U.S. fishing industry--present condition and future of marine fisheries report to the Congress

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Coastal Zone ZO)5
informationl INFOWA ATION CENTER
Center REPORT TO THE CONGRESS

BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL
OF THE UNITED STATES

The U.S. Fishing Industry--

Present Condition And

Future Of Marine Fisheries

The United States, with the fourth largest
coastline and the third largest continental
shelf in the world, has almost one-fifth of the
world's marine fish resources within 200 miles
of its coastline. It might be expected that,
with the abundance of resources, our fishing
industry would be strong and prosperous but
this is not the case. Domestic landings of
edible fish have remained constant since 1960 C Z�PE
and some segments of the harvesting sector ;
are in a chronically depressed state. The
demand for fish has increased but U.S. land-
ings have supplied a declining share of the
domestic market while imports of edible
species have increased sharply to a point
where it represents 62 percent of the total
demand for edible fish products. This resulted
in a fish trade deficit of $1.4 billion in 1974.
Opportunities exist to strengthen and expand
the U.S. fishing industry by increasing the
harvest and the efficiency of harvesting oper-
ations and overcoming barriers in processing,
marketing, and distributing fish and fish pro-
ducts.
VOLUME II

CED-76-130-A
DE C.2 97E3

COASTAL ZONE
JINFOR A~I CENTER
VOLUME II

Con t e n t s

APPENDIX Page

II Compilation and analysis of Federal laws
affecting the U.S. commercial fishing
industry 1

III Profiles of important U.S. fisheries 44

Clams 44
Crabs 64
Atlantic groundfish 78
Gulf States groundfish 95
Pacific groundfish 109
Halibut 134
Herring 147
American and spiny lobsters 160
Menhaden 178
Oysters 192
Salmon 204
Scallops 221
Shrimp 233
Tuna 254
Underutilized fish resources 270

IV Profiles of the fishing industry in
selected foreign nations 284

Canada 284
Denmark 298
Japan 308
Mexico 324
Soviet Union 335
United Kingdom 350
West Germany 360

V Statistics on the U.S. and foreign catch
of fish off the U.S. coastline 372

VI University of Washington study 383

iS. SDEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
CASTAL SERVICES CENTER
. 234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
JiHARLESTON SC 29405-2413

Property of CSC Library

APPENDIX II INoMTG ETRAPPENDIX II

COMPILATION AND ANALYSIS OF FEDERAL LAWS AFFECTING
THE U.S. COMMERCIAL FISHING INDUSTRY
SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE COMMENTS
I. General

The fishery laws, generally, could be improved with some
reorganization, recodification, and clarification.

First, Congress might consider reorganizing and recodifying
most of the fishery laws under one title of the United States
Code. While many of the laws are now in title 16, many others
are scattered throughout other titles (e.g., titles 15 and 46)
of the Code. Either title 15 or title 16 would be a logical
place for the fishery laws. Of course, there are laws that per-
tain to fisheries that also pertain to other matters and would
be best left in place.

Fisheries laws, when revised and recodified, should be
separated from wildlife laws and from shipping laws. Fish
conservation appears to be different from wildlife conservation
and properly should be treated separately. Likewise, it might
be helpful to separate fish-related laws from general shipping
laws. In such areas as research and financial assistance to
the fishing industry, consolidation of the laws would also be
beneficial.

Further, in recodtifying the laws, the powers and the duties
and responsibilities of the Secretary of Commerce could be clearly
defined to reflect the transfer of functions under Reorganization
Plan No. 4 of 1970. For example, 16 U.S.C. �742h, which lists
a variety of Fish and Wildlife Reports to be made by the Secre-
tary of the Interior, has been changed by the Reorganization Plan.
The statute does not reflect this change except for a note at
the end of the provision that does not help define the functions
transferred to the Secretary of Commerce without reference to
the Reorganization Plan itself, and this does not, in all cases,
completely clarify matters. A provision of law like section 742h
could be divided into two separate statutes--one designating wild-
life reports required of the Secretary of the Interior and the
other designating fish reports required of the Secretary of Com-
merce. Many laws could be changed in the same way.

II. Specific

There are many instances where specific laws could be
improved by amendment. These are divided into several different
categories and summarized below.

APPENDIX II APPENDIX II

A. Research and related activities

There are several instances in which research statutes are
inconsistent or overlap with each other. For example: 16 U.S.C.
�742d(4) and 16 U.S.C. �760e seem to overlap somewhat since both
deal with statistics related to sport fishing. They could be
combined into one statute dealing with sport fishing statistics
and research.

Methods and gear determined under section 1381 of title 16
to be desirable to reduce incidental taking of marine mammals
are different from gear limitations determined under 16 U.S.C.
�760a to be desirable. To this extent they are inconsistent and
should refer to each other so that research called for under
each is conducted with consideration given to research called
for by the other; e.g., research on gear limitations to protect
marine mammals under section 1381 should take into consideration
gear limitations that would serve the purpose of developing and
protecting species as called for by section 760a.

16 U.S.C. �744 and 16 U.S.C. �1202 both deal with problem
species (species that pose a threat to other species, to man,
or to both) and might be combined into one provision under which
research could remain separate or could be combined.

14 U.S.C. �94 and 16 U.S.C. �758a overlap to the extent
that the Coast Guard might do oceanographic research related
to fisheries. Perhaps section 94 should be amended to preclude
the Coast Guard from doing any research related to fisheries
that the Secretary of Commerce is authorized to pursue. The
Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources is also
directed to do oceanographic research under 33 U.S.C. �1104.

Several statutes--16 U.S.C. ��742d-1 and 665 and 33 U.S.C.
��1441 and 1442--overlap in dealing with research on the effects
of pollution and other environmental factors on fish. It might
be appropriate to combine these into one statute providing for
one or more research programs to be conducted by the Administra-
tor of EPA.

Section 304(e) of the 1976 Act encompasses several other
research statutes--16 U.S.C. ��742d, 744, 758a and 33 U.S.C.
��1441, 1442. Section 304(e) might be a good place in which to
centralize research laws.

In addition to overlaps and inconsistencies, the problem of
determining whether a statute is to be administered by the Secre-
tary of Commerce or by the Secretary of the Interior exists among

APPENDIX II APPENDIX II

research statutes. For example, 16 U.S.C. �742d(5), directs the
Secretary of the Interior to collect statistics on the nature and
availability of wildlife and it is not clear whether the Secre-
tary of Commerce may be authorized by this section to collect
certain statistics. Although most of the research called for by
section 742d appears, under the Reorganization Plan, to be the
responsibility of the Secretary of Commerce, the statute makes
reference only to the Secretary of Interior.

Another problem area has resulted from the relatively
recent enactment of the Fish Conservation and Management Act
of 1976. The problem is to properly coordinate existing laws
with the 1976 Act. Section 760a of title 16, which provides
for certain studies to recommend to the States measures to be
taken to protect and develop fish resources, could be coordi-
nated with the 1976 Act by amending it to refer to the appro-
priate regional councils.

Congress might want to consider reorganization and recodi-
fication of the research laws, clearly setting out duties and
powers.

B. Conservation measures

While there does not appear to be much inconsistency or
overlapping among the conservation-related laws, a few should
be mentioned:

(1) 16 U.S.C. �755 and 16 U.S.C. 51221 et seq., overlap
to the extent that section 755 makes for the Columbia River
Basin the specific provision that section 1221 makes generally
applicable to the Nation's entire estuary system.

(2) 16 U.S.C. ��757a and b authorize the Secretary of the
Interior (apparently transferred to Commerce), in cooperation
with the States, to undertake conservation measures with regard
to anadromous fisheries, while 16 U.S.C. �1221 et seq., directs
the Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation with the States,
to take conservation measures with regard to resources in the
estuaries of the U.S. Since anadromous fisheries are present in
some U.S. estuaries, management functions potentially overlap
between the Secretaries of Commerce and Interior. Congress might
want to reconcile this by qualifying 16 U.S.C. �1221 et seq. to
exclude regulation of anadromous fisheries, thus consolidating
the functions in the Secretary of Commerce. It has already been
suggested that Congress might want to consider transferring
management of the estuaries, to the extent it affects fisheries,
to the Secretary of Commerce.

APPENDIX II APPENDIX II

(3) 16 U.S.C. ��757a and b and 16 U.S.C. �1221 et seq., also
overlap with 16 U.S.C. �777 et seq., which directs the Secretary
of the Interior, in cooperation with the States, to restore and
manage sport fisheries. To the extent that an anadromous fishery
is also a sport fishery (e.g., salmon), there is overlap that
should be recognized.

(4) 16 U.S.C. �1361 et seq., (the Marine Mammal Protection
Act) and 16 U.S.C. �916 et seq., (the Whaling Convention Act)
overlap to the extent they both regulate catching whales. 16
U.S.C. �1383 recognizes potential overlap and provides that the
Marine Mammal Act is in addition to and not in contravention
of any international convention, treaty or agreement, or statute
implementing the same. This seems to mean that whalers are
required to obtain two licenses and pay two fees before they may
hunt whales--one is required under each act. It seems unnecessary
to require two licenses and two fees to perform the same act, and
if, in fact, only one license is required, the law should be
clarified.

Here, as in other areas, there are some laws which should
be amended to reflect the transfer of power from the Secretary
of the Interior to the Secretary of Commerce. See, for example,
16 U.S.C. ��757a and b.

Congress may want to consider transferring from the Secre-
tary of the Interior to the Secretary of Commerce those functions
required under 16 U.S.C. ��661-664 (unclear whether transfer has
been made), 16 U.S.C. ��760-2 thru 760-12, and 16 U.S.C. �1221
et seg. In each case, the transfer seems justified because the
function to be transferred relates to fisheries to such an
extent that it should properly vest in the authority in charge
of fisheries--the Secretary of Commerce. One other transfer is
appropriate for consideration: a transfer from the Secretary of
the Interior to the Administrator of EPA of the obligation under
16 U.S.C. �757f to make recommendations concerning the elimina-
tion or reduction of polluting substances detrimental to fish
and wildlife.

C. Coordinating the 1976 Act with other laws

There are a few instances where the 1976 Act could be better
coordinated with other statutes:

APPENDIX II APPENDIX II

and protect fisheries resources. Congress might want to consider
amending this provision to recognize the "optimum sustainable
yield" concept promoted by the 1976 Act and to coordinate it
with the concept of regional councils and regional planning.

(2) As previously mentioned, 16 U.S.C. �760a, which directs
the Secretary of Commerce to make certain Atlantic Coast studies
on which to base his recommendations to the States for develop-
ment and protection of Atlantic fisheries, might be amended to
address itself in some way to the regional councils.

(3) 22 U.S.C. �2753(b), which prohibits foreign military
sales for a period of one year to any country that seizes or
fines an American fishing vessel for engaging in fishing more
than 12 miles from the coast of that country, was not amended
by the 1976 Act to reflect the 200-mile extended jurisdiction.
Congress might want to consider amending this in some way because
it seems incongruous to prohibit foreign fishing within 200 miles
of our shores, while not recognizing similar territorial limits
in other countries. Failure to amend this provision of law seems
to have been an oversight.

D. Foreign relations

Several comments concerning statutes affecting foreign rela-
tions: (1) 19 U.S.C. �1323, allowing the President to raise duty
rates up to 50 percent above the rate existing on July 1, 1934,
could be obsolete if the rates today have already reached that
point; if they have not, some adjustment of the base date might
be warranted; (2) several sections, such as 22 U.S.C. �2753(b)
and 22 U.S.C. �2370(o), provide for sanctions against foreign
countries that seize U.S. fishing vessels in international waters.
Congress might consider combining these and similar statutes into
one law dealing with the subject; and (3) the inconsistency of
16 U.S.C. �2753(b) with the 200-mile limit established in the
1976 Act has already been discussed.

E. Domestic and foreign commerce

While several commerce-related statutes--16 U.S.C. ��772b,
781, 955c, 1171(a), for example--prohibit possession, sale, etc.,
of a described species, they do not specifically prohibit "import-
ing" or "exporting" those species. If Congress intended these
statutes to prohibit importing or exporting the named species,
consideration should be given to clarifying them, at least when
the conventions, agreements, or treaties are renegotiated. If
importation and exportation were not intended to be prohibited,
Congress might want to make that clear.

APPENDIX II APPENDIX II

In the case of 16 U.S.C. �1100b-6, which restricts shrimping
off the coast of Brizil, the statute does not appear to prohibit
importing or otherwise trading or selling shrimp caught in viola-
tion of the law. In this regard, Congress might consider streng-
thening the law by prohibiting such activities.

Congress might also want to consider clarifying or streng-
thening 16 U.S.C. S�772b, 781, and 955(c) by specifically pro-
hibiting sales or other commercial use of the species in question.

Wvhile 21 U.S.C. ��372a and 374 provide for fish inspection,
it is not mandatory. Congress might want to consider making fish
inspection mandatory in much the same way that it has imposed
mandatory inspection upon certain phases of poultry and meat pro-
cessing. See 21 U.S.C. �451 et seq. and 21 U.S.C. �601 et seq.,
respectively.

Under 15 U.S.C. S713c-2, the Secretary of Agriculture is
to provide for the purchase and distribution of surplus fishery
products. Under 15 U.S.C. �713c-3, the Secretary of the Interior
is to promote the flow of domestically-produced fishery products.
Congress may want to consider transferring one or both of these
functions to the Secretary of Commerce; if it has already done so,
the statute or statutes should be amended to reflect the transfer.

Section 205 of the 1976 Act and 22 U.S.C. �1978 overlap to
the extent that section 205 encompasses the section 1978 restric-
tion on fish imports from countries that do not cooperate in
international fishery conservation. Congress might wish to con-
sider amending section 1978.

F. Reporting requirements

Congress might want to consider consolidating, or at least
summarizing in one single place, the reporting that is required
(mandatory) of the Secretary of Commerce. In addition, section
742h, and possibly other sections, could be clarified by separat-
ing reports required of the Secretary of Commerce from those
required of the Secretary of the Interior. This is another
instance where the statute's failure to reflect the transfer of
functions under Reorganization Plan No. 4 creates ambiguities.

G. Federal assistance

Federal statutes provide for various forms of assistance
to benefit the U.S. fisheries. Direct financial assistance to
the industry breaks down into three basic forms--subsidies (46
U.S.C. �1401 et sea.), loans (16 U.S.C. �742c), and loan guaran-
tees (46 U.S.C. �1271 et seq.). The subsidy and loan programs

APPENDIX II APPENDIX II

pertain only to fishing vessels, while the loan guarantee pro-
gram is for the benefit of other vessels as well. Congress might
want to consider an overall review of these direct assistance
programs to consider the following questions:

(1) Should they all be within the same title of the United
States Code? Presently, the loan program is under title 16 and
the other two are under title 46.

(2) Should a separate loan guarantee program for fishing
vessels be established?

(3) Should 46 U.S.C. �1401 et seq., (subsidies), administered
by the Secretary of the Interior, be amended to be administered
by the Secretary of Commerce? If the Reorganization Plan has
already transferred this function, then the statute should be
amended to reflect the transfer.

(4) Should the 1972 date beyond which applications for sub-
sidies were not to be accepted, be extended again?

(5) Should the statutes spell out more precisely eligibility
guidelines for each category of assistance? Under present law,
no criteria are provided to guide the Secretary in determining
that an applicant is not eligible for a loan, but is eligible
for a loan guaranty.

