at the time the 200-mile bill was before the Senate, 
these methods include the following: 
© Closed seasons for a given species for a certain 
tinfe. 
e Closed areas, such as spawning or nursery areas 
where catches would endanger the future of the 
stock. 
e Size limits, as with prohibition of smaller sized 
fish to enable them to mature and reproduce in 
order to ensure the future of the fishery. 
® Vessel limits, as with restrictions on size, tonnage, 
or power in order to decrease fishing pressure on 
a stock by mandating a certain amount of in- 
efficiency. This kind of limit is difficult to control, 
because even with limits on size and engines, im- 
proved gear can enable a larger-than-intended 
catch. 
e Prohibitions on certain efficient types of gear. 
Sometimes this can be a restriction designed to 
protect the incidental catch of species. 
e Catch limits. The difficulty here, as. shown in the 
example below, is that the larger, more efficient 
boats tend to absorb as much of the quota as 
early as they can. The increase in efficiency of 
tuna vessels has meant a shortening of the tuna 
season in the Pacific from 9 to 3 months, for ex- 
ample. (This is the method selected this year by 
the New England Regional Council to enforce its 
cod quotas; on a quarterly basis, the catch is 
assessed and when the limit is hit, the fishery is 
closed. This method, especially in winter, favors 
the larger vessels, to the dismay of the small-boat 
owners.) 
The requirements of the Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act are creating a number of demands. 
One of the principal demands is for more and better 
focused research data. Another is for an examination 
of the “traditional” approaches to fishery manage- 
ment as well as the “limited entry” concept for their 
implications on both the fishery stocks and on the 
fishery community. 
The 200-mile law calls, in short, for something 
approaching a systems approach to managing the 
resources, where in advance of making decisions the 
repercussions are thought through, discussed with 
those who will be affected, and adjusted accordingly. 
The three principal problems identified by the 
General Accounting Office in its review of fishery 
management up to 1976 were: 
e the common property nature of the resource, 
e fragmented jurisdiction, and 
@ lack of precise data. 
The 200-mile law addresses in part the problem 
of fragmented jurisdiction. Backers of the law hope 
that it will soon stimulate acquisition and analysis of 
the precise data felt needed in order to manage 
effectively the Nation’s fishery resources. The com- 
mon property nature of the resource remains as the 
basic fact of life with which the Regional Councils 
must grapple in their attempts to balance competing 
demands on the resource. 
The last major problem in fishery management is 
protection of the marine environment. (See chapters 
IV and VI.) 
Law enforcement policy raises numerous ques~ 
tions. Initially, the approach taken in a fishery man- 
agement plan and the language of the associated 
regulations themselves are factors in determining 
policy. The effectiveness and cost benefits of a given 
level of enforcement activity, both dockside and at 
sea, require continual scrutiny and evaluation. There 
are two major governmental considerations. The first 
is between Federal and State officials, as previously 
mentioned: A close working relationship among State 
agencies and the Fish and Wildlife Service, Coast 
Guard, and NMFS is essential. The second consid- 
eration is the cooperation of the Federal agencies in 
fishery management within the 200-mile zone. The 
Coast Guard and NMFS share equal responsibility 
with respect to Fishery Conservation and Manage- 
ment Act (FCMA) enforcement. Because of its estab- 
lished presence and capabilities, the Coast Guard is 
most active in the offshore area. NMFS is the princi- 
pal enforcer of FCMA at the dock. 
The Department of Justice supports the fishery 
management program as it represents the national in- 
terests through the judicial process, whereas the De- 
partment of State monitors and takes an active role 
in any endeavor involving foreign nationals and ves- 
sels. 
Methods of attaining effective enforcement are 
always studied for improvement. Though the number 
of patrol ships and areas of patrol activity change, 
the basic approach of “at-sea” law enforcement is 
continuing to be the Coast Guard cutter’s boarding 
party, supplemented by surveillance from ship and 
aircraft. Remote sensing devices and satellites are 
possibilities, though the present state-of-the-art and 
cost factors present severe limitations. Use of ob- 
servers on board foreign vessels has been effective 
not only in terms of enforcement, but in collecting 
data for fishery management as weil. 
It is anticipated that the Coast Guard may have to 
increase “at-sea” inspections of domestic vessels to 
ensure their compliance with applicable management 
plans. The effectiveness of dockside inspections is 
limited in the enforcement of restrictions on fishing 
areas and methods (gear). Cost effectiveness of exist- 
ing and proposed enforcement methods is being 
examined on a continuing basis to ensure optimum 
use of the resources and the appropriate level of en- 
forcement. Generally, enforcement of fishery manag- 
ment regulations on domestic fishing operators poses 
serious problems. 
III-39 
