilitate the man- 
agement of many fisheries by reducing the 
number of vessels being regulated.” 
Three different methods for limiting entry are gen- 
erally prescribed. Licensing is one method of setting 
limits on the number of vessels, fishers, and nets or 
other devices allowed. Another method is a system of 
fees set high enough to discourage the casual fishing 
effort. And a third way to limit entry is to divide an 
allowable catch into quotas to be distributed among 
the participants. | 
Attempts to limit the present level of fishing effort 
under the 200-mile bill have proven controversial. 
The following excerpts from an article on the first 
year’s experience with the 200-mile law in the 
Gloucester (Mass.) Daily Times °° illustrate the point: 
“Upon its passage in 1976 and again when 
it became effective last year, the law was 
almost universally applauded by New Eng- 
land fishing interests. .. . The past year has 
been filled with some obvious pluses, some 
minuses, problems, power struggles and a 
few ironic twists no one anticipated .. . 
“The unexpected surge in landings led to 
low prices that made some fishermen com- 
plain bitterly that life had been better when 
the foreign fleet was around; landings were 
lower, prices were higher. 
® U.S. Senate, Committee on Commerce. Fishery Management 
Under a 200-Mile Jurisdictional Limit. Washington, D.C., Gov- 
ernment Printing Office, 1975. 
° Gloucester (Mass.) Daily Times, March 1, 1978, page 1. 
“The low prices accelerated landings and 
led to rapid closures of the fisheries. The 
closures, in turn, prompted the New Eng- 
land Fishery Management Council to rec- 
omend relaxation of strict rules. 
“Handling of the recommendations by the 
Department of Commerce led to disputes 
with the council that have yet to be re- 
solved as both groups struggle to assert and 
maintain their control over fisheries*policy. 
“While the struggle continued, officials 
agreed to relaxed quotas that allowed for 
overfishing. Combined with massive land- 
ings from boats flaunting (sic) the rules, the 
combined catches for the year far exceeded 
acceptable biological levels, and instead of 
finding the stocks in better shape this year, 
the haddock, cod and flounder populations 
. declined. 
“Strict catch limits have been mandated 
again for this fishing year (1978), annoying 
offshore fishermen who insist that there is 
plenty of fish and the biologists are wrong 
in saying they are mostly immature fish .. . 
Late last year fishermen learned just how 
serious the government was about enforc- 
ing the new law. Repeated warnings were 
made that fines of up to $25,000 per 
offense could be assessed to those exceed- 
ing the cod and haddock limits. 
“Many ignored the warnings, openly flaunt- 
ing the law in the absence of immediate 
penalties... 
“Shortly before Christmas, the notices be- 
gan to trickle out of marine fisheries 
service computers in Washington. Just as 
they had been warned, fishermen were be- 
ing fined up to $25,000 per offense, a total 
of $150,000 in the case of one multiple 
violator. 
“More than 80 citations were issued, forc- 
ing many of the violators to band to- 
gether in their own defense while those 
who abided by the rules were jubilant that 
the violators were finally being punished.” 
The situation described in Gloucester gives some 
suggestion of the difficulty in instituting a system of 
limited entry, especially without the full support of 
the industry. 
The State of Alaska has experimented with limited 
entry with higher license fees. The experience there 
is being closely watched to see if it is successful and 
possibly applicable in other areas. 
Other management techniques are available and, 
in fact, come under the heading of “traditional” ap- 
proaches to fishery management. As summarized in 
a Senate Commerce Committee document circulated 
IlI—-38 