H. Enforcement laws

The enforcement laws are consistent in selecting the Depart-
ment of Commerce and the Coast Guard as the primary bodies to
enforce the fishery laws. Certain arrest and seizure powers
usually are granted by statute to the enforcing agency. Along
with enforcement statutes, sanctions or penalties are prescribed,
usually a fine and/or imprisonment. The maximum amounts of fines
prescribed under older statutes may not be appropriate today due
to inflation. For example, 16 U.S.C. �772e calls for a fine of
not more than $1,000 for violation of the Northern Pacific Halibut
Act of 1937. $1,000 today is certainly not equivalent to $1,000
in 1937 and it might be more appropriate to impose higher fines
today. The fine for catching certain size sponges, up to $500
(16 U.S.C. �783), has not been changed since its enactment in 1914.
In addition to considering amendment of these two provisions,
Congress might want to consider amending the following statutes
because the fines they authorize may also be outdated: 16 U.S.C.
�S666a, 772f, 776c, 853, 916e and f, 989, and 46 U.S.C. �319.

~~~~~~~~~~~~APPENDIX IIAPEDX1

DETAILED COMPILATION AND ANALYSIS

I. INTRODUCTION

Federal laws that significantly affect the U.S. high-seas
fishing industry are many and varied, scattered throughout sev-
eral titles of the United States Code. The purpose of this docu-
ment is to compile and analyze these fisheries-related laws
(excluding fish farming laws) to determine areas where Congress
could consider amendments. This study organizes fisheries-related
laws into categories and examines them for conflicts, inconsisten-
cies, overlaps, repetitions and other factors that demonstrate
la need for amendment. The laws are broken down into three major
categories: (1) management and regulation of fisheries; (2)
Federal assistance; and (3) enforcement and sanctions. Each
of these categories is subdivided to facilitate careful examina-
tion and analysis of the laws. The findings are summarized in
the pages that follow.

The multitude of laws affecting the fishing industry is
administered by several Federal departments and agencies. The
departments most significantly involved in administering
fisher~ies-related laws are the Department of Commerce, the
Department of the Interior, the Department of State, and the
Department of Transportation. The agencies within these depart-
ments that play key roles include the National Oceanic and Atmos-
pheric Administration (NOAA) (Department of Commerce), the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) within NOAA, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Department of the Interior), and
the Coast Guard (Department of Transportation). Other Federal
departments and agencies involved in administering laws that
affect the fishing industry include the Department of Agriculture,
the Food and Drug Administration, the Internal Revenue Service,
the Small Business Administration, and the Department of Labor.

The laws administered by these departments and agencies
range from those designed to protect the fish to those designed
to protect the fisherman, the declared policy apparently being
to promote and protect the fishing industry. The declared policy
of Congress has variously been stated as: "* * * to foster,
promote, and develop the * * * fishery industries * * * of the
United States; * * *" (53 of P.L. 57-552, an Act establishing
the Department of Commerce and Labor (1903), 15 U.S.C. �1512);
~ * *to provide for the ***development of the high seas
fishing industry of the United States **i'(SI of P.L. 80-329,

APPENDIX II APPENDIX II

(1947), 16 U.S.C. �758); to satisfy certain fundamental needs
of the fishing industry--freedom of enterprise, protection of
opportunity, and assistance to the industry, among others and
to administer the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 with the intent
of "stimulating the development of a strong, prosperous, and
thriving fishery and fish processing industry" (�3 of the Fish
and Wildlife Act of 1956, 16 U.S.C. �742a); "to promote domestic,
commercial and recreational fishing under sound conservation
and management principles" (�2(b)(5) of P.L. 94-265, Fishery
Conservation and Management Act of 1976).

The progression of legislation from 1903 to the present
indicates a subtle change in the Nation's stated policy from one
of fostering and promoting the fishing industry in 1903 (P.L.
57-552) implying growth and expansion, to the more recent policy
of developing and protecting the industry (Fish and Wildlife
Act of 1956), and "that our fishing industry be afforded all
support necessary to have it strengthened" (Eastland Resolution),
implying preventing deterioration of the industry and the more
effective use of the existing industry. In the Fishery Conser-
vation and Management Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-265), Congress'
declared purpose is a return to promotion (growth) of the
industry. If the perceived change is unintentional, perhaps
Congress should clarify the fishery policy. The declared policy
of the nation with regard to the fishing industry is important
because it impacts on the interpretation and implementation
of laws affecting the industry.

The many Federal laws notwithstanding, the States have
significant impact on the fishing industry vis-a-vis their
own laws. With few exceptions, the seaward boundary of each
coastal state is three miles distant from its coast line (�4
of the Submerged Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. �1312). Within these
waters the States have, according to section 3 of the Sub-
merged Lands Act:

II* * *(l) title to and ownership of the
lands beneath [these] waters * * '*, and
the natural resources within such lands
and waters, and (2) the right and power
to manage, administer, lease, develop, and
use the said lands and natural resources
all in accordance with applicable State
law** '

APPENDIX 11 ~~~~~~APPENDIX II

The Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (the 1976
Act), neither diminishes nor extends the jurisdiction or authority
of any State within its boundaries, except where the fishing
in a fishery takes place predominately within and beyond the
fishery conservation zone, and a State takes any action, or
fails to take any action, the results of which will substantially
and adversely affect the carrying out of a fishery management
plan (�306(b)). In such a case, the Federal Goyernment
may regulate fishing within State territorial waters.

The United States has jurisdiction, beginning March I
1977, to manage fisheries beyond State boundaries up to 200 miles
out from the coastline. Sections 101 and 102 of the Act of 1976
establish a "fishery conservation zone" between 3 and 200 miles
out to sea, over which the United States is granted exclusive
fishery management authority. Until the 1976 Act takes effect
on March 1, 1977, U.S. jurisdiction over fisheries will extend
to its present outer boundary of nine miles from the outer
boundary of the States (generally 12 miles from the coast).
16 U.S.C. ��1091-1094.

II. MANAGEMENT AND REGULATION OF FISHERIES

The most significant and greatest number of fisheries-
related laws concern management or regulation of fisheries.
The Nation's fisheries are managed by protection of the resource
through laws regulating such matters as research and conservation
and regulation of domestic and foreign fishing. The industry is
protected by laws regulating such areas as commerce and labor.

Management of the fisheries is mainly in the hands of the
Secretary of Commerce, who administers such laws as the Fish
and Wildlife Act of 1956 and who will be administering the 1976
Act. Until formation of NOAA under Reorganization Plan No. 4
of 1970 (Reorganization Plan), 84 Stat. 2090, most fishery
management laws were administered by the Bureau of Commercial
Fisheries of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service,
Department of the Interior.

The Reorganization Plan contemplated the establishment of
a single unit within the Department of Commerce which would
focus, manage, and regulate developmental, operational and envi-
ronmental aspects of coastal zone management. The Plan therefore
transferred just about all functions of the Bureau of -Commercial

APPENDIX II APPENDIX II

Fisheries and all functions of the Secretary of the Interior
that previously were administered by the Bureau to the Secretary
of Commerce. Four specific exceptions were made for interior
waters that remained under the auspices of the Department of the
Interior: Great Lakes fishery research, Missouri River research,
research relating to the Gulf Breeze Biological Laboratory, and
matters concerning the trans-Alaska pipeline investigations.

The Secretary of Commerce was also given those responsibil-
ities relating to migratory marine species of game fish. 16
U.S.C. �760e-760g. Along the same lines, Marine Resource Develop-
ment Programs previously carried out under the direction of the
National Science Foundation were also transferred to NOAA, under
the direction of the Secretary of Commerce. 33 U.S.C. �1121
et seq.

One difficult problem in the administration and control
area is ascertaining whether certain statutes are to be admin-
istered by the Secretary of Commerce or the Secretary of the
Interior. Very few provisions of the United States Code have
been amended to reflect the transfer of functions beyond the
addition of a footnote to the section itself. The body of law
still reads that the authority is in the Secretary of the Interior.
As a result, it is often difficult to determine from the statute
alone, and in some cases even by reference to the Reorganization
Plan itself, whether the Secretary of Commerce or the Secretary
of the Interior is responsible for administration of the statutory
duties.

Two examples in particular point out this problem. 16 U.S.C.
�742e (�6 of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) provides:

"There shall be transferred to the Secre-
tary [of Interior] all functions of the
Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of
Commerce, and the head of any other Depart-
ment or agency, as determined by the director
of the Office of Management and Budget to
relate primarily to the development, advance-
ment, management, conservation and protection
of commercial fisheries; * * *`

Only in the historical note at the end of the provision is it
stated that these powers have now been transferred to the Secre-
tary of Commerce.

APPENDIX II APPENDIX II

In 16 U.S.C. �742d(5) the Secretary of the Interior is
directed to collect statistics on the nature and availability
of wildlife. It is unclear whether the Secretary of Commerce
might be authorized by this section to collect certain statistics.
Although most of the research called for by section 742d appears
to be the responsibility of the Secretary of Commerce because of
the transfer of powers, the statute makes reference only to
the Secretary of the Interior.

Statutes that do not reflect the transfer of functions
to the Secretary of Commerce by the Reorganization Plan include
the following:

16 U.S.C. �662 16 U.S.C. 5760-2 thru 760-12
16 U.S.C. �663 16 U.S.C. �777 et seq.
16 U.S.C. �664 16 U.S.C. �1221 et seq.
16 U.S.C. �665 16 U.S.C. �1531 et seq.
16 U.S.C. �757a, b, f 16 U.S.C. �772d

Several sections appropriately specify the Secretary of
Commerce, and serve as an example:

16 U.S.C. �755 16 U.S.C. �785
16 U.S.C. �756 16 U.S.C. �1201 et seq.
16 U.S.C. �760e-760g 16 U.S.C. �1361
16 U.S.C. �760d 16 U.S.C. �1431 et seq.
16 U.S.C. �1381 16 U.S.C. �772 et seq.

A. Conservation

Since the fishing industry could not exist without its main
resource--fish, it is of utmost importance that the resource be
protected from depletion. Laws protecting the resource from
depletion can be broken down into two categories: (1) research
and related activities, such as investigations and experiments,
designed to protect the resource; and (2) conservation measures.
The Secretary of Commerce is directed to do research or research-
related work as follows:

(1) 16 U.S.C. �742d--directs the Secretary to conduct
continuing investigations in the following: production and
flow to market of fish and fishery products; availability and
abundance and the biological requirements of fish resources;
competitive economic position of fish and fishery products;

APPENDIX I APPENDIX II

statistics On commercial and sport fishing; improvement of pro-
duction and marketing practice in regard to commercial species
and the conduct of educational and extension services relative
to commercial and sport fishing; and any other matters related
to fish operations deemed by the Secretary to be of public
interest.

(2) 16 U.S.C. �744--directs the Secretary to conduct
investigations and experiments relating to damage to fisheries
by dogfish and other predacious fishes and aquatic animals with
a view toward improving the situation and utilizing the predators.

(3) 16 U.S.C. �756--directs the Secretary to conduct
investigations and experiments necessary to direct and facilitate
conservation of fishery resources of the Columbia River and its
tributaries.

(4) 16 U.S.C. �758a--directs the Secretary to conduct
fishing explorations and such necessary related work as ocean-
ographical, biological and economic studies to insure maximum
development and utilization of the high seas fishery resources
of the United States and its island possessions in the tropical
and subtropical Pacific Ocean and intervening areas.

(5) 16 U.S.C. S760a--directs the Secretary to undertake
a comprehensive study of species of fish in the Atlantic Coast
area for the purpose of recommending appropriate measures, such
as season, catch, and gear limitations, for the development
and protection of such resources and their wisest utilization.

(6) 16 U.S.C. �760e--directs the Secretary to undertake
a comprehensive continuing study of migratory marine fish of
interest to recreational fishermen, including growth rates,
mortality rates and environmental influences in order to develop
conservation policies and management activities.

(7) 16 U.S.C. �1381--directs the Secretary to undertake
a research program for the improvement of fishing methods and
gear so as to reduce the incidental taking of marine mammals
in connection with commercial fishing.

(8) 33 U.S.C. �1441--directs the Secretary, in coordination
with the Secretary of Transportation, to initiate a comprehensive
and continuing program of research on effects of dumping material
into ocean waters or other coastal waters.

APPENDIX II APPENDIX II

(9) 33 U.S.C. S1442--directs the Secretary, in consul-
tation with other appropriate Federal authorities, to initiate
a comprehensive and continuing program of research with respect
to the possible long range effects of pollution, overfishing
and man-induced changes of ocean ecosystems.

(10) Section 304(e) of the 1976 Act provides:

"The Secretary shall initiate and maintain a
comprehensive program of fishery research to
carry out and further the purposes, policy, and
provisions of this Act. Such program shall be
designed to acquire knowledge and information,
including statistics, on fishery conservation
and management, including, but not limited to,
biological research concerning the interdepend-
ence of fisheries or stocks of fish, the impact
of pollution on fish, the impact of wetland and
estuarine degradation, and other matters bearing
upon the abundance and availability of fish."

In addition to the above mandated authority, the Secretary
of Commerce has discretionary authority to conduct research or
research-related activities as follows:

(1) 16 U.S.C. �661--authorizes the Secretary to make
surveys and investigations of the fish in the public domain.

(2) 16 U.S.C. �757b--authorizes the Secretary to conduct
investigations and research "as may be desirable" to carry out
programs pursuant to cooperative agreements with States for the
purpose of conserving and developing anadromous fishery resources
that are subject to depletion.

(3) 16 U.S.C. �1202--authorizes the Secretary to conduct
investigations and research, "as he deems necessary," of jelly-
fish with a view toward controlling or eliminating them.

In addition to statutes providing for research by the
Secretary of Commerce, statutes also provide for research by
others. For example, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized
to make such investigations "as he deems necessary" to determine
the effects of polluting substances on wildlife (16 U.S.C. �665),
and is directed to conduct a study and inventory of the Nation's

APPENDIX II APPENDIX II

estuaries considering, among other things, their value to marine,
anadromous and shell fisheries. 16 U.S.C. �1222. In addition,
research by other Federal authorities is provided for as follows:

(1) The Coast Guard is directed to conduct such oceanographic
research as may be in the national interest, 14 U.S.C. �94.

(2) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
is directed to study the effects of different chemicals (e.g.
insecticides) on fish and wildlife, 16 U.S.C. �742d-1.

(3) The Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and
Resources, is directed to study all aspects of marine science
in order to recommend an overall plan for an adequate national
oceanographic program, 33 U.S.C. �104.

(4) The National Science Foundation is directed to initiate
and support necessary research programs in the various fields
relating to development of marine resources, 33 U.S.C. �1123(b).

There are several instances in which the above enumerated
statutes are inconsistent or overlap with each other. For example:
16 U.S.C. �742d(4) and 16 U.S.C. �760e seem to overlap somewhat
since both deal with statistics related to sport fishing. They
could be combined into one statute dealing with sport fishing
statistics and research.

Methods and gear determined under section 1381 of Title 16
to be desirable to reduce incidental taking of marine mammals
are different from gear limitations determined under 16 U.S.C.
�760a to be desirable. To this extent they are inconsistent
and should refer to each other so that research called for under
each is conducted with consideration given to research called
for by the other; e.g., research on gear limitations to protect
marine mammals under section 1381 should take into consideration
gear limitations that would serve the purpose of developing and
protecting species as called for by section 760a.

14 U.S.C. �94 and 16 U.S.C. �758a overlap to the extent
that the Coast Guard might do oceanographic research related

APPENDIX II APPENDIX II

to fisheries. Perhaps section 94 should be amended to preclude
the Coast Guard from doing any research related to fisheries
that the Secretary of Commerce is authorized to pursue. The
Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources is
also directed to do oceanographic research under 33 U.S.C. �1104.

In addition to overlaps and inconsistencies, the problem
of determining whether a statute is to be administered by the
Secretary of Commerce or by the Secretary of the Interior exists
among research statutes. For example, 16 U.S.C. �742d(5), directs
the Secretary of the Interior to collect statistics on the nature
and availability of wildlife and it is not clear whether the
Secretary of Commerce may be authorized by this section to collect
certain statistics. Although most of the research called for by
section 742d appears, under the Reorganization Plan, to be the
responsibility of the Secretary of Commerce, the statute makes
reference only to the Secretary of Interior.

Another problem area, alluded to above, has resulted from
the relatively recent enactment of the Fish Conservation and
Management Act of 1976. The problem is to properly coordinate
existing laws with the 1976 Act. Section 760a of Title 16, which
provides for certain studies to recommend to the States measures
to be taken to protect and develop fish resources, could be
coordinated with the 1976 Act by amending it to refer to the
appropriate regional councils. These problems will be discussed
more generally below.

Congress might want to consider reorganization and recodifi-
cation of the research laws, clearly setting out duties and powers.

The second category of statutes dealing with protection
of the resource is conservation. Conservation statutes include

APPENIX-I APPENDIX II

those which prohibit, restrict or limit fishing in some way,
those aimed at improving the environment as a conservation
measure and other conservation measures. Conservation which
involves international treaties or conventions will be covered
separately.

Conservation statutes are many and varied. The more
significant ones are:

(1) 16 U.S.C. ��661-664--provides for conservation, main-
tenance, and management of wildlife (includes fish) resources
by providing that whenever any Government authority or anyone
with Government permission plans to modify any body of water,
such as by impounding, diverting or deepening it, such authority
must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department
of the Interior, and with the appropriate State authority, with
a view toward conservation of wildlife resources by preventing
loss of and damage to such resources, as well as providing for
the development and improvement thereof in connection with such
water-resource development. It is not clear whether any trans-
F ~~fer of function to the Secretary of Commerce has occurred here;
if it has not, Congress might want to consider it.

(2) 16 U.S.C. �667b--provides that real property under
the jurisdiction or control of a Federal agency and no longer
required by such agency may be utilized for wildlife conser-
vation purposes.

(3) 16 U.S.C. �755--directs the Secretary of Commerce to
establish salmon-cultural stations in the Columbia River Basin,
to improve feeding and spawning conditions, and to perform all
other activities necessary for the conservation of fish in the
Columbia River Basin.

(4) 16 U.S.C. ��757a and b--authorizes the Secretary of
the Interior (appears to have been transferred to the Secretary
of Commerce) to enter into cooperative agreements with States
to take action to conserve, develop, and enhance the anadromous
and Great Lakes fisheries.

(5) 16 U.S.C. �757f--directs the Secretary of the Interior
(or Commerce?) to make recommendations, based on certain studies,
to the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, concerning
the elimination or reduction of polluting substances detrimental

APPENDIX II APPENDIX II

to fish and wildlife in interstate or navigable waters. Congress
might want to consider transferring this function to the Adminis-
trator of EPA.

(6) 16 U.S.C. ��760-2 thru 760-12--authorizes, and in some
cases directs, the Secretary of the Interior to establish and
maintain certain hatcheries in certain States. Congress might
want to consider transferring this function to the Secretary
of the Interior.

(7) 16 U.S.C. �777 et seq.--directs the Secretary of the
Interior to cooperate with the States in projects designed for
the restoration and management of all species of fish which
have material value in connection with sport or recreation.

(8) 16 U.S.C. ��781-785--regulates landing, curing, and
sale of sponges taken from Gulf of Mexico and Straits of Florida
and establishes minimum size of sponges that may be taken.

(9) 16 U.S.C. �1201 et seq.--directs the Secretary of
Commerce to carry out a program to control and eliminate jelly-
fish to promote the fish and shellfish resources in U.S. coastal
waters and to promote and safeguard water-based recreation in
those waters.

(10) 16 U.S.C. ��1211-1213--provides for study and control
of "Crown of Thorns" starfish in the tropics of interest and
concern to the U.S. to conserve and protect coral reef resources
in the tropics.

(11) 16 U.S.C. �1221 et seA.--directs the Secretary of the
Interior to coordinate with the States to provide for protection,
conservation, and restoration of resources of the estuaries in
the United States. To the extent fisheries are affected, Congress
might want to consider transferring this function to the Secre-
tary of Commerce.

(12) 16 U.S.C. �1361 et seq.--provides for conservation
and protection of marine mammals through strict regulation of
and restriction on catching marine mammals (administered by the
Secretary of Commerce).

(13) 16 U.S.C. �1431 et seq.--authorizes the Secretary of
Commerce to designate as marine sanctuaries those ocean waters

APPENDIX II APPENDIX II

as far seaward as the outer edge of the Continental Shelf, as
he determines necessary, to preserve or restore such areas for
conservation, recreation, ecology, or esthetic value.

(14) 16 U.S.C. �1531 et seq.--provides for conservation
and protection of endangered species.

(15) Sections 301-305 of the 1976 Act--provide for formu-
lation and implementation of conservation and management plans
based on national standards established in section 301.

In addition to the above conservation-related statutes,
there are conservation statutes that implement international
conventions:

(1) 16 U.S.C. �772a et seq., International Pacific Halibut
Commission--regulates catching of halibut in the northern
Pacific Ocean and other waters.

(2) 16 U.S.C. �776 et seq., International Pacific Salmon
Fisheries Commission--regulates catching of sockeye salmon and
pink salmon in certain waters of the Pacific Ocean.

(3) 16 U.S.C. �916 et seq., International Whaling Commission
--regulates catching of whales.

(4) 16 U.S.C. �931 et seq., Great Lakes Fishery Commission--
regulates Great Lakes fisheries.

(5) 16 U.S.C. �951 et seq., Inter-American Tropical Tuna
Commission and the International Commission for the Scientific
Investigation of Tuna--regulates tuna fishing in the tropics.

(6) 16 U.S.C. �971 et seq., International Commission for
the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas--regulates tuna fishing in
the Atlantic.

(7) 16 U.S.C. �981 et seq., International Commission for
the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries--regulates fishing in the
northwest Atlantic Ocean.

(8) 16 U.S.C. �1021 et seq., International North Pacific
Fisheries Commission--regulates fishing in the North Pacific
Ocean.

APPENDIX II APPENDIX II

(9) 16 U.S.C. �1100b et seq.--implements shrimp fishing
treaty between U.S. and Brazil; regulates shrimp fishing carried
on in the vicinity of Brazil.

(10) 16 U.S.C. �1151 et seq., North Pacific Fur Seal
Commission--regulates taking of fur seals in the North Pacific
Ocean.

While there does not appear to be much inconsistency or
overlapping among the conservation-related laws, a few should
be mentioned:

(1) 16 U.S.C. �755 and 16 U.S.C. �1221 et seq., overlap
to the extent that section 755 makes for the Columbia River
Basin the specific provision that section 1221 makes generally
applicable to the Nation's entire estuary system.

(2) 16 U.S.C. ��757a and b authorize the Secretary of the
Interior (apparently transferred to Commerce), in cooperation
with the States, to undertake conservation measures with regard
to anadromous fisheries, while 16 U.S.C. �1221 et seq., directs
the Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation with the States,
to take conservation measures with regard to resources in the
estuaries of the U.S. Since anadromous fisheries are present in
some U.S. estuaries, management functions potentially overlap
between the Secretaries of Commerce and Interior. Congress might
want to reconcile this by qualifying 16 U.S.C. �1221 et seq.
to exclude regulation of anadromous fisheries, thus consolidating
the functions in the Secretary of Commerce. It has already been
suggested that Congress might want to consider transferring
management of the estuaries, to the extent it affects fisheries,
to the Secretary of Commerce.

(3) 16 U.S.C. S�757a and b and 16 U.S.C. �1221 et seq., also
overlap with 16 U.S.C. �777 et seq., which directs the Secretary
of the Interior, in cooperation with the States, to restore and
manage sport fisheries. To the extent that an anadromous fishery
is also a sport fishery (e.g., salmon), there is overlap that
should be recognized.

APPENDIX II APPENDIX II

the Marine Mammal Act is in addition to and not in contravention
of any international convention, treaty or agreement, or statute
implementing the same. This seems to mean that whalers are required
to obtain two licenses and pay two fees before they may hunt
whales--one is required under each act. It seems unnecessary
to require two licenses and two fees to perform the same act,
and if, in fact, only one license is required, the law should
be clarified.

As pointed out earlier, Congress may want to consider trans-
ferring from the Secretary of the Interior to the Secretary of
Commerce those functions required under 16 U.S.C. S�661-664
(unclear whether transfer has been made), 16 U.S.C. �S760-2
thru 760-12, and 16 U.S.C. S1221 et seq. In each case, the transfer
seems justified because the function to be transferred relates
to fisheries to such an extent that it should properly vest in
the authority in charge of fisheries--the Secretary of Commerce.
One other transfer is appropriate for consideration: transfer
from the Secretary of the Interior to the Administrator of EPA
the obligation under 16 U.S.C. �757f to make recommendations
concerning the elimination or reduction of polluting substances
detrimental to fish and wildlife.

B. Management Under the Fishery Conservation and Management
Act of 1976

The recently enacted Fishery Conservation and management
Act of 1976 goes beyond merely providing for conservation of
resources. Until passage of the 1976 Act there appeared to be
no overall management plan in the U.S. laws for U.S. fisheries.
This Act, however, establishes a comprehensive plan for managing
the fisheries. Title I establishes management authority of the
United States within a "fishery conservation zone" that extends
200 miles seaward from the coastline; Title II provides for
foreign fishing under certain conditions; and Title III estab-
lishes a national fishery management program for the conservation
and management of fishery resources subject to exclusive U.S.
fishery management authority.

APPENDIX II APPENDIX II

Title III establishes national standards for fishery con-
servation and management to be applied by new Regional Fishery
Management Councils and by the Secretary of Commerce in the pre-
paration of fishery management plans and regulations. The Secre-
tary of Commerce is directed to establish guidelines, based on
the national standards, to assist in the development of fishery
management plans.

The Act provides for eight Regional Fishery Management
Councils, each representing a different geographic coastal area
of the country. Each Council is directed to prepare a fishery
management plan for each fishery within its geographic juris-
diction to cover any fish over which the United States exer-
cises exclusive fishery management authority. Each plan must
require the submission of catch statistics and other pertinent
data to the Secretary of Commerce. Also, each plan is to (1)
specify the present and probable future condition of, and the
maximum sustainable yield and optimum yield from, the fishery
involved, and (2) assess and specify the capacity and extent to
which U.S. fishery vessels will harvest such optimum yield and
the portion which can be made available for foreign fishing.

The Secretary of Commerce is to review each fishery
management plan to determine whether it is consistent with the
national standards for fishery conservation and management,
the other provisions and requirements of the 1976 Act, and any
other applicable law. After the Secretary approves a Council-
prepared plan or, if one is not prepared, himself prepares a
plan, the Secretary shall implement the plan.

There are a few instances where the 1976 Act might be better
coordinated with other statutes:

(1) The Act should be coordinated with 16 U.S.C. �742(f),
which directs the Secretary of Commerce to determine policies
to carry out the laws relating to fish. He is directed to
develop measures to assure maximum sustainable production of
fish and to take steps to develop, advance, manage, conserve
and protect fisheries resources. Congress might want to consider
amending this provision to recognize the "optimum sustainable
yield" concept promoted by the 1976 Act and to coordinate it
with the concept of regional councils and regional planning.

(2) As previously mentioned, 16 U.S.C. �760a, which directs
the Secretary of Commerce to make certain Atlantic Coast studies,

APPENDIX II APPENDIX II

on which to base his recommendations to the States for develop-
ment and protection of Atlantic fisheries, might be amended to
address itself in some way to the regional councils.

C. Foreign Relations

The large number of international (bilateral and multi-
lateral) treaties, conventions, and agreements regarding fisheries
serves to indicate that fishery laws cannot be written without
recognizing and dealing with the rights of other countries. U.S.
laws that affect our foreign relations include:

(1) 16 U.S.C. �742g--provides for the Secretary of State to
cooperate and consult with the Secretary of Commerce and others
concerning matters of foreign affairs that affect fish products.

(2) 16 U.S.C. S�1081-1086--deals with the prohibition of
foreign fishing vessels in territorial waters of the United
States, but is repealed by 1976 Act.

(3) 16 U.S. ��1091-1094--establishes fisheries zones con-
tiguous to the territorial sea of the United States, that is,
12-mile jurisdiction, but is repealed by 1976 Act.

(4) 16 U.S.C. S�1100-1100a-3--prohibits the use of certain
small vessels in U.S. fisheries: until October 27, 1977, any
vessel constructed in a foreign country, used in a fishery of
such foreign country, and subsequently prohibited by such
foreign country from being used in such fishery, is prohibited
from being used in the same fishery in the United States.

(5) 16 U.S.C. �1378--directs the Secretary of Commerce, (and
in some cases the Secretary of the Interior) through the Secretary

APPENDIX II APPENDIX II

of State, to enter international agreements to protect marine
mammals, and to take other measures to promote an international
program to protect marine mammals.

(6) 16 U.S.C. �1538(c)--makes unlawful the violation of
any provision of the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.

(7) 19 U.S.C. �1323--grants the President authority to
increase the duty rate, not to exceed 50 percent above the rate
existing on July 1, 1934, on any fish that are the product of
a country that refuses to engage in negotiations relating to
use or conservation of fishery resources.

(8) 22 U.S.C. S�1971-1979--authorizes the Secretary of State
to take appropriate action to protect U.S. vessels seized by
foreign countries and provides for reimbursement to vessel owners
for losses sustained as a result of the seizure.

(9) 22 U.S.C. S2753(b)--prohibits foreign sales for a period
of one year to any country that seizes or fines an American
fishing vessel for fishing more than 12 miles from the coast
of thai country.

(10) 22 U.S.C. �2370(o)--provides for possible exclusion
from certain foreign assistance for countries that seize or
impose any penalty or sanction against any U.S. fishing vessel
on account of its fishing activities in international waters.

(11) 33 U.S.C. �1442(b)--grants the Secretary of Commerce
authority to act in conjunction with other countries in carrying
out a research program (under section 1442) on long-range effects
of pollution, overfishing, and man-induced changes of ocean
ecosystems.

(12) 46 U.S.C. �251--prohibits foreign vessels from landing
their fish catch in the United States.

(13) 46 U.S.C. ��310 and 311--require that the owner of any
U.S. fishing vessel who intends to touch and trade at any foreign
port must obtain permission from the Government to do so before
departing.

(14) Sections 201-204 of the 1976 Act--regulate foreign
fishing within 200 miles of the coastline of the United States

APPENDIX II APPENDIX II

and direct the Secretary of State to renegotiate existing
treaties that affect fishing in the fishery conservation zone.

Several comments concerning certain of these statutes: (1)
19 U.S.C. �1323, allowing the President to raise duty rates up
to 50 percent above the rate existing on July 1, 1934, could be
obsolete if the rates today have already reached that point; if
they have not, some adjustment of the base date might be warranted;
(2) several sections, such as 22 U.S.C. �2753(b) and 22 U.S.C.
�2370(o), provide for sanctions against foreign countries that
seize U.S. fishing vessels in international waters. Congress might
consider combining these and similar statutes into one law dealing
with the subject; and (3) the inconsistency of 16 U.S.C. �2753(b)
with the 200-mile limit established in the 1976 Act has already
been discussed.

In addition to the above statutes, import limitation
statutes and other commercial statutes, to be discussed below,
also affect foreign relations.

D. Laws Regulating the Industry

Since the fishing industry operates in interstate and foreign
commerce, it is subject to Federal regulation. The main areas
of Federal regulation are (1) domestic and foreign commercial
activities, (2) labor, and (3) vessels. For the most part, the
Department of Commerce administers laws regulating commercial
fishing activities. It is the duty of the Department of Commerce
"to foster, promote, and develop the * * * fishery industries
* * *."I

1. Regulation of the fishing industry in domestic and
foreign commerce

(1) 16 U.S.C. �772(b)--restricts halibut imports.

(2) 16 U.S.C. �776a(b)--restricts importing and exporting
Pacific salmon.

(3) 16 U.S.C. �781--apparently makes it unlawful to import
or export sponges less than five inches in diameter that are
caught outside State waters in the Gulf of Mexico or in the
Straits of Florida.

APPENDIX II APPENDIX II

(4) 16 U.S.C. ��851-856--restricts transporting black
bass in interstate or foreign commerce.

(5) 16 U.S.C. �916c(a)--restricts importing and exporting
whales.

(6) 16 U.S.C. �955(c)--calls for regulations restricting
importing and exporting tropical tuna.

(7) 16 U.S.C. �971e(a)(2)--restricts importing and exporting
Atlantic tuna.

(8) 16 U.S.C. �988(a)--restricts importing and exporting
fish of the Northwest Atlantic fisheries.

(9) 16 U.S.C. �1029(a)--restricts importing and exporting
fish of the North Pacific fisheries.

(10) 16 U.S.C. �1100b-6--restricts transshipping shrimp
off the coast of Brazil.

(11) 16 U.S.C. �1171(a)--appears to restrict importing
and exporting sea otters.

(12) 16 U.S.C. �1371 et seq.--restricts importing marine
mammals.

(13) 16 U.S.C. �1538--prohibits importing or exporting
endangered species of fish or wildlife; further prohibits
delivering, receiving, carrying, transporting, shipping, or
selling or offering to sell any such species in interstate
or foreign commerce.

(14) 22 U.S.C. �1978--restricts importing fishery products
from countries that do not cooperate in international fishery
conservation.

(15) �205 of the 1976 Act--restricts importing fish
and fish products from countries that do not cooperate in
international fishery agreements.

In addition to statutes regulating foreign commerce,
the following statutes regulate domestic commerce:

APPENDIX II APPENDIX II

(1) 16 U.S.C. �772b(f)--restricts use of Northern
Pacific halibut.

(2) 16 U.S.C. �776a(b)--restricts use of Pacific salmon
in interstate commerce.

(3) 16 U.S.C. �781--prohibits sale of commercial sponges
less than five inches in diameter.

(4) 16 U.S.C. ��851-856--restricts transporting black
bass in interstate or foreign commerce.

(5) 16 U.S.C. �916c(a)--restricts sales of whales and
whale products.

(6) 16 U.S.C. �971e(a)(2)--restricts sale of Atlantic
tuna.

(7) 16 U.S.C. �988(a)--restricts sale of fish of North-
west Atlantic fisheries.

(8) 16 U.S.C. S1029(a)--restricts sale of fish of North
Pacific fisheries.

(9) 16 U.S.C. �1171(a)--restricts sale of sea otters.

(10) 16 U.S.C. �1372(a)(3) and (4)--restricts sale and
other commercial use of marine mammals.

(11) 16 U.S.C. �1538--restricts sale and other
commercial use of endangered species.

(12) 7 U.S.C. �1621 et seq.--regulates marketing of
agricultural products, which includes fish produced through
agriculture.

(13) 15 U.S.C. ��521 and 522--authorize persons engaged
in the fishing industry to act together in associations in
collectively catching, producing, preparing for market, pro-
cessing, handling and marketing their products in interstate
and foreign commerce, so long as such association does not
monopolize or restrain trade in interstate or foreign commerce.

APPENDIX II APPENDIX II

(14) 15 U.S.C. S��713c-2 and 3--provide for purchase and
distribution of surplus fishery products by the Secretary of
Agriculture and promotion by the Secretary of the Interior of
free flow of domestically produced fishery products.

(15) 21 U.S.C. �301 et seq. --regulates sanitary conditions
in the food (including fish) industry.

(16) 21 U.S.C. S372a--provides for voluntary inspection
of sea food upon request of any sea food packer.

(17) 21 U.S.C. �374--authorizes the Secretary of HEW
to inspect establishments that manufacture, process, pack,
or hold for introduction into interstate commerce, any food
(including fish) products.

The word "restricts" as used in the above listing of stat-
utes means that it is unlawful to carry on the activity specified
(e.g., importing, selling, etc.) except as delineated in the
relevant statute; at the very least, the statute usually requires
a permit.

While several of the above statutes--16 U.S.C. ��781, 772b,
955c, 1171(a), for example--prohibit possession, sale, etc.,
of the described species, they do not specifically prohibit
"importing" or "exporting" those species. If Congress intended
these statutes to prohibit importing or exporting the named
species, consideration should be given to clarifying them,
at least when the conventions, agreements, or treaties are
renegotiated. If importation and exportation were not intended
to be prohibited, Congress might want to make that clear.

In the case of 16 U.S.C. �1100b-6, which restricts shrimping
off the coast of Brazil, the statute does not appear to prohi-
bit importing or otherwise trading or selling shrimp caught in
violation of the law. In this regard, Congress might consider
strengthening the law by prohibiting such activities.

Congress might also want to consider clarifying or
strengthening 16 U.S.C. ��772b, 781, and 955(c) by specifically
prohibiting sales or other commercial use of the species in
question.

While 21 U.S.C. ��372a and 374 provide for fish inspection,
it is not mandatory. Congress might want to consider making fish

APPENDIX II APPENDIX II

inspection mandatory in much the same way that it has imposed
mandatory inspection upon certain phases of poultry and meat
processing. See 21 U.S.C. �451 et seq. and 21 U.S.C. �601 et s
respectively.

Under 15 U.S.C. �713c-2, the Secretary of Agriculture is
to provide for the purchase and distribution of surplus fishery
products. Under 15 U.S.C. �713c-3, the Secretary of the Interior
is to promote the flow of domestically-produced fishery products.
Congress may want to consider transferring one or both of these
functions to the Secretary of Commerce; if it has already done
so, the statute or statutes should be amended to reflect the
transfer.

Section 205 of the 1976 Act and 22 U.S.C. �1978 overlap
to the extent that section 205 encompasses the section 1978
restriction on fish imports from countries that do not cooperate
in international fishery conservation. Congress might wish
to consider amending section 1978.

2. Laws regulating labor in the fishing industry

(1) 29 U.S.C. �213(a)(5)--fishermen and other people
employed in other facets of the fishing industry are exempt from
coverage of the minimum wage and maximum hour provision of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

(2) 46 U.S.C. S�531-533--regulates employment during
fishing voyages, requiring written agreement for certain voyages.

(3) 46 U.S.C. �601--protects wages of fishermen from
garnishment.

(4) 46 U.S.C. �688--provides remedy for fishermen injured
on fishing vessels and guarantees right to jury trial.

(5) 46 U.S.C. �761--provides remedy for wrongful death on
high seas.

3. Regulation of vessels

Title 46 of the United States Code, which deals with shipping,
provides for such matters as registration, enrollment, licensing,
and inspection of U.S. vessels. Not all provisions apply to

APPENDIX II APPENDIX II

fishing vessels. For example, section 367 exempts fishing vessels
from laws governing inspection of steam vessels. Many of the
laws that regulate vessels have been enacted for the benefit and
protection of U.S. vessels, including fishing vessels. Section
251, for example, provides that only enrolled U.S. vessels are
entitled to the privileges of vessels employed in the coasting
trade or fisheries, and except as otherwise provided by treaty or
convention, no foreign vessel may land its catch in the United
States. The abbreviated study made of this area showed no incon-
sistencies or overlaps in laws affecting vessels employed in
the fishing industry.

E. Reporting Requirements

There are several areas where the Secretary of Commerce is
authorized or directed to take certain action relative to the
U.S. fisheries and then report progress made in that area to
the Congress, the President or to some other party.

(1) 16 U.S.C. �742d--directs the Secretary to make
periodic reports to the public, to the President, and to Congress
on the following: production and flow to market of fish and
fishery products; availability and abundance and the biological
requirements of fish resources; competitive economic position
of fish and fishery products; statistics on commercial and
sport fishing; improvement of production and marketing prac-
tices in regard to commercial species and the conduct of educa-
tional and extension services relative to commercial and sport
fishing; and any other matters related to fish operations
deemed by the Secretary to be of public interest.

(2) 16 U.S.C. �742h:

"(a) The Secretary of the Interior shall
make an annual report to the Congress with
respect to activities of the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service under sections
742a to 742d and 742e to 742j of this title,
and shall make such recommendations for addi-
tional legislation as he deems necessary.
"(b) The Secretary is authorized to make
a report to the President and the Congress,
and, when requested by the United States
Tariff Commission in connection with section

APPENDIX II APPENDIX II

1364 of Title 19, or when an investigation
is made under the Tariff Act of 1930, the
Secretary is authorized to make a report to
such Commission, concerning the following
matters with respect to any fishery product
which is imported into the United States,
or such reports may be made upon a request
from any segment of the domestic industry
producing a like or directly competitive
product--
"(1) whether there has been a downward
trend in the production, employment in the
production, or prices, or a decline in the
sales, of the like or directly competitive
product by the domestic industry; and
"(2) whether there has been an increase
in the imports of the fishery products into
the United States, either actual or relative
to the production of the like or directly
competitive product produced by the domestic
industry."

The transfer of functions under Reorganization Plan No. 4 makes
most of the reporting required by section 742h the duty of the
Secretary of Commerce.

(3) 16 U.S.C. �744--directs the Secretary of Commerce to
submit annually to Congress a detailed statement of expenditures
under all appropriations for "propagation of food fishes."

(4) 16 U.S.C. �757b--the Secretary is directed to report
to the States, Congress, and Federal water resources construction
agencies on studies to conserve, develop, and enhance the anadro-
mous and Great Lakes fisheries.

(5) 16 U.S.C. �760f--authorizes (does not direct) the
Secretary to report to the public the results of research on
migratory marine fish of interest to recreational fishermen, con-
ducted pursuant to �760e.

(6) 33 U.S.C. �1442(c)--the Secretary is directed to
report to Congress on the results of research, conducted pur-
suant to this section, on possible long-range effects of pollu-
tion, overfishing, and man-induced changes of ocean ecosystems.

APPENDIX II APPENDIX II

Congress might want to consider consolidating, or at least
summarizing in one single place, the reporting that is required
(mandatory) of the Secretary of Commerce. In addition, section
742h, and possibly other sections, could be clarified by separating
reports required of the Secretary of Commerce from those required
of the Secretary of the Interior. This is another instance where
the statute's failure to reflect the transfer of functions under
Reorganization Plan No. 4 creates ambiguities.

III. FEDERAL ASSISTANCE

Federal assistance for the benefit of U.S. fisheries is
provided in various forms to both the States and the fishing
industry itself.

A. States

The law provides for financial assistance to the States
as follows:

(1) 16 U.S.C. S777c--provides for apportionment of funds
by the Secretary of the Interior (transferred to Secretary of
Commetce) among States for fish restoration and management
projects.

(2) 16 U.S.C. �779 et seq.--provides for apportionment of
funds by the Secretary of Commerce among the States to carry out
projects designed for the research and development of the com-
mercial fisheries resources of the nation.

(3) 16 U.S.C. �1223--authorizes the Secretary of the
Interior to share the cost of managing, developing, and admin-
istering any area, lands, or interest therein within an estuary
and adjacent lands which are owned or thereafter acquired by a
State or by any political subdivision thereof.

(4) 16 U.S.C. �1379(b)--authorizes grants to States to
assist them in developing and implementing State programs for
the protection and management of marine mammals.

(5) 16 U.S.C. �1454--authorizes grants to coastal states
to assist in developing a management program for the land and
water resources of its coastal zone.

APPENDIX II APPENDIX II

(6) 16 U.S.C. �1455--authorizes grants to coastal states
for not more than two-thirds the cost of administering a coastal
management program.

(7) 16 U.S.C. �1461--authorizes grants to coastal states
of up to half the cost of acquiring, developing, and operating
estuarine sanctuaries for the purpose of studying natural and
human processes occurring within the estuaries of the coastal
zone.

In addition to direct financial assistance to the States
in the fisheries area, the Federal Government provides other
types of assistance to the States pursuant to Federal statute:

(1) 16 U.S.C. �661--authorizes the Secretary of the Interior
(with some functions transferred to the Secretary of Commerce)
to "provide assistance to, and cooperate with, * * * State * *
agencies and organizations in the development, protection,
rearing, and stocking of all species of wildlife, resources
thereof, and their habitat, in controlling losses of the same
from disease or other causes, in minimizing damages from over-
abundant species * * *."

(2) 16 U.S.C. �667b--authorizes use of federally-owned
property for wildlife conservation purposes by the States.

(3) 16 U.S.C. �753a--authorizes the Secretary of the
Interior or the Secretary of Commerce, as appropriate, to enter
into cooperative agreements with States to develop research
and training programs for fish and wildlife resources. Federal
participation is limited to assigning Federal personnel to serve
at cooperative research units, supplying certain equipment,
and paying incidental expenses of Federal personnel.

(4) 16 U.S.C. �757a--authorizes the Secretary of the Interior
(with transfer of functions to the Secretary of Commerce) to enter
into cooperative agreements with one or more States for the con-
servation, development, and enhancement of the anadromous fishery
resources of the nation.

(5) 16 U.S.C. �760a--directs the Secretary of Commerce to
study fish of the Atlantic coast in order to recommend to the
coastal States appropriate measures for the development and
protection of such resource.

APPENDIX II APPENDIX II

(6) 16 U.S.C. ��760-2 thru 760-12--provide for construction
and operation of fish hatcheries in several different States.

(7) 16 U.S.C. �777--directs the Secretary of the Interior
(with transfer of function to the Secretary of Commerce) to
cooperate with the States in fish restoration and management
projects. While this is mostly in the form of financial assist-
ance, there is provision (see section 777h) for use of Govern-
ment personnel and other forms of assistance for these projects.

(8) 16 U.S.C. �1201 et seq.--the Secretary of Commerce is
authorized to cooperate with and provide assistance to the States
in controlling and eliminating jellyfish.

(9) 16 U.S.C. �1221 et seq.--provides for non-financial,
as well as financial, assistance to the States to develop the
Nation's estuaries.

(10) 16 U.S.C. �1380--authorizes grants or other financial
assistance to States to assist in research relevant to the protec-
tion and conservation of marine mammals.

B. Industry

In addition to providing assistance to the States, Federal
law provides for assistance, financial and otherwise, to the
fishing industry. Financial assistance (direct and indirect) to
members of private industry is provided as follows:

(1) 16 U.S.C. �742c--authorizes the Secretary of the Interior
(with transfer of functions to the Secretary of Commerce) to make
loans for financing or refinancing the cost of purchasing, con-
structing, equipping, maintaining, repairing, or operating new
or used commercial fishing vessels or gear.

(2) 16 U.S.C. 5760d--authorizes the Secretary of Commerce
to make grants to public and nonprofit private universities and
colleges to promote the education and training of professionally
trained personnel (including scientists, technicians, and teachers)
needed in the field of commercial fishing.

(3) 19 U.S.C. �1309 and 26 U.S.C. �4221--provide exemption
from customs duties and internal revenue (excise) taxes for supplies
of vessels of the United States employed in the fisheries or in
the whaling business.

APPENDIX II APPENDIX II

(4) 22 U.S.C. 5�1973 and 1977--provide financial assistance
(reimbursement) to fishermen for certain financial charges and
losses sustained as the result of seizure by a foreign country
outside that country's territorial waters.

(5) 46 U.S.C. S1177--allows owners or lessors of vessels
to enter into agreements with the Secretary of Commerce to
establish a capital construction fund, contributions to which
are tax deductible, to provide replacement vessels, additional
vessels, or reconstructed vessels, built in the United States
for operation in the fisheries of the United States.

(6) 46 U.S.C. �1271 et seq.--authorizes the Secretary of
Commerce to guarantee obligations that aid in financing or refi-
nancing construction, reconstruction, or reconditioning of vessels
owned by U.S. citizens for use in, among others, the fishing
trade or industry; and financing or refinancing the purchase
of vessels acquired by the Secretary as a result of payment
on a defaulted loan.

(7) 46 U.S.C. �1401 et seq.--authorizes the Secretary of
the Interior to subsidize the construction of fishing vessels
in the shipyards of the United States. No applications for such
subsidies were to be accepted after June 30, 1972.

Federal assistance to industry is provided for in forms
other than financial assistance:

(1) 7 U.S.C. �612c and 15 U.S.C. S�713c-2 and 3--promote
certain commercial activities for fish products.

(2) 16 U.S.C. �661--authorizes the Secretary of the Interior
(with transfer of functions to the Secretary of Commerce) to
provide assistance to, and to cooperate with, Federal, State, and
public or private agencies and organizations in the development,
protection, rearing, and stocking of all species of wildlife,
resources thereof, and their habitat, in controlling losses of
the same from disease or other causes, and in minimizing damages
from overabundant species.

(3) 16 U.S.C. �1538--exempts fish importers and exporters
from certain requirements of the Endangered Species Act.

(4) 22 U.S.C. S1971 et seq.--provides for protection of
U.S. fishing vessels seized by foreign countries and directs the

APPENDIX II APPENDIX II

Secretary of State to take action for the welfare and release
of U.S. vessels and fishermen.

(5) 46 U.S.C. ��367 and 404--exempt fishing vessels from
required inspection of steam vessels.

(6) 46 U.S.C. �601--prohibits attachment of wages of
fishermen.

The Federal statutes thus provide for various forms of
assistance to benefit the U.S. fisheries. Direct financial
assistance to the industry breaks down into three basic forms--
subsidies (46 U.S.C. �1401 et seq.), loans (16 U.S.C. �742c),
and loan guarantees (46 U.S.C. �1271 et seq.). The subsidy and
loan programs pertain only to fishing vessels, while the loan
guarantee program is for the benefit of other vessels as well.
Congress might want to consider an overall review of these direct
assistance programs to consider the following questions:

(1) Should they all be within the same title of the United
States Code? Presently, the loan program is under title 16 and
the other two are under title 46.

(2) Should a separate loan guarantee program for fishing
vessels be established?

(4) Should the 1972 date beyond which applications for
subsidies were not to be accepted, be extended again?

IV. ENFORCEMENT AND SANCTIONS

Laws would have little impact if there were no provision for
sanctions and enforcement. The following departments and agencies
have enforcement responsibility over the following fishery-related
laws:

APPENDIX II APPENDIX II

(1) 14 U.S.C. �2--establishes general enforcement powers
of the Coast Guard as follows:

"The Coast Guard shall enforce or assist
in the enforcement of all applicable Federal
laws on and under the high seas and waters
subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States; shall administer laws and promul-
gate and enforce regulations for the pro-
motion of safety of life and property on and
under the high seas and waters subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States covering
all matters not specifically delegated by law
to some other executive department; * * *"

(2) 16 U.S.C. �772d--directs the Coast Guard, the Customs
Service, and NOAA to enforce the Northern Pacific Halibut Act
(16 U.S.C. �772 et seq.).

(3) 16 U.S.C. �776d--directs the President to designate
a Federal agency to be responsible for enforcing the Sockeye
Salmon or Pink Salmon Fishing Act of 1947 (16 U.S.C. �776 et seq.).

(4) 16 U.S.C. �785--directs the Secretary of Commerce to
enforce the law prohibiting taking of sponges of specified sizes
(16 U.S.C. �781 et seq.).

(5) 16 U.S.C. �852d--directs personnel of the Secretary of
the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce, as appropriate, to
enforce the law that regulates transportation of black bass.

(6) 16 U.S.C. �916j--directs the Secretary of Commerce
to enforce the Whaling Convention Act of 1949.

(7) 16 U.S.C. �959(b)--makes the Coast Guard, the Department
of Commerce, and the Bureau of Customs responsible for enforcing
the Tuna Conventions Act of 1950, and the Secretary of Transpor-
tation, in cooperation with the Secretary of Commerce, responsible
for enforcing the provisions relating to vessels engaged in
whaling.

(8)-16 U.S.C. S971d--directs the Secretary of Commerce to
enforce the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act of 1975, while making
enforcement activities at sea under this Act the responsibility
of the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is

APPENDIX II APPENDIX II

operating (in peacetime, the Department of Transportation), in
cooperation with the Secretary of Commerce and the Customs Service.

(9) 16 U.S.C. �986--directs the Secretary of Commerce
to enforce the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Act of 1950, while
making enforcement activities relating to vessels engaged in
fishing the responsibility of the Secretary of the department
in which the Coast Guard is operating, in cooperation with the
Secretary of Commerce.

(10) 16 U.S.C. S�1025a and 1027(a)--directs the Secretary of
Commerce to enforce the North Pacific Fisheries Act of 1954, while
making enforcement of activities relating to vessels engaged in
fishing the responsibility of the department in which the Coast
Guard is operating, in cooperation with the Secretary of Commerce.

(11) 16 U.S.C. �1083(a)--makes enforcement of the law prohi-
biting foreign fishing vessels in U.S. territorial waters the
responsibility of the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of the
Treasury, and the Secretary of the department in which the Coast
Guard is operating. This section was repealed by the 1976 Act.

(12) 16 U.S.C. �1100a-l(b)--makes enforcement of the law
prohibiting certain foreign vessels in U.S. fisheries the respon-
sibility of the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of the
department in which the Coast Guard is operating.

(13) 16 U.S.C. �1100b-8--directs the Secretary of Commerce,
the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is
operating, and the Secretary of the Treasury to enforce the Off-
shore Shrimp Fisheries Act of 1973.

(14) 16 U.S.C. �1182--makes enforcement of the Fur Seal
Act of 1966 the responsibility of the Secretary of the Interior,
the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of the Treasury, and
the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is
operating.

(15) 16 U.S.C. �1377(a)--directs the Secretary of Commerce
to enforce the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972.

(16) Section 311 of the 1976 Act--"The provisions of this
Act shall be enforced by the Secretary [of Commerce] and the
Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating

APPENDIX II APPENDIX II

The enforcement laws are consistent in selecting the
Department of Commerce and the Coast Guard as the primary bodies
to enforce the fishery laws. Certain arrest and seizure powers
usually are granted by statute to the enforcing agency. Along
with enforcement statutes, sanctions or penalties are prescribed,
usually a fine and/or imprisonment. The maximum amounts of
fines prescribed under older statutes may not be appropriate
today due to inflation. For example, 16 U.S.C. �772e calls for
a fine of not more than $1,000 for violation of the Northern
Pacific Halibut Act of 1937. $1,000 today is certainly not equiv-
alent to $1,000 in 1937 and it might be more appropriate to impose
higher fines today. The fine for catching certain size sponges,
up to $500 (16 U.S.C. �783), has not been changed since its enact-
ment in 1914. In addition to considering amendment of these
two provisions, Congress might want to consider amending the
following statutes because the fines they authorize may also
be outdated: 16 U.S.C. �S666a, 772f, 776c, 853, 916e and f, 989,
and 46 U.S.C. �319.

V. CONCLUSION

The fishery laws, generally, could be improved with some
reorganization, recodification, and clarification.

First, Congress might consider reorganizing and recodifying
most of the fishery laws under one title of the United States Code.
While many of the laws are now in title 16, many others are scat-
tered throughout other titles (e.g., titles 15 and 46) of the Code.
Either title 15 or title 16 would be a logical place for the
fishery laws, with a separate chapter or chapters on fisheries.
Of course, there are laws that pertain to fisheries that also
pertain to other matters and would be best left in place.

Further, in recodifying the laws, the powers and the duties
and responsibilities of the Secretary of Commerce could be clearly
defined to reflect the transfer of functions under Reorganization

APPENDIX II APPENDIX II

Plan No. 4 of 1970. For example, 16 U.S.C. �742h, which lists
a variety of Fish and Wildlife Reports to be made by the Secretary
of the Interior, has been changed by the Reorganization Plan.
The statute does not reflect this change except for a note at
the end of the provision that does not help define the functions
transferred to the Secretary of Commerce without reference to
the Reorganization Plan itself, whi~ch does not, in all cases,
completely clarify matters. A provision of law like section
742h could be divided into two separate statutes--one designating
wildlife reports required of the Secretary of the Interior and
the other designating fish reports required of the Secretary
of Commerce. Many laws could be changed in the same way.

APPENDIX II APPENDIX II

Popular Names of Laws

U.S. Code citation
appearing in text Popular name of law

7 U.S.C. �1011 Food and Agriculture Act of 1962

7 U.S.C. �1621 et seq. Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946

15 U.S.C. �713c-3 Fishery Products Act

16 U.S.C. ��460k-460k-1 Refuge Recreation Act

16 U.S.C. �4601-12 Federal Water Project Recreation
Act

16 U.S.C. ��661-667e Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

16 U.S.C. ��694-694b Fish and Game Sanctuary Act

16 U.S.C. S��742a-754 Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956

16 U.S.C. �744 Predacious Fishes Act

16 U.S.C. ��755-757 Columbia Basin Fishery Development
Act

16 U.S.C. ��757a-757f Anadromous Fish Conservation Act

16 U.S.C. ��758-758d Farrington Fishery Resources Act

16 U.S.C. ��772-772i Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1937

16 U.S.C. S��776-776f Salmon Fishery Act, also referred
to as Sockeye Salmon Fishery Act
of 1947

16 U.S.C. ��777c, Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Act
777e-777g, 777k Amendments of 1970

16 U.S.C. ��781-785 Sponge Act

16 U.S.C. ��835, Columbia River Basin Project Act
835c-835c-2, 835c-4

APPENDIX II APPENDIX II

16 U.S.C. ��851-856 Black Bass Act

16 U.S.C. S�916-9161 Whaling Convention Act of 1949

16 U.S.C. ��971-971h Atlantic Tuna Conventions Act of
1975

16 U.S.C. ��981-991 Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Act
of 1950

16 U.S.C. ��1021-1023, North Pacific Fisheries Act of 1954
1025-1032

16 U.S.C. ��1051-1058 National Fisheries Center and
Aquarium Act

16 U.S.C. ��1081-1086 Bartlett Act (three-mile fishery
jurisdiction)

16 U.S.C. ��1091-1094 Bartlett Act (twelve-mile fishery
jurisdiction)

16 U.S.C. ��1100b-llOO1b-10 Offshore Shrimp Fisheries Act of
1973

16 U.S.C. ��1151-1159, Fur Seal Act of 1966
1161-1168, 1171-1172,
1181-1187

16 U.S.C. ��1221-1226 Estuarine Areas Act

16 U.S.C. S�1361, 1362, Marine Mammal Protection Act of
1371, 1381, 1384, 1972
1401-1407

16 U.S.C. ��1451-1464 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972

16 U.S.C. ��1531-1543 Endangered Species Act of 1973

21 U.S.C. �301 et seq. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act

22 U.S.C. ��1971-1979 Fishermen's Protective Act of 1967

22 U.S.C. �2730(o) The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961,
1965 Amendment

22 U.S.C. �2753(b) Foreign Military Sales Act

APPENDIX II APPENDIX II

29 U.S.C. �213(a)(5) Maximum wage and maximum hours
provisions of Fair Labor Standards
Act

33 U.S.C. �1104 Marine Rtsources and Engineering
Act of 1966

33 U.S.C. �1123 National Sea Grant College and
Program Act of 1966

33 U.S.C. ��1441-1442 Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972

43 U.S.C. �1312 Submerged Lands Act

46 U.S.C. �11 Registry Acts

46 U.S.C. �251 Coasting and Fishing Act

46 U.S.C. �259 Enrollment of Vessels Act

46 U.S.C. ��319, 325 Anti-Smuggling Act

46 U.S.C. ��531-534 Motor Boat Act of 1940

46 U.S.C. �601 Seamen's Act of 1915

46 U.S.C. ��1159, 1177 Merchant Marine Act of 1970

46 U.S.C. ��1271-1276, Federal Ship Financing Act of 1972
1279a and b

46 U.S.C. ��1401-1413 United States Fishing Fleet
Improvement Act

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

PROFILES OF IMPORTANT U.S. FISHERIES

CLAMS
The clam is a bivalve mollusk found buried in subtidal
or intertidal beach and mud flats out to depths of over 30
fathoms. The shells which encase the clam's body are joined
together at the back by a hinge usually visable from the
outside. Two prominent features of the clam's body are the
foot and siphon or "neck." The muscular foot aids the clam
in digging up or down in the soft sand or mud. The retract-
able siphon is a tubelike extension taking water in and out
of the clam. In some species the siphon consists of the two
tubes. The incoming water brings food and oxygen to the
clam; the outgoing water carries the waste products away.
In the United States almost all the clam production comes
from New England, Middle Atlantic, and Chesapeake Bay States.
The Pacific coast commercial clam production comes primarily
from Washington and is small, accounting for about 1.3 per-
cent of total 1973 landings. However, potential exists to
increase Pacific coast clam production, especially from the
underused clam resources of Alaska.

Along the Atlantic coast the three clam species ranking
highest in commercial importance are known as hard clams,
soft clams, and surf clams. Hard clams are highest in value
while surf clams are largest in volume. Most of the hard
clam fishery landings are recorded in Middle Atlantic States
of New York and New Jersey. Hard clam landings valued at
$16.9 million, using exvessel prices, ranked this fishery
sixth among Atlantic coast fisheries in 1973. Surf clams
are harvested predominantly in the Middle Atlantic and
Chesapeake Bay areas with New Jersey and Virginia leading
in production. With landings valued at $9.8 million in
1973, this fishery ranked eighth among Atlantic coast fish-
eries. New England and Chesapeake Bay States are the pri-
mary soft clam production areas. In recent years Maine has
produced most of the soft clams. The soft clam fishery
ranked 11th among Atlantic coast fisheries in 1973 with
landings valued at $6.9 million.

STATUS OF FISHERIES

Current harvest

Landings of hard, soft, surf, and other clams in 1975
were 111 million pounds worth a record $41 million. The .
quantity landed in 1975 is lower than record landings of
119.9 million pounds in 1974. This decrease was due prin-
cipally to a decline in surf clam landings from a record
level of 96.1 million pounds in 1974 to 86.9 million pounds.
Landings and value of the clam fisheries from 1965 to 1975
are shown in Table 1.
44

TABLE 1
z

H
U.S. Landings and Value of Clams by Major Species 1965-1975 x
H
(Meat weight) H

Year Hard Soft Surf Other Total

Pounds Value Pounds Value Pounds Value Pounds Value Pounds Value

(000 omitted)

1965 15,044 $9,943 11,308 $3,381 44,088 $ 3,197 409 $212 70,849 $16,733
1966 15,324 10,524 11,919 3,974 45,113 3,876 395 177 72,751 18,551
1967 16,182 11,981 9,823 3,936 45,054 4,352 441 217 71,500 20,486

1968 15,426 12,176 10,368 4,189 40,552 4,137 900 226 67,246 25,728
1969 16,154 13,445 13,481 5,555 49,575 5,913 1,535 326 80,745 25,238
1970 16,015 14,344 12,908 5,982 67,318 7,730 2,963 735 99,204 28,791

1971 16,666 16,918 12,652 6,798 52,535 6,890 2,636 700 84,489 31,306
1972 16,153 19,220 9,078 5,563 63,471 7,941 1,987 491 90,689 33,215

1973 14,505 17,361 8,627 6,905 82,370 9,867 2,038 525 107,540 34,658
1974 15,008 19,918 8,394 6,801 96,110 12,211 197 74 119,909 39,004
(Note a)

1975 14,827 20,436 8,759 7,729 86,919 12,556 524 275 111,029 40,996
(Note a) M

a/ Preliminary data

data~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Surf clams have recently accounted for over 75 percent of
total clam landings but only about 30 percent of the total
value. Virginia, for the fourth consecutive year, led in surf
clam landings with 39.1 million pounds, a 33-percent decrease
from 1974. New Jersey was second with 35.6 million pounds of
meats, a 57-percent increase over 1974. These two States
have historically accounted for the majority of surf clam
landings. Table 2 shows 1975 clam landings by State. The
majority of surf clams in recent years have been caught in
offshore waters. For years 1973, 1974, and 1975 preliminary
data shows that 88.2 percent, 77.4 percent, and 50.9 percent,
respectively, were landed beyond 3 miles off the coast.

Hard clam landings have been consistently between 14 to
17 million pounds annually and have averaged about 15 percent
of the total clam catch. This species, however, has accounted
for about 50 percent of the value of all clam landings. New
York, with over half of the catch, is the leading hard-clam-
producing State; New Jersey is second. Hard clams are har-
vested almost entirely within 3 miles of the coast. Less
than 1 percent were harvested beyond this distance in years
1973 to 1975.

In 1975 Maine continued as the leading soft-clam-produc-
ing State with about 75 percent of the total landings of 8.8
million pounds. Maryland was the leading soft-clam-producing
State until 1972 when Hurricane Agnes caused extensive damage
to the resource. Since that time production has been relative-
ly low. For example, 1975 preliminary data shows Maryland's
landings at about 1.1 million pounds in comparison to 6 million
pounds landed in 1971.

Washington in 1975 produced about 99 percent of total
Pacific coast hard and soft clam landings of 670,000 pounds
valued at $342,000. All clam landings along the Pacific
coast were obtained inside 3 miles of the shore.

Several other clam species comprise the "other clam"
category, including the cockle, geoduck, ocean quahog, rangia,
razor, and sunray venus. In 1975 landings for this group
amounted to 524,000 pounds and were valued at $275,000 or
about 1 percent of domestic production.

The surf clam is the only major clam resource harvested
beyond 12 miles off the coast, and since it has the protec-
tion of being a continental shelf fishery resource, there is
no foreign directed clam fishery off the U.S. coasts.

Fishing fleet

Surf clams are harvested using vessels towing
dredges. The hydraulic jet dredge is the main
piece of surf-clam-harvesting gear. Dredges are towed

TABLE 2

1975 Clam Landings by State (note a)
(Meat weight excluding the shell)

Percent
States Surf clam Hard clam Soft clam Other clams __ Total value
Pounds Value Pounds Value Pounds Value Pounds Value Pounds Value
-- --------- (000 omitted)------- ----
New England:

Maine - - 8 17 6,547 5,692 - - ,555 5,709 13.9
New Hampshire - - - - - - - -
Massachusetts 20 9 850 1,020 750 700 - - 1,620 1,729 4.2
Rhode Island 16 4 1,120 1,422 16 20 - 1,152 1,446 3.5
Connecticut - - 251 115 - - - 251 115 .3

Middle Atlantic:

New York 4,580 768 8,668 14,301 63 76 3 1 13,314 15,146 37.0
New Jersey 35,550 4,720 1,620 1,651 169 141 - - 37,339 6,512 15.9
Delaware 2,314 362 70 7 - - - - 2,384 369 .9

Chesapeake Bay:

Maryland 5,351 1,011 58 45 1,057 1,015 - - 6,466 2,071 5.1
Virginia 39,088 5,682 1,088 1,022 - - - - 40,176 6,704 16.4

South Atlantic:

North Carolina - - 285 226 - - - - 285 226 .6
South Carolina - - 176 221 - - - 176 221 .5
Georgia - - - - - - -
Florida - - 120 132 - - - - 120 132 .3

Pacific Coast:

Alaska - - - - - - 11 19 11 19 -
Washington - - 510 255 152 76 510 255 1,172 586 1.4
Oregon - 3 2 5 9 - - 8 11 -
California - - - -
Total 86,919 12,556 14,827 20,436 8,759 7,729 524 275 111,029 40,996 100

Percent 78.3 30.6 13.3 49.8 7.9 18.9 .5 .7 100 100

-'Preliminary data

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

behind powered vessels and have a wide blade which scoops up
the clams loosened from the ocean bottom by water jets aimed
downward in front of the blade. One advantage of this gear
has been the tremendous reduction in the number of broken
clams and damaged meats in comparison to other clam dredges.
It has been adapted for use on the many different sizes and
types of vessels.

The Middle Atlantic surf clam fleet has undergone changes
since the mid-1960s. The most important have been the move-
ment of vessels and the expansion and modernization of the
fleet. Following reduced landings in traditional New Jersey
beds and discovery of surf clam beds off the Virginia coast,
the fleet spread out during the late 1960s and the 1970s in
a southern direction. There is an apparent trend back toward
New Jersey waters as landings have declined off the coast of
Virginia. The average age of the fleet has decreased and the
average length has increased with the addition of large steel
stern-dredges. The fleet has increased from 54 in 1965 to
99 in 1975. These vessels are more than 100 feet in length
and have up to 120-inch dredge blades.

Hard clams are harvested by a variety of methods ranging
from hand gathering to complex machinery. Types of hand gear
used are: clam rakes (clam hooks or hoes), scratch rakes
(basket rakes), tongs, and bull rakes (mud rakes). Mech-
anical gear includes hydraulic and escalator dredges. These
dredges vary in size and design and are usually permitted
only on privately owned or leased bottoms. Table 3 shows
the amount of landings by gear used for hard clams and
other clams for 1972.

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

TABLE 3
Summary of Clam Landings
by Gear, 1972
(Meat weight)

Pounds
Gear Surf clam Hard clam Soft clam Other clam Total Percent

(000 omitted)

Dredges 63,466 3,287 1,950 1,642 70,345 77.5
Rakes 2 7,265 120 9 7,396 8.2
Hoes 3 10 6,978 2 6,993 7.7
Tongs - 3,826 - - 3,826 4.2
By hand - 986 30 - 1,016 1.1
Shovels - 331 - 171 502 .6
Picks - 373 - - 373 .4
Diving
outfits - - - 163 163 .2
Otter
trawls - 75 - - 75 .1

63,471 16,153 9,078 1,987 90,689 100.0

In New York, which produces most of the hard clams, clam
diggers currently use about 4,000 small boats, approximately
14 to 30 feet long, to harvest hard clams. In addition, 25
boats harvest from private grounds using mechanical equip-
ment.

The main types of hand gear used to harvest the soft
clams are clam hoes. Escalator dredges are used primarily
in the Chesapeake Bay region. This highly mechanized fishery
was nonexistent before 1950, but with the invention of the
escalator dredge, it rapidly expanded. The Maine soft clam
fishery is essentially a seasonal hand labor industry requir-
ing a small investment. The necessary gear and equipment
are four-tined, short-handled hoes, half bushel rollers, and
a means of transportation to and from the flats. Small out-
board motor boats or row boats are used except where flats
are easily accessible by land.

Pacific coast clams are harvested by hand or dredge. The
size of the operation determines the equipment used. Although
mechanical harvesters are available and in use, miany clams are
still harvested by hand, using rakes, forks, shovels, 2nd
other devices.

Products and processing

Clams are sold in a variety of forms and used in many
different ways. Clams are sold in the shell either fresh or

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

frozen or with the meat removed (shucked) and sold fresh or
fLrozen. Clams are baked, steamed in the shell, broiled on the
half shell, fried or used in chowders, fritters, sauces,
dips, salads, and canapes.

Clams are sold packed in cans in large quantities as
shown in the following table.

TABLE 4

U.S. Canned clam Production by Type of Final Product
1972

Number
of Standard
Production plants cases Percent Pounds Percent Value Percent
Whole 3 3,731 - 55,965 - $ 123,624 -
Minced 13 700,088 24 10,501,320 13 9,150,463 31
Chowder 10 1,953,214 66 58,596,420 73 17,161,756 58
Juice 9 208,212 7 6,246,360 8 827,151 3
Specialties 12 98,860 3 4,745,280 6 2,394,951 8
Total 2,964,105 100 80,145,345 100 $29,657,945 100

Surf clams are produced and sold as processed food pro-
ducts. The final products are unique because they include
only the muscle tissue and are not sold on the fresh market
directly to the consumer. Before 1970 only the larger clams
were acceptable due to manual processing in the industry.
The development of automated shucking and eviscerating equip-
ment and more efficient washing processes have made it tech-
nologically possible to process smaller clams.

After shucking, the clams are washed, taken to the pro-
cessing plant where they are eviscerated, and washed again
to remove any remaining foreign material. At this point the
meat may be minced, chopped, or sliced into strips. It can
then be canned, made into chowder or clam cakes, refriger-
ated, or frozen and shipped to other processors of specialty
products. The juices and wash water from this operation are
sometimes packed as clam juice.

Much of the surf clam industry is vertically integrated
from harvesting through processing. Surf clam production
plants are located along the Atlantic coast. Between 1965
and 1974 the total number of shucking, processing, and can-
ning plants increased from 37 to 48 with most of the increase
accounted for by additional shucking plants.

Most of the hard clams in New York and New Jersey are
sold and consumed as shell stock. The few processing opera-
tions produce .ulam chowder, frozen clam broth, deviled clams,
minced clams, and stuffed clams. The largest and least ex-
pensive of the clams are marketed as "chowders."

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

"Cherrystones" are medium-sized and medium-priced clams used
almost exclusively for baked clams. "Little necks" are the
j ~smallest and most'expensive and are used mostly in the half-
shell trade and as steamed clams.
Processing of soft clams consists of desilting and wash-
ing for resale or shucking. At the shucking plant, broken
and small clams are discarded because they are difficult to
hand shuck. After shucking, clams are washed in a large air
agitated water bath, drained and packed in gallon cans, and
chilled in a cold room for several hours. The chilled cans
are then placed in barrels and iced for shipment to market.

Canned clams from the Pacific coast must compete with
canned clams from the Atlantic coast and with imports which
are usually Manila clams from Japan. Pacific coast clams are
usually more expensive than the others and this tends to de-
press the price to a level making canning only marginally
economical on the Pacific coast.

Some clams that are processed for use as crab bait are
washed, then dyed to identify them as crab bait. The clams
are then usually placed into 25- or 50-pound sacks and frozen
complete with shell. No significant plant equipment is re-
quired for this process. The frozen clams are stored at the
cannery until sold to the fishermen.

Markets

Clams are high in protein. Between 1965 and 1974, as
shown in table 5, apparent aggregate consumption of clams in
the United States has increased 73 percent. Per capita con-
sumption has increased from .373 pounds in 1965 to .589
pounds in 1974. Clam imports, also shown in table 5, have in-
creased in recent years. In 1974 clam imports were valued at
$5.8 million. Exports of clams are reported combined with
other shellfish exports and as such are considered relatively
small. The exvessel prices for major clam species since 1965
are shown in table 6.

The largest markets for hard clams are New Jersey, New
York, and Pennsylvania. Other major markets are in Florida,
Illinois, and California.

About 45 percent of Maine's 1974 soft clam production
was consumed within the State, while the other 55 percent
went primarily to Boston, Massachusetts, where distribution
is provided for the soft clam markets centered in the New
England area.

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Clam markets are highly concentrated in three regions--
New England, Middle Atlantic, and Pacific. Together these
areas account for about 85 percent of the national clam con-
sumption.

TABLE 5

Supply and Consumption of Clams, All Forms
in the United States, 1965-74
(Meat weight)
Pounds

Apparent
aggre-
gate
Supplies consump- Per
Imports tion capita
Year Landings (note a) (note b) consumption
-----------(millions)-----------

1965 70.8 1.5 72.3 .373
1966 72.8 2.1 74.9 .383
1967 71.5 1.8 73.3 .371
1968 67.2 2.0 69.2 .347
1969 80.7 2.9 83.6 .415
1970 99.2 4.9 104.1 .511
1971 84.5 4.2 88.7 .431
1972 90.7 5.1 95.8 .460
1973 (note
c) 106.3 4.3 110.6 .525
1974 (note
c) 119.9 4.9 124.8 .589
a) In shell or shucked clams, canned clams, and canned
chowder converted to meat weights.
b) Canned clam exports are not shown because they are record-
ed only in combined form with "other shellfish." However,
clam exports are considered to be relatively small.
c) Preliminary data.

TABLE 6

Exvessel Value of Clams by Major Species 1965-74

(Meat weight)
Year Hard Soft Surf
---------(cents per pound)--------

1965 66.1 29.9 7.2
1966 68.7 33.3 8.6
1967 74.0 40.1 9.7
1968 78.9 40.4 10.2
1969 83.2 41.2 11.9
1970 89.6 46.3 11.4
1971 101.5 53.7 13.1
1972 119.0 61.3 12.5
1973 (note a) 120.2 79.1 11.9
1974 (note a) 132.7 79.1 12.7

a) Preliminary data.

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

EFFECTS OF A 200-MILE LIMIT

The Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 ex-
tends U.S. jurisdiction over coastal fisheries resources and
provides for improved fishery management. NMFS officials be-
lieve that the surf clam will be managed by a Regional
Fishery Management Council because the majority of the catch
has been harvested beyond 3 miles off the U.S. coast and
because the surf clam is a continental shelf-.fishery resource.
The other major clam species are caught predominantly within
the 3-mile territorial zone under State jurisdiction.

Employment

The number of fishermen in the U.S. clam fishery re-
mained relatively stable during the period 1960 to 1971 as
shown in the following table. Employment in the Pacific coast
fishery declined from 3,187 in 1960 to 809 in 1972. Overall
processing employment figures were not readily available.

TABLE 7

U.S. Clam Fishery
1960-71

Year Number of fishermen

1960 16,094
1961 16,080
1962 14,716
19 63 16, 341
1964 16,013
1965 16,884
1966 16,459
1967 15,457
1968 14,3 6 9
1969 15,141
19 70 14,979
1971 16,638

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Recreational fishing

Recreational clam digging is a very popular activity.
Large numbers of people and large amounts of clams are in-
volved. One NMFS study estimated that recreational catch of
clams in 1970 was about 40 million pounds (including shells).
The number of recreational clam diggers in some States is very
large. For example, New Jersey licensed about 15,000 recrea-
tional clam diggers in 1975. In Maine there are an estimated
10,000 recreational clam diggers.

Recreational clam digging has had a widespread impact
on the commercial clam fisheries in some States. For example,
in California, Oregon, and Washington, commercial harvesting
for clams has been severely restricted and prohibited in
many areas in order for the recreational clam digger to have
access to the clam resource. The number of clam diggers in
California is not known but it is considerable. on one week-
end, over 150,000 people were seeking clams on Pismo Beach.
During a 2-1/2-month period, some 4 million pounds of clams
were taken from a 4-mile stretch of this beach. In 1971
Oregon reported a recreational catch of 3 million clams. An-
nually, some 300,000 individuals make 650,000 to 775,000
trips to the Washington ocean beaches and take home from 6
to 13 million razor clams.

Management controls

Clam fisheries are managed by State or local governments.
Regulations vary by fishery and by State. The Federal Govern-
ment has declared the surf clam a continental shelf fishery
resource. Beyond this action, there is no direct Federal re-
gulation of clam harvesting. The surf clam fishery has been
unregulated in some States, including Maryland and Virginia.
As of July 1, 1976, Maryland has a License Requirement and
has given the State's Department of Natural Resources
authority to adopt rules and regulations regarding the catch
and landings of surf clams. New York, New Jersey, and Dela-
ware have both license and operational requirements. For ex-
ample, New York has a minimum shell size regulation; Delaware
has seasonal closure regulations; and New Jersey has regu-
lations covering such aspects as seasonal closure, limitations
on gear size, minimum shell size, and the time during the day
when fishing is permitted. To help coordinate State manage-
ment of the surf clam, the States and NMFS, through the State-
Federal Fisheries Management Program, initiated a cooperative
surf clam management effort in 1973. Although some improve-
ments have been made, progress has generally been slow.

In New Jersey and New York, the center of the hard clam
fishery, harvesting of hard clams in public areas is re-
stricted to use of hand implements, such as raking and

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

tonging. No dredging is permitted in public areas. A license
is required for commercial harvesting. Relaying programs are
also used as a type of management control. A relaying pro-
gram consists of moving clams from condemned waters to clean
water where the clams can purify themselves before being
harvested and marketed. Another management control is the
leasing of bay bottoms for shellfish culture. However, only
naturally unproductive areas are leased which leaves the pro-
ductive areas available to the public.

In Maine, the soft clam fishery is regulated by the State and
local governments. A license is required for commercial har-
vesting and seasons, if necessary, vary by area and local
conditions. Mechanical gear, such as dredges, are generally
prohibited. In Maryland, dredges are permitted and are the
only gear used in subtidal areas.

The States regulate and manage the clam fisheries of the
Pacific coast. For example, in Washington, clam-farming
licenses are issued which allow private individuals to cul-
tivate and harvest privately owned or leased clam beds. In
some areas, the State leases clam beds to private individuals
for harvest of the natural production.

Management of clams is also affected by the National
Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP), a cooperative agreement
administered by the member shellfish-producing States, the
Food and Drug Administration, and the Shellfish industry to
provide satisfactory public health protection to consumers
of shellfish. Most States have enacted laws that restrict the
importation of fresh and frozen clam products except from
those States that are members of NSSP and from certified
interstate shippers from within those States. The canned,
heat-retorted clam products can be shipped interstate with-
out NSSP membership.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT

Resource availability

The availability of clam resources shows a potential for
substantially increased production of some species, particu-
larly from underutilized ones. For the surf clam, however,
landings in recent years have exceeded the estimated maximum
sustainable yield (MSY). In a 1976 analysis of the fishery,
NMFS estimated the surf clam MSY at about 70 million pounds.
Landings in 1973, 1974, and 1975 have exceeded this level.
The highest annual landings total was made in 1974 when 96
million pounds were recorded. NMFS officials believe that
1976 landings should be reduced to below the level of about

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

40 million pounds which is biologically sustainable at the
1975 population size and recruitment rate.

An MSY has not yet been established for the hard clam
resource. Nevertheless, a State fishery official believes
that the natural resource is being harvested at sustainable
levels. More resource assessment information is needed and
would aid management of the fishery. Propagation efforts for
hard clams have emphasized artificial spawning and culling
the young clams which are relatively easy to raise. These
clams are reared in specially designed hatcheries and are
then transplanted to controlled growing areas. Development
of a method to protect clams from predators, such as starfish
and crabs, would also boost commercial production and would
encourage the operation of clam hatcheries.

In Maine, which produced about 75 percent of soft clams
in 1975, there is no established MSY for the resource. But
a State official believes that the resource is being fished
at about the sustainable level possible with current harvest-
ing gear, hand hoes. Use of this gear, according to the
State official, results in large numbers of clams left dying
in the clam flats. With the use of a hand dredge, generally
prohibited in Maine, a State official estimates that current
yields could be increased 100 percent or more. The increase
is related to a large reduction in the mortality of clams in
the flats caused during harvesting and to harvesting new
areas where using hand hoes is uneconomical.

cane Agnes in 1972. Since then, the fishery has not yet
recovered, in part due to less favorable salinity rates in
the water and clam predators. A State biologist, however,I
believes that there will be a substantial increase in land-
ings within the next few years.

On the Pacific coast, Alaska has a large number of
underutilized clam resources, but Washington is presently
recognized as the center of clam production on the west
coast. A commercial harvest of clams in California and Oregon
is virtually nonexistent. In Alaska past and present produc-
tion has not approached the estimated sustainable yield. The
true sustainable yield is unknown, but a University of
Alaska Sea Grant study estimates that yield to be about 50
million pounds (shell weight) a year. The maximum catch in
Alaska has only been one-tenth of that amount and in recent
years has not exceeded I million pounds.

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

In Washington the Puget Sound region has potential for
enlargement of the present clam fisheries and development of
new ones. A survey by divers of the Washington State Depart-
ment of Fisheries estimated there were over 100 million
pounds of subtidal hardshell clams. With this extensive
standing crop, the annual production could be increased with-
out fear of overfishing. Harvesting of these subtidal clams
will have to be done with dredges or other underwater methods.
Successive crops of clams can be produced from hardshell
beds harvested by a hydraulic clam digger.

Another survey indicated over 100 million geoduck clams
are present in the intertidal zones of Puget Sound to a
depth of about 200 feet. With current restrictions, Washing-
ton's geoduck fishery could grow to an estimated annual
landing of 2 to 3 million pounds. Fairly extensive beds of
soft clams occur at the mouth of several rivers in the
Pacific Northwest. Companies have begun harvesting these
clams with hydraulic escalator harvesters on privately owned
or leased beds in the intertidal zone.

Studies on the feasibility of planting hatchery-reared
clam seed on Puget Sound beaches have demonstrated that seed
clams will survive and grow, but this approach has not yet
become economical.

Another underutilized clam resource with potential for
a large volume of landings is the ocean quahog. Its range
in the United States along the Atlantic coast includes a
distance from Maine to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. While
landings have averaged less than 2 million pounds per year,
NMFS estimates of MSY show a potential yield of about 70 to
100 million pounds a year.

NMFS analysis of clam aquaculture indicates that at
least six species have potential for aquaculture, but only
the eastern hard shell clam is cultured with the sophisti-
cated methods used for oyster culture. Production of clams
by aquaculture could be increased from 2.6 million pounds to
an estimated 25 million pounds by 1990 if adequate seed
could be produced in hatcheries and if methods can be
developed for culture of juveniles to field planting size.

Harvesting capability

Advancements in gear efficiency offer potential for im-
proved harvesting capability. Although there is already
enough capacity to harvest existing surf clam resources,
harvesting techniques can be substantially improved. Surf
clam dredges must periodically be lowered to the ocean bot-
tom, towed, and then raised to obtain the catch. Equipment

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

that would continuously lift clams from the dredge to the
deck would save time in comparison with present operations.
Prototypes of equipment have demonstrated that this principle
is workable. One industry official stated that it may not
be adopted because it would require more than the normal two-
or three-man crew and that it may not be economically prac-
tical. He stated, however, that more efficient gear is
needed.

More efficient hard clam harvesting is possible in some
public areas; however, the two leading hard clam States limit
harvesting in these areas to hand implements and power dred-
ges, for example, are not permitted. Hand gear is used in
both States in public areas, and fishermen have adapted to
its use. State officials stated that hard clam fishermen
generally oppose dredges in public areas. Also, State of-
ficials believe that using dredges without strict controls
could lead to depletion, especially since they believe the
resource is being fished at about sustainable levels.

Soft-clam-harvesting methods could be more efficient ac-
cording to a Maine official. Use of hand dredges, original-
ly developed for limited use in mildly polluted areas, but
having applicability in most areas, would cause less mortal-
ity of clams left in the flats and would allow increased
yields from the fishery. Fishermen have opposed permitting
general use of the hand dredge, according to a State of-
ficial, because they believe its use would upset the tradi-
ional ways of the fishery and cause both a loss of income
and employment for many of them.

Washington clam fishery has adequate harvesting capabi-
lity as mechanical harvesters from the east coast have been
adapted to meet most harvesting conditions on the Pacific
Coast. Some types of hydraulic dredges are very efficient.
For example, one type has been reported as catching 95 per-
cent of the marketable clams in its path with less than I
percent breakage.

A drag dredge, similar to the eastern surf clam dredge,
is being tested in Alaska to harvest the abundant razor clam
resource which historically has been harvested by hand dig-
ging. This mechanical harvester is capable of harvesting
during high tides and in subtidal waters. In recent years
several manual hydraulic diggers have been developed and
used. Although mechanical harvesters are available and in
use, many small operators still hand dig clams.

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Product development and processing

Clams and clam products are already widely accepted in
current forms. However, there are opportunities for further
developments in clam products and processing. For example,
the largely underutilized ocean quahog resource with an
estimated MSY of 70 to 100 million pounds and landings under
2 million pounds, offers a substantial opportunity for devel-
opment. Product uses could include clam cakes, fritters,
chowders, and many other dishes which can use a clam flavor.
Some of the reasons why the resource has not yet been devel-
oped more fully include the quahog's flavor which is stronger
than some clam species, such as the surf clam, and its dark
color. The availability of the successfully developed surf
clam having some similar product usage also appears to have
limited development of the quahog. But since the surf clam
has been overfished, demand for the quahog is expected to
increase. NMFS and industry officials cooperatively working
on quahog development are confident that its use will be
substantially expanded.

Another area where there may be potential for product
development involves use of the discarded parts of the surf
clam ranging from 11 to 18 percent of the total meat weight.
On the basis of average annual landings of 44.7 million
pounds of surf clam meats from 1965 and 1969, some 5 to 9
million pounds of this waste was discarded. If a profitable
use for this protein and a technique to handle it efficiently
in the plants could be developed, then the waste could be
used more effectively and a disposal problem would be solved.
However, one industry official stated that no one plant pro-
duces a sufficient quantity to make such an operation econo-
mically feasible at the present time or in the near future.

Soft clams are hand processed. Development of an auto-
matic shucking machine would be of substantial benefit to
the industry. However, automation is made difficult by the
many sizes and parts of the clam. Heat shock treatments and
nitrogen freezing have been tried, but the resulting product
has had only limited market acceptance.

Clam processing on the Pacific coast is labor intensive,
but automated production machinery to process frozen clams
exists on the east coast and is available if needed.

Marketing potential

Available clam products are readily sold into existing
markets. In addition, projections of future conditions show
a steadily increasing demand for clam products. Some specific
examples of market expansion include increased distribution

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

of hard clams in newly developed markets in California,
Florida, and Illinois; and clamoto juice, a drink combitiing
clam juice and tomato juice. This product can also be used
as a mixer for cocktails.

In Alaska the greatest potential market for razor clams
is the Pacific Northwest and California. This market is
familiar with the razor clam, and a large institutional
market for Alaska's fresh and frozen razor clams could be
easily developed. Presently, a large percentage of the
clam harvest in Alaska is used for crab bait.

OBSTACLES FOR GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT

Resource availability and management controls

Lack of management controls, insufficient data on re-
source assessment, and pollution have been problems affecting
clam resource availability. In 1976 an analysis of the surf
clam MSY by NMFS estimated the amount at about 70 million
pounds, thus more clearly showing the extent of overfishing
of clams in years 1973 to 1975 when landings exceeded this
amount.

Concern about depleting the inshore part of surf clams,
generally located within the 3-mile territorial zone, led
New Jersey industry members in September 1971 to recommend
strong conservation measures within the State. As a result,
in November 1971, New Jersey requested that the surf clam
be considered for participation in the State-Federal Fisher-
ies Management Program. The matter was discussed with the
appropriate States in February 1972, but a State-Federal
Management Committee was not formed until June 1973. This
delay was partly due to the concentration of the fishery
at the time in New Jersey and to State and NMFS involvement
in management programs for the American lobster and northern
shrimp. The committee established as its goals the conser-
vation of surf clams and protection of the industry.

Little coordinated regulation has been achieved to insure
surf clam conservation. Slow progress in implementing co-
ordinated management in surf clam fishery has been attri-
buted to a combination of factors, including lack of funding
for research and difficulties in obtaining biological infor-
mation needed for determination of the MSY. Fragmented
jurisdiction is another problem. The resource is located
off the coasts of five States with most landings in recent
years coming from 3 to 15 miles offshore, a distance beyond
direct State acontrol. Also, the suf-f clam is a common pro-
perty resource. More and better vessels have been added to
the fleet and fishing has increased rapidly.

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Cyclical increases in the green crab population is a
major problem to soft clam resource availability. Soft clams
are a favored food item of the green crab. To combat this
problem, Maine is providing funds to aid construction of
fences to help keep the green crabs away from the small soft
clam.

Pollution in coastal areas, particularly bacterial con-
tamination, represents the greatest obstacle to the soft and
hard clam resource. Other pollutants include oil and heavy
metals. Pollution is responsible for closing about 21 per-
cent of the clam flats in the leading soft-clam-producing
State and about 25 percent of the clam flats in the two lead-
ing hard-clam-producing States. Interim solutions include
transplanting contaminated clams to clean waters or to
depuration plants, facilities where clams can be cleansed be-
for marketing. Ultimately, the solution is effective pollu-
tion abatement.

Another problem relates to occasions when the clam's
body accumulates paralytic shellfish poison (PSP), a toxin
produced by microscopic plants. Although not normally a
problem, these plants occasionally bloom explosively causing
the so-called red tide. Clams can accumulate a sufficient
quantity of the toxin to cause illness or death to people
eating them. State and Federal agencies monitor for red
tide and prohibit harvesting and sale of affected shellfish.
The toxin may remain for several months, and there is no
known method to hasten the natural process of detoxification.

A Washington Department of Fisheries study estimates
that there are 100 million pounds of subtidal hard clams in
the State; however, only a few million will be available for
commercial harvest. Many clam beds identified will not be
harvested because the ocean floor may not be conducive to
mechanical harvesting, the water may be too deep or too
rough for existing gear, or the clam beds may be closed be-
cause of pollution. Adverse public reaction to the com-
mercial clam harvest by mechanical dredge may also restrict
future availability.

In 1965 Washington stopped issuing commercial clam dig-
gers' licenses, since only a small amount of public land was
available within the bays and most of this was needed for
expanding recreational demand. Although the individual com-
mercial clam digger was eliminated from public land, the
State continued to issue a clam-farming license. This li-
cense allowed clam growers to commercially produce clams
from private areas.

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Clam production in Alaska is principally razor clams,
because most hard clams and cockles are found in areas sub-
ject to shellfish poisoning and clam harvesting is pro-
hibited. From a peak of three-quarters of a million pounds
in the early 1950s, razor clam production decreased to less
than 100,000 pounds in the late 1960s and later increased
to about 200,000 pounds. The great reduction in razor clam
harvests was primarily attributable to harvesting restric-
tions because of the danger of paralytic shellfish poison-
ing.

In Alaska the clams are abundant, but full commercial
use is restrained. For 21 years, Alaska was not a member of
the National Shellfish Sanitation Program, and without this
membership, Alaska processors were not allowed to ship fresh
or frozen clam products interstate. This was a major ob-
stacle inhibiting growth and development of the Alaska clam
fishery. As of March 1975, the State was readmitted to the
National Shellfish Sanitation Program. With this obstacle
removed, Alaska clam resources can be more fully used. How-
ever, continued National Shellfish Sanitation Program member-
ship is necessary for the fishery to remain.

The availability of clams is limited by the number of
beaches certified safe for clam harvest. More State re-
sources are needed for source-beach certification and moni-
toring if processors are to have a sufficient source of
supply. Another obstacle that exists in Alaska is that
relatively little knowledge exists about the size and
location of stocks and about many important biological
characteristics pertinent to effective planning.

Harvesting capability

Generally, there is sufficient harvesting capacity in
clam fisheries, although overfishing in the surf clam fishery
indicates excess harvesting capacity. Improvements are
possible in harvesting efficiency in some soft clam and hard
clam areas, but as noted in the opportunity section, gear
restrictions are a limiting factor.

In the Washington clam fishery, adequate harvest capa-
bility exists. In Alaska the ability to compete against the
east coast clam products and the foreign imports depends on
the development of an environmentally safe and productive
clam dredge. If introduction of the dredges is delayed, so
will the growth of the fishery because of Alaska's very high
cost of labor. Conflicts may also arise in Alaska between
land narvesters and dredge harvesters over access to the ap-
proved clam beaches.

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Product development and processing

Past clam product development and processing have led to
expansion of this fishery. Although there are some diffi-
culties related to product development and processing oppor-
tunities, as noted previously, there are no major obstacles
preventing further developments. Labor intensive processing
for some clam products will continue until it becomes pro-
fitable to use automatic equipment.

Market potential

The major obstacle for market development of clams is
the adverse effect that paralytic shellfish poisoning has on
the clam fishery. When a ban on harvesting of shellfish is
put into effect, public confidence in shellfish products de-
clines and sales drop significantly in affected areas. Para-
lytic shellfish poisoning incidents can have severe results
on the clam fishery.
Presently, canned clam products from Alaska cannot com-
pete with the lower cost, east coast canned clams because of
Alaska's higher cost of harvesting and processing.

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

CRABS

Crab fisheries are found on the Atlantic, gulf, and
Pacific coasts of the United States. On the Atlantic and
gulf coasts, blue crab is the predominant species landed.
Blue crab is a common inhabitant of rivers, sounds, and
nearshore waters of the Atlantic coast from New Jersey to
Florida, and along the gulf coast to Texas. The Pacific
coast consists primarily of three crab species: the king,
tanner or snow, and dungeness. The king and tanner crabs are
caught off Alaskan shores, and the dungeness crab is caught
off nearly the entire Pacific coast, from western Alaska to
Santa Barbara, California.

The Chesapeake Bay area, is the center of the Atlantic
blue crab fishery. In 1973, 64 percent of the total crab
landings in the Atlantic Coast States, excluding Florida
came from this area. In 1974 about 80 percent of the blue
crab landings in the gulf came from Florida and Louisiana.
Alaska led the Pacific coast crab catch with over 90 percent
of the landings and 83 percent of the value in 1975. Alaska
also led the Nation in volume and value of the crabs landed
in 1975.
A
In 1973 the Atlantic blue crab fishery ranked third in
volume-and seventh in value among fisheries along the At-
lantic coast. In 1972 the gulf blue crab fishery ranked
fourth in volume and sixth in value among fisheries along
the gulf coast. Along the Pacific coast, the crab fishery
was third in value in 1972; a volume ranking was unavailable.

Other crabs found along the Atlantic and gulf coasts are
the stone crab and the red crab. However, because the blueI
crab is the predominant species landed on the Atlantic and
gulf coasts, our discussion will center on the blue crab
fishery.

The stone crab is found along the South Atlantic and
gulf coasts, and is widely used for food in areas where it is
plentiful. In the Gulf States, the commercial stone crab
fishery is limited to Florida. In 1974 this fishery accounted
for 21 percent of the value, but only 5 percent of the weight
of all Gulf State crab landings.

Red crab, a deep sea animal found from Nova Scotia to
Brazil, primarily supports a small fishery in southern New
England. No fishery exists in the Gulf of Mexico although
crabs are taken as an incidental catch in the shrimp and
bottomfish fisheries. No biomass estimates for red crab
exist, but NMFS plans to develop this data. NMFS biologists

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

believe that red crab resources in the DeSoto Canyon off the
west coast of Florida might support a marginally profitable
fishery. The market for red crab would not differ from that
of blue crab as the product forms are the same.

STATUS OF FISHERY

Current harvest-l

The Atlantic blue crab landings in 1973 were 91.7 mil-
lion pounds, a decrease from the 1972 landings of 108.5 mil-
lion pounds; the value increased from $11.4 million to $13.1
million. The Gulf States blue crab catch in 1974 was 47.9
million pounds, up from the 1973 catch of 47.5 million pounds.
The 1974 catch was valued at $6.4 million, as compared to
the 1973 catch value of $6.0 million.

Both the Atlantic and gulf blue crab harvests have
fluctuated widely over the years. These fluctuations appear
to be independent of the number of crabs which spawn, but
the reasons for variations are not known. Environmental con-
ditions and fishing pressures have been suggested as causal
factors.

in the gulf, the crab harvest normally decreases if
shrimp are plentiful and shrimp prices are good. More fisher-
men would enter the shrimp fishery during this time.

The total Pacific crab catch in 1975 was 162.2 million
pounds, worth $61.5 million; this was 15.5 million pounds
less than the 1974 catch, but the value was $734,000 greater
than the 1974 value.

The 1975 king crab catch, up 3 percent from 1974, was
the highest since 1968. The rise in the king crab catch since
1970 seems to indicate that the Alaska resource is recovering
from overfishing which occurred in past years.

The tanner crab fishery showed a 28-percent catch de-
crease in 1975 from the 1974 record catch of 64.1 million
pounds. The tanner crab fishery had developed rapidly in the
last 7 years from 3.2 million pounds in 1968 to the record
1974 catch before dropping back to 46.2 million pounds in
1975. The decrease was mainly caused by poor market conditions
and high inventories in cold storage. Also, a price dispute
between fishermen and buyers almost halted tanner crab fish-

ing during part of the 1975 fishing season.

IThe latest data available was used in all cases.

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

The 1975 dungeness crab catch of 16.0 million pounds
worth $10.3 million, was about the same as in 1974, but the
value increased 4 percent. The catch from these 2 years
seems to indicate a stabilization of the declining dungeness
crab catch which began in 1970.

Products and processing

Blue crabs are caught and marketed in both the hard
shell and soft shell stages. Many crabs, known as peelers,
are caught just prior to molting. Soft shell crabs are con-
sidered a delicacy and bring higher prices. Almost the en-
tire body of this crab may be eaten after cooking; the
gills, abdomen, and sometimes the face are removed.

Hard shell crabs may be sold live, whole cooked or
steamed. When steamed the meat is picked from the shell, and
either packed into containers, refrigerated, and sold as
fresh crabmeat, or canned, pasteurized, and refrigerated.
Crabmeat is marketed as lump meat--whole lumps from the large
body muscles which operate the swimming legs; flake meat--
small pieces of white meat from the body; flake and lump--a
combination of the two; and claw meat--a brownish tinted meat
from the claws. Picked crabmeat is used in convenience foods,
such as crab cakes, deviled crab cutlets, bite-sized deviled
crab, crab imperial, crab soup, and crab balls.

Pacific coast crabmeat is primarily sold frozen although
it is also sold canned. Frozen crab is marketed in the shell,
as whole leg sections or claws or out of the shell as meat.
King and tanner crab is sold canned, frozen, and fresh, while
dungeness crab is usually sold fresh.

Crabmeat picked by machine involves less labor but has
several disadvantages. Machine-picked meat (1) contains shell
fragments, (2) is broken in small pieces, (3) is salty, as a
result of the brine used to separate the meat and shell frag-
ments, and (4) yields less crabmeat per pound of whole crab
than that obtained by hand picking. These factors contribute
to the low demand for machine-picked crabmeat.

Markets

Crabs, are highly regional and the market declines rapidly
as distance increases from the landing site. Therefore, crabs
are virtually unknown in the interior of the United States.

The largest markets for--Atl-anti-c blue crab are in the-
shore areas of Virginia, Maryland, and New Jersey, and the
cities of Baltimore, Washington, Philadelphia, and New York.

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

These cities are the center of the basket trade, a term used
to describe the sale of large live crabs having a high market
value. The primary markets for soft shell crabs are on the
east coast, particularly New York City. A large percent of
the soft shell crabs are frozen which enables them to be
shipped long distances and made available throughout the
year. Pasteurized meat, when available, may be shipped to any
part of the United States.

Blue crabs are marketed by gulf fishermen in three ways:
direct sales to the consumer, sales to seafood dealers, and
sales to crab buyers. Some fishermen have regular customers,
including operators of restaurants and bars. Seafood dealers
sell to processing plants or to the public, while crab buyers
act as middlemen who purchase hard crabs for large crabmeat
plants. Some live hard-shell crabs are shipped to the east
coast for sale. This is more common in cooler months, as
during warmer months, loss of crabs due to heat makes this
unprof itab le.

Soft-shell crab fishermen in the gulf usually sell their
catches to seafood dealers, as relatively few restaurants
deal directly with these fishermen. Market demand and prices
are currently high although production has been declining.
The decline is attributed to shortages of knowledgeable
personnel or personnel willing to devote the time required,
lack of a steady source of premolt crabs, and poor water
quality.

A 1972 NMFS report stated crab consumption was heavy in
the Pacific Coast States, including Alaska. This area ac-
counted for over 40 percent of the crabs consumed in the
United States and the per capita rate was three times greater
than the national average. NMFS further indicated that this
region consumed over three-fourths of its king and dungeness
crab output, with the remainder going into interregional
trade.

There is no reported international trade in the blue
crab fishery. However, in 1975 Alaska exported 3.1 million
pounds of king crab valued at $8.1 million.

Fishing fleet

Blue crabs are caught by different gear, including:

a. Crab pot--Usually cube shaped, 2 feet on each side,
and made of hexagonal wire mesh. The pot is divided into two
chambers; a lower bait chamber which contains a bait holder
and has an inward opening entrance, and a trap chamber located

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

over the bait chamber. Crab pots of a similar size and
shape but with smaller mesh and different bait are used to
catch peeler crabs for the soft-shell market. In the
Pacific, fishermen use crab pots to catch king, tanner, and
dungeness crabs.
b. Hand-dip trotline--A baited, hookless line anchoredI
on the bottom in moderate to deep water. Each end of the
line is attached to a buoy and an anchor line. In harvesting
the catch the line is run over a spool attached to the boat
which brings the baited line to the surface; the crabs
clinging to the bait are then quickly scooped with a dip net.

C. Crab dredge--A heavy dredge consisting of a
rectangular iron frame, bearing a 6-foot toothed drag bar
on its lower edge and trailing a mesh bag made up of rings
and cotton twine.

d. Scrape--A rectangular metal frame fitted with a
bag made of cotton and iron rings, particularly effective
for taking soft crabs. The scraping bar does not have teeth.

e. Crab pound net--An enclosure constructed of stakes
and wire netting. The crabs enter the pound net on the flood
tide.

E. Seine--An encircling type of net made of webbing.
The top or float line has floats attached to keep the net at
the surface while the bottom or foot line is weighted with
lead to keep the net vertical in the water.

g. Dip net--A simple piece of gear made of cloth mesh
or wire which is suspended from a metal oval hoop and fitted
with a handle.

Gulf fishermen use bush lines and shedding cars for
catching soft shell crabs. Crabs about to molt are attracted
to, and later picked from the bushes. The fishermen use crab
shedding cars or recirculating tanks to keep the crabs alive
while they complete the molting process.

In 1972, 9,562 vessels and boats; 298,395 crab pots;
8,242 trotlines; and 318 crab dredges were used to land blue
crabs in the Atlantic States. In the Gulf States in 1972,
1,615 boats; 160,782 crab pots; 724 trotlines; and 42,750
bush lines were used to land blue crabs.

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

In the North Pacific, the crab fleet also catches
shrimp and groundfish. The overall number of vessels in
the crab fishery was not available, but in the Eastern
Bering Sea the crab fleet increased from 20 vessels in 1967
to over 100 in 1974. Most were large modern crabbers, many
in excess of 100 feet.

Employment

Statistics on processing employment for the Atlantic
coast were not readily available. Statistics on the number
of commercial fishermen are not accurate because they in-
clude many recreational fishermen. States adjacent to the
Chesapeake Bay have a daily catch limit for recreational
fishermen and with the exception of the winter dredge fishery,
there are no catch limits on commercial fishing. In some
States, the fee for a commercial fishing license is minimal;
as a result, many recreational fishermen pay the commercial
license fee to avoid the catch limit.

On the gulf coast, commercial blue crab fishermen can
be classified as full time, seasonal, or casual. Because
the'full-time crabber's income depends on his catch, he
must be a highly skilled fisherman. Soft-shell crab fisher-
men and some hard-crab fishermen are considered seasonal
fishermen. Casual crab fishermen are usually persons who
previously were in the fishery but, because of the unreliable
nature of the fishery, have taken jobs in industry. on days
off, weekends, and vacations, these men fish for crab.

Statistics as to the number of personnel engaged in blue
crab processing on the gulf coast are not readily available.
There is a shortage of pickers because higher wages can be
earned in other occupations, and satisfactory incomes are
provided by assistance programs.

In 1972, according to NMFS, the Pacific coast crab
fishery employed 3,009 fishermen, some of whom also fished
in other Pacific fisheries. We could not determine separate
employment figures for the crab fishery because of this
multiple fishing pattern.

Recreational fishing

The blue crab resource supports a large recreational fish-
ery on the Atlantic coast. Due to the problem of identify-
ing the number of recreational fishermen, there is no accu-
rate recreational catch data. Data is further limited by the
absence of catch reporting requirements for blue crab fisher-
men. However, the recreational catch in one of the leading

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

blue crab producing States may be as large as the commercial
catch.

On the gulf coast, conflicts between commercial and
recreational fishermen are minor and of a local nature. They
receive little or no publicity, and casual crabbers usually
stop operations during a conflict.

Although there is recreational fishing for crab in the
Pacific, the annual catch is very small when compared to
the commercial harvest. Recreational catch es~timates range
from 30,000 pounds in Oregon to 500,000 pounds in Alaska
annually.

Management controls

Control and regulation of the blue crab fisheries along
the Atlantic coast is administered by the Coastal States from
New Jersey to Florida and the Potomac River Fisheries
Commission. The Commission's authority originated from the
Potomac River Compact of 1958, an expression of Virginia's
and Maryland's common interest in the conservation and im-
provement of fishery resources they share in the tidewater
section of the Potomac River. There are considerable differ-
ences among the States in terms of rules and regulations
limiting the use of gear.

There is no overall management for the blue crab fishery
in the Gulf of Mexico. Each of the Gulf States regulates the
fishery through various catch and gear restrictions. As
shown on the next page, there is no type of restriction which
exists for all States.

Mississippi and Alabama do not prohibit the taking
of egg-bearing females. Mississippi repealed a 10-year old
prohibition in 1975 because a relationship between the number
of eggs produced and the population level had not been dem-
onstrated. Texas and Louisiana prohibit the taking of
egg-bearing females, not to protect the resource, but be-
cause crab buyers do not want them landed as they yield
less meat than other blue crabs. The prohibition, while not
biologically sound, does not harm the resource. An NMFS
zoologist stated that State regulations probably have a
minimum effect on the size of the resource. Louisiana
officials also feel this way about regulations concerning
resource management.

The four Pacific Coast States exercise management
controls over the Pacific coast crab fishery. All four
States are involved in regulating the dungeness crab. In
addition, Alaska regulates t-he taking of king and tanner
crab.

7 0

Requirements and Restrictions on the Blue Crab
Fishery in the Gulf States

Florida TexasH
(note a) Alabama Mississippi Louisiana (note a)

Requirements:H

License permit Yes -Yes Yes Yes

Gear tags Yes -Yes -Yes

Catch restrictions:

Gravid females Yes --Yes Yes

Size Yes Yes -Yes-

Closed season--

Number -

Gear restrictions:

Tvpe Yes --Yes Yes

Size --Yes -Yes

Number ---Yes

Construction Yes -Yes -

!./Some State laws and regulations may only apply to certain counties.H

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

In the dungeness crab fishery, regulations in all four
States implement licensing fees, size limitations, sex limit-
ations, and restrictions on form of gear or method of capture.
Also in Alaska, California, and Washington seasonal time
limitations are placed upon the fishery.

In the king and tanner crab fisheries, regulations con-
sisted of gear or method of capture restriction and licens-
ing requirements. Additional regulations, such as size and
sex limitations and seasonal time limitations, were imposed
upon the king crab fishery.

Since king crab is a creature of the Continental Shelf,
the United States assumes jurisdiction outside the 12-mile
fishery zone. Exercising this power, the United States
entered into bilateral executive agreements with Japan and
the Soviet Union establishing conditions under which foreign
fisheries could operate. Under these agreements, foreign
catches have been gradually reduced. The Soviets have not
fished the Eastern Bering Sea for king crab since 1971. The
Japanese king crab quota for 1975-77 was reduced to 2.1
million pounds annually, but they did not take any in 1975
and have indicated they will not take any in 1976. Catch
quotas have also been established under bilateral agreements
for the foreign tanner crab fisheries.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR GROWTH AND
DEVELOPMENT OF THE FISHERY

Resource availability

The concept of a maximum sustainable yield is probably
of limited usefulness for an annual species, such as the blue
crab, in which abundance is highly variable and does not
appear to be closely related to the number of spawners or
the annual catch.

Because the blue crab is a short-lived species (2 to 3
years) , a low survival rate of I year-class can produce an
almost immediate decrease in availability. Year-class
size is determined in larval or early crab stages. Fall
sampling of young crabs 1/2 to 2 inches wide provides data
for estimates of adult abundance.

In the Pacific, the king and dungeness crab fisheries
are used intensively and are approaching their maximum sus-
tainable yield. The tanner crab in the Eastern Bering Sea is
the only Pacific coast species capable of expansion. Accord-
ing to NMFS survey results, the tanner crab outlook is good
because of its large populations. NMFS believes that the

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

current abundance level of tanner crabs can continue to sup-
port present catch levels and that room for expansion exists.

Harvesting capability

According to State officials, there is a sufficient
amount of gear in the blue crab fishery for fishermen to
take advantage of abundant year-classes when they occur.

Trawls, which are more effective than traps, are used
to take blue crabs in the coastal waters of the South Atlantic
States. One researcher has suggested that an increased
crabbing effort could be productive around the Mississippi
River delta and in the Atchafalaya Bay area of Louisiana,
and that trawls should be used in these two areas. Evalua-
tions of trawl use in Florida and Mississippi are planned.

The crab harvesting capability along the Pacific coast
is adequate to harvest the resources available. Even con-
sidering the potential tanner crab increase, the existing
king crab fleet would be able to fish tanner crab.

Product development and
processing

Mechanization of the picking process, and an extension
of the shelf life of bulk-packed crabmeat and shoft-shell
crabs offer growth opportunities in the blue crab fishery.

Most blue crabmeat now marketed is hand picked because
machine methods do not remove enough shell, but the supply
of workers is dwindling. When blue crabs are most abundant,
processors have to limit crab purchases in proportion to
their capacity to pick meat manually.

At a November 1975 crab industry conference, announce-
ments were made concerning three crab picking machines that
may revolutionize the processing industry. It is believed
that these machines will improve the meat quality because
there will be less contamination from handlers, and they are
faster and more efficient in producing shell-free meat.

Future improveentsablroesigoprdc deeomenner
inthe Pacific crab fishery are not needed. Present capa-
bilityis adequate to process all harvested crab in an accept-

Marketing potential

Present markets for blue crab are located primarily in
coastal areas; therefore, there is an opportunity to develop

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

markets further inland. However, with demand and prices for
blue crabs increasing, and processors having little difficulty
selling to existing markets, large changes in market distri-
bution are not necessary. Accordingly, neither industry nor
State agencies in the Chesapeake see a need to actively
engage in market development or promotional activities.

The marketing potential for Pacific crabs is also high,
providing domestic production can be increased. Demand has
remained strong despite considerable increases in pride, but
supply has inhibited growth in the market.

OBSTACLES INHIBITING GROWTH
AND DEVELOPMENT

Resource availability

The major problem in the blue crab fishery is the wide
variation in year-class abundance which adversely affects
stability of the industry. There is insufficient information
to determine whether the blue crab fishery can be maintained
at any particular abundance level through conservation
measures or whether the yield is wholly determined by natural
factors.

In the gulf, NMFS biologists believe that resource
assessment data is insufficient to make quantitative evalu-
ation of stock status. Records of blue crab landings in
the gulf are only rough estimates of the total annual catch.
For example, in Louisiana, the actual harvest, including the
recreational catch, may be twice as high as that indicated
in the landing records.

While research data on environmental factors is limited,
some problems have been identified. For example, sea grasses
of Chesapeake Bay have been declining and in many areas eel-
grass has completely disappeared. During their juvenile
stages, Blue crabs as well as many other organisms depend
upon the protection afforded by these grasses. State research
is currently attempting to determine to what extent the crab

is affected by the loss of this habitat.
Chemical pollutants can also adversely affect the fishery.I
Due to contamination from a pesticide known as kepone, the
State of Virginia, on December 17 and 18, 1975, ordered the
entire James River and its tributaries from the fall line at
Richmond to the mouth at Chesapeake Bay, closed to the taking
of shellfish and finfish until th-e effects of this substance
could be more fully determined. J

The closing of the James River has had serious economic
implications for an estimated 150 fishermen who depend on it

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

for their livelihood. Their mobility to other grounds is
impaired by the type of gear that they use. Fishermen from
different locations are not tolerant of others moving into
their crabbing grounds. As of June 11, 1976, a small portion
of the James River was opened to the taking of crabs under
certain constraints. The Environmental Protection Agency and
State agencies are monitoring the kepone situation for any
potential effect on fish migrating from the James River into
the Chesapeake Bay and other areas.

The primary obstacle inhibiting growth in the Pacific
coast crab fisheries is the lack of resource. The dungeness
and king crab are under intensive use and are approaching
their maximum sustainable yields.

In the tanner crab fishery where resources are under-
exploited, economics are inhibiting a more rapid development
of the available resource. According to an NMFS official,
the price received per pound for tanner crab is not high
enough to draw fishermen away from more profitable fisheries.
Unless the price for tanner crab increases or the other
fisheries become less profitable, the tanner crab resource
will probably continue its slow development.

Harvesting capability

On the Atlantic coast, laws governing the industry
appear to be the only barrier to more efficient harvesting
techniques. Some of the restrictions, such as size limits,
are biologically sound and are important as conservation
measures. However, some are based only on tradition while
others were enacted to protect certain segments of the in-
dustry and may be inhibiting the development of more efficient
gear. Examples include prohibition of dredges in one State,
and, in another State, the implementation of a winter daily
quota limit for fishermen using dredges. Nevertheless,
fishermen indicate that they are satisfied with the tradition-
al ways of crab fishing which are ingrained among them.

On the gulf coast, the use of trawls to take crabs is
prohibited in Louisiana, the State which produces the great-
est amount of blue crabs in the gulf. A State official
stated that the prohibition is due largely to conflicts which
would exist in law enforcement should trawling be permitted.
Also, politicians, who are ultimately responsible for changing
the laws, do not understand the issue. It has been recommend-
ed that trawling with large-mesh trawls should be permitted
with seasonal and area restrictions.

Although the taking of crabs with trawls is allowed in
all other Gulf States, trawls are not used. Either economi-
cally harvestable concentrations of crabs are not available

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

or the gravid females found in such concentrations are not
in demand or may not be legally taken.

The opportunity to use crab scrapes to increase the
harvest of soft-shell crabs has been ignored by soft-shell
crabbers who seem reluctant to invest in new gear or change
their shedding practices. Additionally, bottom conditions
may preclude their use in some areas.

on the Pacific coast, we found no obstacles hindering
the use of efficient harvesting techniques.

Product development and
processing

Growth of the blue crab fishery on both the Atlantic
and gulf coasts is strongly inhibited by processing limita-
tions. During peak periods, the supply occasionally exceedE
the processing capacity of local plants. At these times,
crabbers are asked to stop fishing or the catch is shipped
out of the area.

The blue crab industry at times has been affected by
factors, such as development of the basket trade, labor
supply problems, and fluctuations in resource abundance.
Processors on the Atlantic coast stated that the basket
trade, which involves selling large crabs live at premium
prices, has deprived them of part of the resource. It is
economically impractical for the processors to compete with
the basket trade in buying large crabs. Consequently, they
have to buy smaller crabs which are more difficult to pick
by hand.

According to processors, many members of the availableI
labor supply seek other types of work or apply for welfare
or unemployment compensation as alternatives to picking
crabs. In part this is due to the unpleasant working condi-
tions in a crab processing plant. Also, with small crabs
to process, a crab picker has to work hard to earn sub-
stantially more than the minimum hourly wage. Seasonal and
yearly fluctuations in the supply of crabs affects the
employment stability and adds to the problem. On the gulf
coast, the problem appears to be that many people are will-
ing to work provided the pay is under the table so that they
can continue to collect welfare benefits. The industry has
been reluctant to operate in this fashion, but if the labor
shortage continues they may be forced to do so.

With fewer large crabs to work with an-d with labor
supply problems, the need for efficient mechanical processing

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

has grown. Although some processors are experimenting with
and investing in mechanical equipment, most have relatively
small operations and with large fluctuations in resource
supply there is a reluctance to make the necessary research
and development investments. Because of the relatively short
refrigerated shelf life of fresh picked crabmeat, further
processing, such as freezing, pasteurizing, or canning is
required if the meat is to be stored for later sale. The
recent trend has been to pasteurize, which maintains flavor,
texture, color, and wholesomeness for a long time.

On the Pacific coast, we found no product development
or processing obstacles that hindered growth and development
of the crab fishery.

Market development

Resource fluctuations and processing difficulties limit
growth and development of blue crab markets. Consumers, when
faced with a product that is not readily available, will in
most instances seek substitutes.

Competition from Japanese -and Taiwan crabmeat imports,
both canned and frozen, is a major problem for the blue crab
industry. Some of the minced crab from Japan is also com-
petitive with certain blue crab products.

On the Pacific coast, the lack of proper handling and
storage, education, and training by wholesalers and retailers
result in inferior products being marketed. Crab processors
stated that wholesalers and retailers are not insuring that
frozen crab products are kept frozen until purchased or are
refreezing thawed crab resulting in an unsatisfactory prod-
uct. The crab processors felt that if properly maintained
products reached the consumer, product demand would increase,
particularly in the areas of the United States where frozen
products comprise the total crab consumption.

EFFECTS OF A 200-MILE LIMIT
ON THE FISHERY

The Atlantic and gulf blue crab fishery is totally
within State jurisdiction and thus is not affected by the
Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976. A 200-mile
fishing zone should have little effect upon the Pacific crab
fishery as most foreign fishing has been curtailed.

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH

Groundfish is the name applied to a group of fin fish
species that is caught on or near the bottom of the ocean,
including: cod, haddock, flounders, hakes, pollock, ocean
perch and whiting (silver hake) in New England. Groundfish
caught primarily in the Middle Atlantic, Chesapeake Bay,
and South Atlantic include butterfish, croaker, and scup.
Groundfish species have different biological characteristics,
habits, and ranges. For example, pollock migrate and are
found at various depths in the water column while yellowtail
flounder remain relatively stationary on or near the ocean
bottom.

U.S. fisherman have fished for groundfish since early
colonial days. Flounder and cod provide the greatest ton-
nage and dollar income to U.S. groundfishermen. With 1973
landings of 112.2 million pounds, valued at $26.2 million
using ex-vessel prices, flounders ranked second in volume
and fourth in value among all species landed on the Atlantic
coast. Cod ranked seventh in volume and tenth in value with
landings of 50.4 million pounds worth $9.0 million. Other
species, such as red and silver hake, are less valuable and
are not heavily fished by U.S. fishermen. When combined,
groundfish ranked first in value among Atlantic coast fish-
eries in 1973.

STATUS OF THE FISHERY

Current harvest

Atlantic coast groundfish landings have declined sharply
since the early 1960s, as shown in table 1. Major declines
occurred in the haddock, silver hake, ocean perch, and
industrial fisheries. Decreased landings were due primarily
to overfishing.

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III
Table 1

Commercial Atlantic Groundfish
Landings (except Florida) (note a)

Landings
Year (pounds) Value

(millions)

1960 529.8 $31.0
1965 492.3 37.6
1970 316.7 38.1
1972 281.2 42.7
1973 292.9 48.6
1974 (note b) 277.9 50.9
1975 (note b) 285.1 64.8

aIncludes landings of cod, cusk, flounders, haddock, red and
white hake, ocean perch, pollock, and silver hake (whiting).
bPreliminary data.

Large foreign fishing fleets appeared off the New England
coast in the early 1960s, placing heavy fishing pressure on
groundfish stocks. In addition to adversely affecting the
economic position of U.S. fishermen by being intense competi-
tors, foreign fleets have caused or contributed to the de-
pletion of species such as haddock and yellowtail flounder
stocks and reduced abundance in stocks of cod, ocean perch
and lower value species such as red hake and silver hake.
Overall groundfish abundance off the New England coast is
estimated to have declined 45 percent between 1963 and 1972.
Extremely large haddock catches were made on Georges Bank in
1965, primarily by the Soviet Union. Total haddock catches
peaked in 1965 at about 330 million pounds then fell to
less than 12 million pounds in 1973.

The foreign catch of major groundfish species off the
Atlantic coast from Maine to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina,
was 1.1 billion pounds or 71 percent of the total in 1965.
Total catch quotas and country allocations, size limits, mesh
regulations, and area closures have improved attempts to con-
trol fishing effort during the 1970s and have helped to re-
duce foreign catches of popular groundfish species such as
cod and flounders. While foreign catches have declined
since 1965, in most years they have exceeded 50 percent of
total groundfish caught. For example, table 2 shows that in
1974, 60 percent of the total catch of major groundfish
species in this area was made by foreign nations. Foreign
fleets have not caught large quantities of groundfish off
the South Atlantic coast.

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

The groundfish industry is concentrated at New England
ports which accounted for about 80 percent of Atlantic coast
groundfish landings and about 53 percent of U.S. landings of
major groundfish species in 1975. Table 3 shows preliminary
1975 data on landings of major groundfish species by region.
Groundfish landings by distance caught from shore are shown
in table 4.

Except for a small directed trawl fishery in North
Carolina, groundfish.in the South Atlantic are usually caught
incidentally to shrimp trawling. However, there is a hook
and line fishery for snappers and groupers and a trap fishery
for sea basses.

I\ ~ Table 2
Atlantic Groundfish Catches off the Atlantic coast
from Maine to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, 1974

Pounds
Total catch U.S. catch as a
Species U.S. catch (including foreign) percent of total
------------------ (000 omitted)------------------
Cod 57,355 77,370 74
Haddock 6,653 11,290 59
Ocean perch 19,129 23,173 83
Silver'hake 31,125 286,609 11
Red hake 6,038 73,922 8
Pollock 17,747 27,322 65
Yellowtail
flounder 55,225 55,818 99
Other flounders 45,224 46,826 97

Total 238,496 602,330 40

TABLE 3 :
Commercial Atlantic Groundfish Landings (except Florida)
1975 (note a)

H
H
H

South Atlantic Total Atlantic
New England Middle Atlantic _Chesapeake (except Florida) (except Florida)
Species Pounds Value Pounds Value Pounds Value Pounds Value Pounds Value

(000 omitted)

Cod 55,146 12,858 740 239 15 4 - - 55,901 13,101

Cusk 3,098 426 - - - - - - 3,098 426

Flounders 78,314 27,192 9,677 3,445 4,311 1,227 11,662 3,588 103,964 35,452
co
Haddock 16,165 5,283 1 - - - - - 16,166 5,283

Hakes (red and
white) 9,857 932 1,192 98 5 - - 11,054 1,030

Ocean perch 32,052 3,304 - - 2 - - 32,054 3,304

Pollock 20,567 2,472 9 1 - - - - 20,576 2,473

Silver hake 33,197 2,765 9,065 960 13 1 2 - 42,277 3,726

248,396 55,232 20,684 4,743 4,346 1,232 11,664 3,588 285,090 64,795
a__ _ Preliminary _ _d a t a_. tP
z
a) u
Preliminary data. H

TABLE 4

Commercial Atlantic Groundfish Landings (except Florida)
by Species, by Distance Caught Off the Atlantic Coast and H
,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Caught in International Waters off Foreign Shores, 1975 (note a) H
H
Caught H
in international
Distance cauqht off Atlantic Coast waters off Total
0 to 3 miles 3 to 12 miles Over 12 miles foreign shores Percent
SPECIES Pounds Percent Pounds Percent Pounds Percent Pounds Percent Pounds (note b)
(000 (000 (000 (000 (000
omitted) omitted) omitted) omitted) omitted)

Cod 4,387 8 14,426 26 35,963 64 1,125 2 55,901 100

Cusk 103 3 1,428 46 1,501 48 66 2 3,098 100

Flounders 21,445 21 14,976 14 67,275 65 268 - 103,964 100
co
Haddock 198 1 1,231 8 9,967 62 4,770 30 16,166 100

Hakes (red and
white) 2,026 18 3,591 32 5,196 47 241 2 11,054 100

Ocean perch 92 - 470 1 19,444 61 12,048 38 32,054 100

Pollock 1,662 8 3,734 18 13,305 65 1,875 9 20,576 100

Silver hake 5,456 13 12,492 30 24,314 58 15 - 42,277 100

35,369 52,348 176,965 20,408 285,090

a)u
a)Preliminary data. x
H
b)Percentages H
Perentgesmay not add due to rounding.H

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Fishing fleet

Until introduction of the otter trawl in the early 1900s,
U.S. fishermen using hook and line and bottom longlines
ranged as far as the Grand Banks off Newfoundland, Canada
fishing for cod. In more recent times, the otter trawl, a
net towed on or close to the ocean floor, has become the pre-
dominant gear used. Small amounts of groundfish are caught
by other gear, including hand and longlines and gill nets.
TABLE 5
Commercial Atlantic Groundfish
Landings (except Florida) by Types of Gear, 1972 (note a)
Pounds
(000 omitted)
Fish otter trawls 259,400
Gill nets (anchor, set or stake) 6,600
Hand lines and longlines (or set with
hooks) 12,900
Other 2,300
Total 281,200

a) Includes cod, cusk, flounders, haddock, red hake, white
hake, ocean perch, pollock and silver hake.

Groundfish vessels operate out of numerous ports along
the coast. In New England, major ports include Portland and
Rockland, Maine; Gloucester, Boston, New Bedford and
Provincetown, Massachusetts; and Point Judith, Rhode Island.

Typical Atlantic coast otter trawl vessels are aging
wooden size trawlers and range from about 15 to 150 gross
tons. These vessels have capacities of from 10,000 to
160,000 pounds of iced fish. Large trawlers, over 150 gross
tons, have capacities of up to 400,000 pounds.

Most of the New England groundfish catch is made by
medium and large trawlers fishing on Georges Bank, a section
of the Continental Shelf which is also heavily fished by
foreign fleets. Georges Bank is located off the coast of New
England. While U.S. vessels still journey to the Nova
Scotia Banks where large amounts of ocean perch as well
as other groundfish species are caught, higher fuel costs
generally make it uneconomical to travel as far as the
Grand Bank off Newfoundland, Canada. Smaller and older U.S.
vessels normally fish close to the coastline because they are
less able to survive storms in offshore areas. U.S. vessels

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

are much smaller than the large modern distant water foreign
vessels which fish off our shores. Foreign vessels traveling
long distances to fish must process and freeze the catch at
sea. In addition to fishing vessels, some foreign fleets
contain support ships including factory, command, supply,
transport, and at times repair ships. Due to the closeness
of shore processing and supply facilities, U.S. vessels do
not need to be as large as foreign vessels and do not require
the sea support typical of foreign fleets.

In 1972 the Atlantic coast groundfish fishery included
about 765 otter trawl vessels and 54 boats. An analysis of
vessel age showed that most New England groundfish otter
trawl vessels were over 20 years old. Although some modern
vessels have entered the fishery in recent years, NMFS of-
ficials stated that most of the fleet remains old and poorly
maintained. An industry official, on the contrary, believes
that most vessels have been well maintained, but that due to
increasing maintenance costs as vessels become older, vessels
need to be replaced as continued maintenance will no longer
be economically practical. Industry officials conclude that
the bulk of the New England groundfish fleet is less effi-
cient than the relatively newer Canadian fleet and those
newer U.S. vessels employing modern technology.

Products and processing

most groundfish landed by Atlantic coast fishermen are
processed for the fresh fish market. Fresh fish is sold in
several product forms. Fish fillets are the fleshy sides of
the fish cut lengthwise and fish steaks are cross section
slices from large dressed (eviscerated with heads and tails
removed) fish. These product forms are also sold frozen,
as are fish sticks and portions which are highly processed
convenience products. Fish sticks and portions are made from
fish blocks which are fish fillets or minced fish frozen
into blocks weighing 10 pounds or more. Almost all fish
sticks and portions processed by U.S. firms are made from
imported fish blocks.

Both hand labor and machines are used to fillet ground-
fish on the Atlantic coast. Machines are used extensively
to remove the skin from fillets. Filleting machines are
available for some species and are used by some processors,
but according to an NMFS official, many processors do not
process enough fish to economically justify the machines.

Gloucester, Boston, and New Bedford, Massachusetts are the
major groundfish processing ports on the Atlantic coast. In
1974, according to a preliminary university study, there were

la ~~84

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

about 59 groundfish processing plants in New England--down
from about 71 plants in 1965. These plants produced about
$84 million worth of groundfish products in 1974, a large
increase in'value since 1965 when about $42 million worth of
groundfish was produced. Most plants process more than one
groundfish species and much of their production is made
from imported groundfish.

Markets

U.S. per capita consumption of major groundfish products1
has increased from 2.3 pounds in 1960 to 3.8 pounds in 1975.
Total consumption increased 95 percent from 418.2 million
pounds in 1960 to 813.5 million pounds in 1975. Most of the
growth occurred in the frozen fish stick and portion market
which increased from 112.5 million pounds in 1960 to 383.1
million pounds in 1975.

Fillet and steak supplies also increased, but at a
slower rate, reflecting a consumer shift to the more con-
venient, less expensive stick and portion products. Imports
have become a major factor in the frozen fillet market, in-
creasing from 109.5 million pounds in 1960 to 304.6 million
pounds in 1975. U.S. fillet and steak production is directed
primarily to fresh markets. Most imported fillets and
steaks are frozen because foreign fishing vessels are pro-
hibited from landing fish directly at U.S. ports.

Groundfish prices vary depending an factors including:
species, size, supply, season, and condition of the fish.
Groundfish prices are affected by imports, which have in-
creased dramatically in recent years. Studies of the effect
of imports on the U.S. groundfish industry conclude that
imports have dampened ex-vessel groundfish prices from 4 to
28 percent. Groundfish also compete in the market with meat,
poultry, and other fish products. As prices for substitute
meat products increase, demand for fish products, primarily
frozen, increases.

O0n the basis of total apparent use of fish sticks and por-
tions; the estimated edible weight of U.S. landings of cod,
haddock, ocean perch, halibut, and flatfish, and imports of
those species; less U.S. production of frozen fish blocks.

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Employment

Employment in the Atlantic groundfish harvesting in-
dustry declined steadily from 7,572 fishermen in 1960 to
5,980 in 1972. The decline is due in part, according to an
industry official, to reduced -crew sizes. For example,
large trawlers which employed about 18 crewmembers 10 or
15 years ago now employ about 10 crewmembers.

According to a preliminary university study of total
employment in groundfish processing in New England, it was
estimated that 1,510 persons were employed during peak periods
and 1,233 were employed during average periods in 1974. The
estimate was calculated by dividing total employment in
groundfish processing plants by the proportion of groundfish
output to total output in those plants.

Recreational fishing

A 1970 NMFS salt water angling survey estimated that
recreational fishermen caught about 113 million pounds of
major groundfish species off the Atlantic coast, as shown
in Table 6. Portions of the survey may not be accurate ac-
cording to a NMFS official who stated that the reported
average weights of some species appear to be unrealistically
high. The total number of recreational anglers in the United
States more than doubled between 1955 and 1970 from 4.5 to 9.4
million, but the rate of growth slowed considerably between
1965 to 1970. A more current survey covering recreational
fishing in the North and Middle Atlantic areas is being pre-
pared. Recreational catches of some groundfish species, such
as certain stocks of cod and flounder, are large enough to
have an appreciable effect on the resource.

TABLE 6
Atlantic Coast Recreational Groundfish
Catch, 1970

Species Fish caught Pounds
(000 omitted)
Cod 3,844 35,918
Flounders--summer 16,404 28,291
Flounders--winter 29,077 37,565
Haddock 501 2,528
Red hake 497 904
Silver hake 1,307 2,095
Pollock 2,451 5,584
Total 54,081 112,885

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Management Controls

Each coastal State has jurisdiction over groundfish re-
sources in its territorial waters, generally a distance of
3 miles off their coast. The Federal Government has juris-
diction over the contiguous zone, currently 3 to 12 miles off
the coast, and over U.S. vessels operating in international
waters. The Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976,
effective March 1, 1977, extends Federal jurisdiction to 200
miles off U.S. coasts. The International Commission for the
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (ICNAF), representing member
nations, recommends management actions to conserve fishery
resources in international waters off the Atlantic coast
from Maine to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. In addition,
bilateral fishing agreements have been negotiated between
the United States and the Soviet Union, and Poland and
Romania to provide an additional basis for management.

The States along the Atlantic coast have enacted
numerous regulations affecting the groundfish fishery in
their territorial waters, which include gear restrictions on
trawling in certain areas or during certain seasons; licens-
ing of fishermen and craft; and size limits for some species.
For example, in Massachusetts there are a number of special
legislative acts enacted over the years, which among other
things, limit the type of gear which can be used in certain
areas. Under these acts, trawling is prohibited within 3
miles off the coast in a large area north of Boston. Most
State regulations, according to one State official, were
designed to conserve the resources and to allocate them to
maintain balance among competing user groups, but that many
are antiquated and are in need of change.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT

Resource availability

The maximum sustainable yield (MSY) of groundfish off
the Atlantic coast from Maine to Cape Hatteras, North
Carolina, is about 774 million pounds. The quota for 1977 is
518 million pounds, reflecting in part the overfished condi-
tion of some species, as shown in table 7. In 1974 U.S.
fishermen caught about 238 million pounds of groundfish in
this area according to preliminary statistics. If resource
availability is increased to levels approximating the MSY,
a total of about 536 million additional pounds of groundfish
would be available to U.S. fishermen. While less information

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

is available for other groundfish species caught in the
South Atlantic, such as croaker, a NMFS official stated that
groundfish abundance will allow large increases in catches.
In 1975 croaker landings in the South Atlantic were about
10.3 million pounds.

NMFS scientists believe that effective resource manage-
ment could allow depleted groundfish stocks to recover to
levels approximating their long term MSY. The time needed
for stock recovery will vary by species and is subject to
several variables, including the stringency of conservation
measures and environmental changes. Also, under the Fishery
Management and Conservation Act of 1976, actual fishing levels
will be set at the optimum yield of the fishery and will be
determined by considering biological, economic and social
factors, and is expected to be less than the MSY.

Table 7

MSY's (note a) and Quotas for the Commercial
Groundfish Industry off the Atlantic Coast (note b)
From Maine to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina

Pounds
Species Estimated MSY 1977 quota

(000,000 omitted)

Cod 95 55
Haddock 110 c 13
Ocean perch 38 20
Silver hake 236 236
Red hake d132 d
~~~~~~d 97
Pollock 22 22
Yellowtail flounder 86 31
Other flounders 55 44

Total 774 518

aMSYs are based on commercial catch statistics and represent
current estimates of maximum sustainable commercial catches
bgiven current recreational catch levels.
Includes some area on Georges Bank which is within 200 miles
of Canada.
cBy catch only, no directed fishery.
Atlantic pollock MSY is 66 million pounds off the United
States and Canadian coasts and the 1977 quota was also 66
million pounds for those waters. The amount shown for the
United States was estimated by NMFS.

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Harvesting capability

The Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976
requires fishery management plans to include the capacity
of the fleet and the extent to which U.S. vessels will har-
vest available resources. The Atlantic groundfish fleet
has the capacity to appreciably increase present landings.
The extent of available additional capacity and the extent
to which U.S. vessels will increase their harvest of available
resources, however, has not been fully determined. NMFS and
a Sea Grant university are developing this information. A
NMFS official explained that the fleet capacity and the
amount harvested depend on a variety of factors including
the number of trips made and the mix of species caught. The
species mix depends on stock abundance, harvesting cost, and
ex-vessel price for each species.

Less popular species provide an opportunity to substan-
tially increase current harvests. U.S. vessels now concen-
trate on popular species, such as cod, ocean perch, and
flounders because high prices for those species result in
higher returns. Low prices or unstable prices for other
more abundant species, such as red hake and silver hake
make those fisheries less attractive to U.S. vessel owners.
In 1974 U.S. fishermen caught 83 million pounds or 74 per-
cent of the cod, haddock, and ocean perch caught off the
Atlantic coast, while foreigners caught 323 million pounds,
or 90 percent of the silver hake and red hake. if resource
abundance is increased to levels approximating the MSY, silver
hake and red hake would make up 331 of the 536 million addi-
tional pounds of groundfish which could become available to
U.S. fishermen.

Product development and processing

Substantial capacity is available to increase fresh
groundfish production. U.S. groundfish landings are sold
largely in the fresh fish market, if this market is saturated
the excess groundfish are then sold in the lower priced
frozen fillet and steak market. Faced with reduced landings
and increased frozen imports having a cost advantage, domestic
fillet and steak production has declined.

As U.S. landings increase, ex-vessel prices are generally
expected to decline. Increased volume will allow more effi-
cient utilization of existing processing facilities and
lower production costs. Processors then will be in a better
position to invest in new equipment and will also be better
able to compete in frozen markets with imported products. An
industry official believes that rising costs in Canada will
also improve the competitive position of U.S. processors.

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Marketing potential

As resource abundance increases, U.S. processors will be
able to increase sales of traditional products in existing
fresh fish markets. Markets for popular species such as
cod, haddock, and flounders are strong, but limited supplies
have hindered market expansion. NMFS and industry officials
also believe that U.S. processors will be better able to
compete with imports in the large domestic market for frozen
fillets and that U.S. processors may be able to produce fish
blocks at prices competitive with imports.

Opportunities also exist to develop new markets and
export markets for underutilized groundfish. For example,
an NMFS program to develop fisheries for underutilized re-
sources sponsored a European marketing study which evaluated
market factors in Western Europe for several underutilized
species, including silver hake. The study estimated that
the European import market for hakes is about 230 million
pounds.

OBSTACLES TO GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT

Resource availability and management controls

Overfishing, due to inadequate management controls and a
lack of timely action to conserve fishery resources, has been
the most important reason for reduced resource availability.
The lack of precise data has also contributed to the problem.

As noted previously, heavy fishing pressure by both U.S.
and foreign fishermen during the 1960s and early 1970s
resulted in major declines in groundfish abundance. In
1969 ICNAF adopted catch quotas for haddock and during the
early 1970s improved attempts to control fishing effort by
adopting catch quotas and country allocations, size limits,
mesh regulations and area closures. By 1974 quotas were
enforced on all species either singly or in groups and a
total quota for all species was set at a level less than the
sum of the individual quotas. The Fishery Conservation and
Management Act of 1976, by extending U.S. exclusive juris-
diction over groundfish resources to 200 miles off U.S. coasts,
provides the frame work for more effective resource manage-
ment control.

Because groundfish species intermix, several species are
usually caught when trawling. Also, small groundfish are
caugnt in small mesh nets used in other fisheries, such as
the shrimp fishery.

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

NMFS biologists believe that the incidental catch during
trawling operations is a serious problem contributing to the
reduced abundance'of some groundfish stocks, and that manage-
ment must recognize interactions between species. For example,
small haddock are sometimes caught in the silver hake fishery,
while large amounts of small silver hake are believed to be
caught and discarded in the shrimp fishery. Incidental catch
in the ocean perch fishery has included other groundfish
species such as cod, haddock, and silver hake. An estimated
20 to 30 percent of catches in New England are discarded at
sea and thus are not reported in landings statistics.

Conservation of the resources requires enough data to be
able to predict the ef~fect of different catch levels on each
species and to understand the interrelationship~ among species.
A good data base is even more important when managing at the
level of optimum sustainable yield. There is enough data
available to implement regulations to increase the abundance
of groundfish species, but there is insufficient data to
manage at optimum levels.

NMFS research, with limited resources, has focused mainly
on species of primary interest to U.S. fishermen. As a result
there is relatively little data available for some species
such as red hake, silver hake and sand flounders. Data on
red hake and silver hake has been obtained primarily from
the Soviets, who account for most of the catch of these species.
NMFS biologists question the reliability of silver hake data
because they have not reviewed Soviet sampling methods, and
because large numbers of young fish are believed to be caught
but not included in their samples. With the decline of the
yellowtail flounder fishery some fishermen have begun landing
sand flounders. According to NMFS biologists (1) very little
information is available about sand flounders and (2) it is
unknown how much fishing effort can be applied without de-
pleting the resource.

Harvesting capability

A 1972 NMFS study of the New England groundfish industry
found that about 44 percent of the groundfish trawlers were
operating at a loss due to high operating costs; depletion
of species, such as haddock and yellowtail flounder; and
increased competition from imports produced by subsidized
foreign fleets. The study concluded that the return on
investment in the New England groundfish industry declined
during the 1960s and appeared to be the lowest in any U.S.
fishery. Low return on investment was cited by a NMFS
official as the underlying reason for the lack of maintenance
on many New England groundfish vessels.

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

High costs for insurance, fuel and fishing gear, as well
as reduced catch rates were cited as continuing problems. An
industry official agreed that while some vessels have been
able to earn a reasonable profit many vessels have operated
at a loss or have received very low returns even though gross
revenues have increased.

The common property nature of the resource *is also a
problem. While increased resource availability could lead
to improved returns for groundfish vessels, industry and NMFS
officials stated that fishing effort will have to be limited.
Some form of limited entry may be needed to obtain maximum
benefits from improved resource management.

Because of low returns, unstable resource conditions and
high investment risks in the groundfish industry, vessel
financing has been difficult to obtain. While the Fishery
Conservation and Management Act of 1976 provides the basis
for solving many of the economic and institutional problems
leading to the decline of the groundfish industry, some in-
dustry officials believe that Federal assistance for vessel
financing will be needed until the problems are solved.

Product development and processing

B~eyond the problem of increasing the abundance of popular
domestic species, other factors affecting the potential for
product development and processing include technological
processing problems and the need for large capital investments
in modern processing and freezing facilities.

Groundfish meat yields from filleted fish could be in-
creased from the current levels of about 30 percent to about
50 percent, according to a study of productivity in the pro-
cessing industry, by using meat separating machines to remove
flesh from filleted carcasses. However, while these machines
are available and are used extensively by foreign processors,
most Atlantic groundfish processors do not use them. The
limited use of these machines is related to the low price
of the product produced, the lack of volume production by
domestic processors and the strong competition from imports.
As depleted stocks recover and domestic processors increase
the volume of production, their competitive position is
expected to improve in relation to imported products.

Even with strong foreign competition, NMFS and industry
officials believe U.S. processors may be able to produce
minced blocks made from silver hake which is underutilized
by U.S. fishermen. Processors have produced and sold minced
silver hake blocks but loss of product quality during frozen

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

storage made the product unacceptable. NMFS is developing
methods to extend the product's shelf life. Resulting pro-
cessing improvements for minced silver hake may also be
applicable to other species having shelf life problems.

Production of frozen fish products requires extensive
investments in processing and freezing facilities, If U.S.
production of frozen fish products is to increase appreciably,
large investments in machinery and facilities will be needed
according to NMFS officials. Domestic processors have not
invested heavily in frozen fish production facilities because
of the competitive position of imports and reduced supplies.

Marketing potential

Expansion of fresh fish markets has been limited by the
reduced abundance of the most highly favored species. High
transportation costs to inland markets and lack of information
on product distribution channels and wholesale prices were
also cited as problems.

Additional factors affecting potential for market develop-
ment include the need for extensive marketing efforts that may
be required to overcome consumer reluctance to purchase less
popular groundfish species and the need to improve the
quality of some groundfish products. A NMFS marketing official
stated that consumers generally want mild tasting,, white-
fleshed fish and that they are reluctant to buy unknown or
unattractive species or species with unappealing names such
as dogfish. The need to improve the quality of groundfish
was illustrated by a study of Western European market poten-
tial which noted that U.S. fish products have a reputation
for being of lower quality, and that U.S. exporters can
expect to meet strong competition from other exporting
countries as well as from European processors. Price, quality,
and consistent supplies are key competitive elements.

EFFECTS OF A 200-MILE LIMIT

More effective management is needed to assure improved
resource availability to U.S. fishermen. The Fishery
Conservation and Management Act of 1976 provides an oppor-
tunity for improved groundfish management through extension
of U.S. jurisdiction over fisheries resources to 200 miles
off U.S. coasts and by the creation of the Regional Fishery
Management Councils. There is, however, still a potential
jurisdiction problem related to control of the northeast
portion of Georges Bank, a highly productive fishing ground
off the New England coast but partially within 200 miles
of the Canadian coast. Establishment of boundaries based on

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

equidistant lines between the Canadian and United States
coasts would result in Canadian control of the northeast por-
tion of Georges Bank. U.S. officials cont-end that Georges
Bank is an extension of the U.S. Continental Shelf and there-
fore should be under U.S. control. The disputed area is a
major groundfish spawning ground.

~~~~~~~~~~~~APPENDIX III APNI I

GULF STATES GROUNDFISH

The Gulf States' groundfish consist principally of red
snapper, grouper and croaker. All three are food fish, but
croaker also has industrial uses. Recreational fishermen
heavily fish all three species.

The major fishery is the red snapper and grouper, which
is one of the oldest commercial fisheries in the gulf and
one of the more valuable (fifth in Gulf States).

The croaker industrial activity, which began around
1952, produces a large volume of low-value fish, less than
3 cents a pound. Croaker is considered to have one of the
highest potentials for expansion and development in the gulf.

RED SNAPPER AND GROUPER

The red snapper and other similar snappers, together
with groupers are caught in the same fishery on handlines
(snapper reels) on offshore banks throughout the northern
and eastern gulf and Campeche Grounds.

At least 17 species of snappers and 15 species of group-
ers are caught in this fishery, although not all species are
caught on all parts of the grounds. The predominant species
in the catch are the red snapper and the red grouper. At
least 11 species of snappers caught in the gulf are marketed
as red snapper, with additional species from the Caribbean
Sea. Although snapper and grouper are the target of the
handline fleet, many other species are also included in the
bycatch. Squirrelfish and bigeye have been marketed as red
snapper.

Similar commercial landing patterns are expected for
snapper and grouper, since both are usually fished with the
same gear and at similar locations. In addition, the eco-
nomic incentive for snapper fishing is expected to also in-
fluence grouper landings. Red snapper is a more valuable
species and thus increases the fishing effort for red snap-
per, influences higher prices, and causes increases in group-
er landings because of complementary production.

The fishery is not regulated or managed.

Snapper and grouper are bottom-living, slow-growing
fish largely confined to the Continental Shelf. They are
found most abundantly near rocky areas where nets are im--
practical.

As fishery pressure increased and the grounds initially
and successfully fished became less productive, fishery ac-
tivity expanded from the Gulf of Mexico into new areas.

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

The fishery grounds now include waters off the South
Atlantic coast of the United States, the Bahamas, the Gulf
of Mexico, and the western Caribbean.

Snapper and grouper are fished from depths of a few
fathoms to about 140 fathoms. The 15- to 60 fathom-depth
range is the most heavily fished and the most productive.
These areas lie generally beyond 12 miles from the coast-
line.

This fishery is considered under intensive use. The
volume of production has declined since a peak commercial
year in 1965 (25.8 million pounds). The size of the fish
caught has been getting smaller; however, the recreational
catch appears to be steadily increasing. An estimate of
the recreational catch in 1970 was pegged at 82.7 million
pounds.

Also in the 5-year period 1971-75, Cuban vessels working
off Florida harvested from 3.5 to 5 million pounds a year.

The lower catch rates and smaller size of fish suggest
that certain stocks of snapper and grouper may be in danger
of overexploitation. Furthermore, traditional fishing
grounds of United States commercial fishermen are diminish-
ing as-foreign countries extend their jurisdictions.

The reported declines in catch for each fishing craft
may indicate real declines in snapper and grouper abundance,
or U.S. commercial fishermen are obtaining smaller portions
of the available stocks, or both. The U.S. snapper and
grouper fishery, caught in the squeeze between costs and
returns, is finding it difficult to operate successfully,
particularly on distant fishing grounds.

Most of the U.S. commercial catch is taken beyond 12
miles off the U.S. coast in the Gulf of Mexico. Extending the
fishery jurisdiction to 200 miles gives the United States
exclusive control of the snapper-grouper grounds.

Analyzing the multispecies snapper-grouper fishery is
complicated by the lack of catch information from U.S com-
mercial and recreational fishermen and foreign fishermen,
who use different methods of capture. Catch and associated
effort data are not generally available, and the species and
size compositions of the catch (which includes up to 32
species of snappers and groupers) are not known with-any
precision.

APPENDIX III APEPNDIX III

The fish are caught in State, Federal, and international
waters, through which the fish stocks move. Therefore,
research necessary for management should be coordinated under
the State-Federal Fisheries Management Program and an inter-
national regional fisheries organization, such as the Western
Central Atlantic Fisheries Commission.

STATUS OF THE FISHERY

Current Harvest

The 1974 commercial catch totaled 18.3 million pounds,
valued at $9.5 million dollars. This fishery in 1972 ranked
seventh in volume and fifth in value among the Gulf States
fisheries.

The trend in U.S. landings of snapper and grouper has
been declining since 1965. Annual commercial landings of
snapper and grouper combined reached a peak of 25.8 million
pounds in 1965, followed by a gradual decrease to 17.6 million
pounds in 1973. From 1965 to 1973, snapper landings declined
from 15.9 to 11.0 million pounds and grouper landings de-
clined from 9.9 to 6.6 million pounds.

The commercial landings of snapper and grouper are
greatest in Florida, which accounted for 59 percent of the
snapper and 89 percent of the grouper landed in 1973. On
the South Atlantic coast of the United States, the annual
snapper catch has been constant at about 2 million pounds
and the grouper averages about 1 million pounds annually.

In the shelf area off west Florida, the Cuban bottom
longline fleet in 1973 caught an estimated 5 million pounds.

The following table shows the U.S. Gulf States commer-
cial catch for selected years.

Snapper Grouper Total
Year Pounds Value Pounds Value Pounds Value

(thousands)
1950 7,948 $1,851 6,839 $ 629 14,787 $2,480
1955 10,251 2,574 5,569 568 15,820 3,142
1960 11,996 3,039 6,859 774 18,855 3,813
1965 15,862 4,550 9,950 1,072 25,812 5,662
1970 11,422 5,071 8,637 1,573 20,059 6,644
1971 11,302 5,334 8,081 1,555 19,383 6,889
1972 11,355 6,097 8,071 2,037 19,426 8,134
1973 11,022 6,561 6,620 1,896 17,642 8,457

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

The 1973 landings, by State, follow.
State Snapper Grouper Total
(millions)
Florida 6.5 5.9 12.4
Mississippi 2.3 -2.3
Alabama 1.0 .2 1.2
Texas .8 -.8
Louisiana --
Total 10.6 6.1 1-6.7
Other .4 .5 .9
Total 11.0 6.6 1-7.6

Snappers and groupers landed at certain U.S. ports are
often captured on grounds remote from the port of landing.
Therefore landings, by State, are not always indicative of
the production of each State's waters or of particular fish-
ing grounds.

Preliminary data for 1974 shows that 1.4 million pounds
were caught from 0 to 3 miles; 2.5 million pounds, from 3 to
12 miles; and 13 million pounds, from 12 to 200 miles off
U.S. shores. About 1.4 million pounds were caught off Mexico
and in the Caribbean Sea, combined. Both production and
value are greatest from the high seas beyond 12 nautical
miles.

Products and processing

Important ports of landing for snapper exte nd from
northeast Florida to south Texas: the three major snapper
port areas are Pascagoula, Mississippi and Panama City and
Key West, Florida. Ports of landing for grouper extend
primarily from Key West to Pascagoula; the three major ports
are Madeira Beach, Fort Myers Beach, and Bradenton, Florida.

The major center for processing the gulf snapper and
grouper catch is Pascagoula. Snapper and grouper are cleaned,
gilled, gutted, and iced immediately after being caught.

When landed the catch are transferred from vessel to
conveyer belts which carries the fish through a wash. This
is the extent of mechanization for this fishery. The fish
are hand graded and packed in 100-pound lots, with or with-
out heads, and shipped either fresh or frozen. An alleged
problem with frozen snapper flesh is that it turns brown in
about 3 months.

Markets

Snapper and grouper are marketed mostly as fresh fish
with some going into frozen fillets. The products are

APPENDIX !II APPENDIX III

shipped to fresh fish markets and to institutional retail
markets.

In terms of commercial prices, red snapper is about
twice as valuable as grouper. The average U.S. red snapper
price increased from 24 cents a pound in 1952 to 56 cents
a pound in 1972. Average grouper prices increased from
about 10 cents a pound in the early 1950s to 26 cents a
pound in 1972.

As with many fisheries in recent years, the total value
(amount paid to the fishermen) of the landings has increased,
despite decreased total landings. The exvessel price for
each pound of snapper has increased markedly since 1965 and
for grouper since 1971.

The levels of imports of red snapper and grouper are
also important in determining price through their effect
on the available supply on the market. Imports of accept-
able quality to satisfy domestic consumers will be important
as long as they can be purchased at a price equal to domes-
tic prices or at a price lower than that paid for domestic
landings. Existing import data on both snapper and grouper
are not of'a'quality to be useful in econometric analyses
because data has not been continuously recorded over time
at each U.S. port. In addition, the numerous product forms
imported makes comparable measurements of the total pounds
of snapper and grouper imported difficult.

The recorded imports of snapper into the Gulf States
from 1952 to 1972 are shown on the following page.

A large portion of the imported red snapper and snapper
fillets enter at Port Isabel-Brownsville, Texas. Miami,
Florida, is the leading port for grouper imports and Part
Isabel-Brownsville is second. In several of the most recent
years, Miami appears to have increased its role in importing
snapper fillets.

Grouper imports recorded have also been considerable
and in a similarly diverse product form as red snapper.
Import classifications include grouper, grouper fillets,
steaks, chunks, chips, throats, fingers, heads, and breasts.
For the 1952-72 period, grouper fillets imported totaled
13.1 million pounds, whereas steaks and grouper totaled 0.92
and 0.48 million pounds, respectively. Annual imports of
grouper fillets have ranged as high as 3.0 million pounds
(1972) and have been the most consistent product form imported.
Since 1968 steak imports have not been recorded and grouper
imports lessened, whereas grouper fillet imports have remained
substantial.

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Product form
Red Red snapper Other
Year Snapper Fillets snapper fillets (note a)

(thousands)
1952 - - 713.6 - -
1953 - - 759.5
1954 - - 768.8 - -
1955 - - 724.7 - -
1956 - - 730.9 0.6 -

1957 - - 589.6 24.4 -
1958 - - 587.6 12.8 -
1959 - 202.0 314.9 12.9 -
1960 - - 243.8 230.7 -
1961 - 376.4 513.4 -

1962 - 60.4 563.8 80.5 -
1963 - 25.9 576.1 168.5 25.2
1964 - 73.8 1,063.7 93.7 3.6
1965 - 142.5 896.8 360.8 9.9
1966 - 163.1 719.7 484.0 25.2

1967 - 94.0 566.2 272.2 19.3
1968 - 435.1 185.7 - -
1969 2.0 392.4 339.1 - .7
1970 20.6 358.4 363.9 - -
1971 5.3 142.0 183.4 - 1.2
1972 141.1 12.2 208.7 299.3 71.0
Total 169.0 2,478.2 11,613.9 2,040.4 156.1

a/Includes red snapper steaks, throats, flanks, and dressed.

Fishing fleet

Most (96 percent in 1971) of the snapper and grouper
in the commercial catch are taken by the so-called handline
fleet. The vessels are usually diesel powered and range
from 26 to 79 feet in length. Many still retain the lines
of the traditional snapper schooners, are masted, and use
a small riding sail for the steadying effect while fishing.
The gear used are mainly baited hooks with simple handlines
or mechanical reels, exclusive of trolling and longline
gear. A small quantity of snapper and grouper are caught
by shrimp trawls, spiny lobster traps, fish pots, haul
seines, trammel nets, gillnets, and longlines.

The fishing gear used by the handline fleet varies with
the location fished and the species and sizes to be caught.

100

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

From 2 to 40 baited hooks may be used with each reel line,
but individual handlines sometimes have only I hook. The
hooks used are both conventional style and self-hooking
tuna-circle style. For bait, several species of fish,
shrimp, and squid are used.

Most of the fishing craft use ice to preserve the
catch, but a few are equipped with freezers. Some of the
craft are of multipurpose design to facilitate use in other
fisheries, such as shrimping and lobstering. For example,
about 25 percent of the handline vessels operating from
South Atlantic and Gulf States in 1969 were equipped with
additional types of gear in addition to those classified
as handlines, which were primarily mechanical reels. In-
cluded in the numbers of commercial handline craft reported
are an unknown number of sport, charter, and party craft
from which fish were sold and reported to NMFS statistical
agents. Therefore all of the craft reported as handlines
are not only used in the snapper and grouper fishery. The
usual purpose of such diversification is to operate prof it-
ably throughout the year. For the same reason, many of
the snapper-group fishermen are part time and are active in
other fisheries or occupations.

In 1971 the commercial handline fleet operating at
least part time from the Gulf States was made up of 397
vessels and 1,570 boats. About 83 percent of the vessels
and 76 percent of the boats were based in Florida. The
boats are generally less than 26 feet long.

In the northwestern Gulf of Mexico off Texas, relatively
few boats in 1972 were involved solely in commercial fish-
ing for red snapper.

A relatively small portion of the U.S. snapper-grouper
fleet participates in the fishery off the South Atlantic
coast. In 1971 there were about 56 vessels and 398 bo~ts
operating in the handline fleet along the South Atlantic
coast, with most of these craft based along the Florida east
coast. There is some seasonal exchange of handline vessels
between the South Atlantic coast and the Gulf of Mexico.

The total number of commercial vessels increased from
138 in 1953 to 406 in 1971, with a maximum of 546 in 1959.
The number of commercial boats has declined from 3,290 in
1956 to 1,602 in 1971.

In the Gulf of Mexico off the United States, the smaller
snapper-grouper craft that fish these waters are based at
nearby ports along the gulf coast and make 1- to 12-day trips.

101

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

The larger, traditional snapper vessels are based mainly in
the vicinities of Panama City, Florida; Mobile, Alabama; and
Pascagoula, Mississippi, and remain at sea for up to 3 weeks.
These vessels are capable of operating anywhere in the Gulf.

We were told that the commercial fleet included many
old shrimp vessels that were not kept in a state of good
repair.

The newer vessels added to the fleet in 1965 were 70
to 80 feet long, equipped with ref rigeration,-and designed
for multipurpose fishing. Fishing methods changed with
vessel improvements. Cotton handlines were replaced by
stainless steel lines and reels. Experimental otter trawls
have been modified for snapper fishing and shown to be more
effective than hook and line, but they have not yet been
adopted.

A study in 1973 for NMFS evaluated the fleet as old
and in need of upgrading. The vessel segment of the fishery
has been in a generally depressed condition for many years,
and financial returns have not been great enough to encour-
age vessel or personnel upgrading.

The study expresses reservations about the value of
upgrading vessels, because basic vessel productivity is
related to the number of reels and lines used and replace-
ment of vessels cannot greatly improve the economic climate
for the harvesting sector.

Employment

We were told that the average age of the snapper-grouper
fisherman is 55. Crew incentive is low because of the poor
state of the vessels, which are often out of service. As
a result, catch levels are low, shares are low, and crew
quality is the lowest among the gulf fisheries.

The numbers of persons in the fishery are not known.
All craft reported as handliners are not consistently used
in this fishery. The usual purpose of such diversification
is to operate profitably throughout the year. For the
same reason, many of the fishermen are part time and are
active in other fisheries or occupations.

Recreation fishing

Estimates of the recreational catch of snapper and
grouper are 82.7 million pounds landed in 1970, the year
of the most recent survey. By species, the recreational

102

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

catch was groupers, 41 million pounds; yellowtail snapper,
21 million; red snapper, 17.3 million; with the remainder
being other kinds of snapper. These data indicate that,
while red snapper make up the largest part of the commercial
catch, grouper and yellowtail snapper are important to the
sport fisherman. Although these estimates contain unmeasured
sampling and response errors, the magnitude of importance
of the recreational catch cannot be ignored. Premium com-
mercial prices paid for red snapper and accessibility to
yellowtail snapper and grouper fishing areas are primary rea-
sons for the catch differences between the commercial and
recreational grouper-snapper fishery.

Recreational fishermen and their craft have increased
in numbers in the last two decades. In 1973, 986,000 pri-
vate and commercially operated recreational craft, more
than 16 feet in length, fished in the salt waters of the
South Atlantic and Gulf States. In the gulf, snappers and
groupers were among the primary species sought by the oper-
ators of these craft.

Management controls

The snapper-grouper fishery is not a regulated or
managed fishery. We were told that no specific State regu-
lations are known which apply directly to this fishery.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR GROWTH AND
DEVELOPMENT OF THE FISHERY

Resource availability

The snapper-grouper fishery is considered under inten-
sive use. Little information is available on the life
history and population dynamics of this fishery. No MSY
estimates have been made.

In 1968 the latent fishery resource for the Gulf of
Mexico was estimated at about I billion pounds.

Using the 1968 data and FAO data published in 1971, we
extrapolated a resource level of about 250,000 million
pounds for the Gulf of Mexico.

Harvesting capability

The capability of the industry seems to be flexible,
but difficult to assess. The overall trend in the size of
the fishing fleet (i.e., numbers of vessels and boats) has
been one of decline since the middle and late 1950s.

103

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Fishermen, some of whom are part time, move in and out
of the fishery as economic conditions change in other fisher-
ies in which they work or within the snapper-grouper fishery.

In the northwestern Gulf of Mexico, shrimp fishermen,
at times, fish for snapper by hook and line during slack
shrimping periods.

New vessels entering the fleet may be increasing the
overall industry harvesting capability, even though the
number of vessels is decreasing because of the size of the
new vessels, but this kind of comparative data is not
available. Future harvesting capability is not known.

Product development and processing

At the present time there appears to be no need for
developing new forms of snapper-grouper products since all
the commercial catch is readily marketed.

The processing method now is a rather simple, unsophis-
ticated process--a combination of conveyor belt and manual
handling. This processing method does not appear to be a
drawback to meeting market demands.

Research efforts to improve processing methods are not
beingT programed.

Marketing potential

There is a ready market for snapper and grouper. Low
production is the limiting factor. The volume of imports
indicates that increased production could be marketed if
prices were competitive.
OBSTACLES INHIBITING GROWTH AND
DEVELOPMENT OF THE FISHERY

Resource availability

The decline in commercial catch in recent years indi-
cates resource problems related to increased fishing pres-
sure by commercial, recreational, and foreign-flag fisher-
men. Furthermore, grounds historically fished by U.S.
fishermen are diminishing as the Bahamas, Mexico, and the
Caribbean nations extend fisheries jurisdictions.

Industry operators think that overfishing is causing
decreasing harvest levels. In 1974 the harvest was bad,
particularly because of rugged weather in the summer and fall.
The average size of fish caught is now only 3 to 3� pounds
compared to 6� pounds 10 years ago--an indication, fisher-
men think, of overexploitation.

104

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Catches in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico by Texas
fishermen have declined since 1965 by about 50 percent.
Texas fishermen suggest that the shrimpers' increased trawl-
ing speed and more efficient trawls are capturing more
young snappers than in the past. They believe that discard-
ing these young snappers was the cause of the decline in the
snapper fishery. Similar comments were reported by Florida
fishermen in 1963. The total snapper catch for the Gulf
of Mexico off the Unite'd States has remained relatively
steady since 1961, but catches per vessel have decreased.

A recent study by the State of Texas of the red snapper
fishery in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico for the 1970-74
period found that the catch per effort and total effort by
commercial fishermen have declined, while sport fishing
for the species has increased. Shrimp fishermen marketed
the larger snappers captured in trawls and discarded the
smaller ones. Pressures applied to the fishery have adverse-
ly affected commercial landings on the Texas coast.
Definitive assessment of this fishery's stock and/or
potential yield is not possible with the available data.

Harvesting capabilities

The capabilities have existed to harvest the crops
close in, but as harvest areas began to move farther from
the coastline and quantity of harvest per craft decreased
fishermen were caught in the squeeze between costs and
returns.

The capability to harvest is assumed to exist but
limited by economic costs and returns constraints. The
effort to harvest this fishery will be directly related to
the level of exvessel price.

Fishermen on relatively small boats, who fish from 50
to 100 miles offshore, reported a decline in average size of
the fish from about 3 pounds 5 years ago to less than 3
pounds currently. Distant water fishermen said fth~t the
average size of the fish is thought to have declined from
about 5 pounds to about 2 to 3 pounds currently. Party boat
owners indicate the same trend and feel that the dockside
value of the average catch is less than sport fishermen's
cost. in addition to the smaller size of the individual fish,
boat captains state that longer fishing days and more trips
are necessary to catch the same amount.

A fisherman in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico off the
Texas coast stated that searching for fish took 95 percent of
the time, whereas actual fishing time was about 5 percent.

k ~~~~~~~~~~105

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

We were told that some commercial fishing captains
want to make only a limited number of trips each year
because of high taxes, and commercial crews do not like
to stay out more than 7 days at a time. A study for NMFS
concluded that a breakthrough in the efficiency of the
fishing technique itself is required; that is, innovative
gear and equipment to increase vessel productivity and/or
reduce crew size are needed.

Product development and processing

Product development and processing are not obstacles
for this fishery because there is a ready market for snapper
and grouper.

Market development

The market for snapper and grouper is substantial;
however, the decreased commercial harvest has limited the
quantity available.

Management controls

There are no management controls.

EFFECTS OF A 200-MILE
LIMIT ON THE FISHERY

The extended jurisdiction will convert this fishery to
essentially a domestic fishery, which will include the shelf
area fished.

From 1971 to 1973, as many as 25 Cuban vessels fished
each month on the west Florida shelf for snappers and group-
ers. For 1971, 1972, and 1973, annual catches were estimated
to be 4.0, 3.7, and 4.9 million pounds, respectively.

106/10.7/108

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

PACIFIC GROUNDFISH

Groundfish is the name applied to a group of fish that
live on or near the ocean bottom. Most qroundfish, or bot-
tom fish as they are sometimes called, are caught by the use
of trawl nets.

The principal U.S. bottom fish fishing grounds are loca-
ted over the Continental Shelf of the Northwest Atlantic
and the North Pacific coast. Over three-fourths of the U.S.
groundfish catch is landed on the east coast, chiefly at
New England ports.

The major Pacific coast groundfish species of commercial
or potential interest, excluding halibut--discussed in a
separate section of this report--include cod, flounders,
hake, lingcod, Pacific Ocean perch, pollock, rockfishes, and
sablefish. In 1973 California landings of groundfish totaled
over 66.9 million pounds, followed by Washington, Oregon,
and Alaska with 40.5 million pounds, 22.2 million pounds,
and 3.3 million pounds, respectively.

The various species known as flounders have provided
by far the greatest tonnage and dollar income to commercial
west coast fishermen. Rockfishes are the next most impor-
tant groundfish. Several species, such as pollock and hake,
which are caught only in small quantities by the U.S. fish-
ing fleet, have the potential of becoming important to
west coast markets.

STATUS OF THE FISHERY

Current harvest

Landings of Pacific coast groundfish are largely influ-
enced by market demand rather than species availability;
that is, only certain species are retained from the total
catch. Fishing is done at specific times and locations
where desirable species are known to occur. For this
reason, landings of groundfish in the coastal waters where
the fishery now exists cannot be used to assess the rela-
tive abundance of species exploited.

Before World War II, the dominant species of flounders
caught were petrale sole and English sole. After World War
II, demand for food fish resulted in the expansion and rapid
diversification of trawl fisheries to include a wide variety
of other flounders, rockfishes, and other groundfishes. The

109

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

development in 1946 of the Pacific Ocean perch fishery re-
sulted in increased harvests of deepwater rockfishes. Pa-
cific cod catches by trawlers increased rapidly following
the development of "fish sticks."

In 1973, the latest year for which complete fishing
data was available by State, about 133 million pounds of
groundfish were landed at Pacific coast ports with a value
of $13.8 million (table 1). The California catch comprised
a little more than 50 percent of the total volume of the
four States. Table 2 shows the total tonnage and dollar
value of Pacific Coast groundfish, excluding hake, between
1960 and 1973. Table 3 contains the most current summary
data showing the volume of groundfish caught on the west
coast and the distance caught from shore.

Table I
Landings of Croundfish by State
for 1973
Alaska Washington Oregon California Total
W, ilht Weight Weight W, ight Welrht
pct'Lut ~ (note a) Value (note a) Value (note a) Value (note a) Value (noLte a) Va;lu,
...----------------------- -...... (000 omitted)------------------------------------
'�od 158 $ 37 7,747 $ 703 514 $ 45 - - 8,419 $ 785
Flounder 992 72 8,466 1,039 12,497 1,427 32,550 3,913 54,505 .,451
lik, - - 2,482 37 78 4 34 1 2,594 42
i.inl od 91 21 2,402 253 2,326 212 3,559 389 0,378 875
I'a-lfie Ocln
p.rh - - 5,862 500 566 50 - - 6,428 550
'Iol loe - - 109 8 - - - - 109 8
HIol'teflaSl 189 35 12,873 983 4,924 361 22,216 2,310 40,202 3.,689
Sabll.fls, 1,911 473 578 111 1,327 155 8,550 661 12.366 1,400
3,341 $6]38 40,519 $3,634 22,232 $2,254 66,909 $7,274 133,001 13,800

-i/ I ..i1 ! n ipjunds.
:;Sl. .: I l 11. r" s.t.lli[stll s of Lhl' Ul,,td Stilt's, 1973
'.I111'J-1 Marine I]shi ri.s S,'rvi,.

110

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Table 2

U.S. Landings and Exvessel Value of
Pacific Groundfish, 1960-73 (note a)
(round weight)

Year Quantity (note b) Value

--------(000 omitted)---------
1960 108,434 $ 6,573
1961 102,818 6,142
1962 114,510 7,099
1963 117,530 7,493
1964 107,394 6,926

1965 120,604 7,523
1966 119,363 7,936
1967 108,596 7,418
1968 103,166 7,053
1969 110,385 7,746

1970 104,658 8,168
1971 97,773 8,641
1972 124,840 11,575
1973 130,407 13,758

a/Includes cod, flounder, lingcod, Pacific Ocean perch,
pollock, rockfish, and sablefish. Does not include hake.

p/Expressed in pounds.

Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce
Basic Economic Indicators
Atlantic and Pacific Groundfish, 1932-1972

Fishery Statistics of the United States,
1971, 1972, 1973.
National Marine Fisheries Service

T'able 3

Commercial Landings of Groundfish By U.S. Fishing Craft: 1975
Caught in
international
Distance caught off U.S. shores waters off
0 to 3 miles 3 to 12 miles 12 to 200 miles foreign shores Total
Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight
Species (note a) Value (note a) Value (note a) Value (note a) Value (note a) Value

�------~---�---------------------�(000 omitted) ---------------------

Pacific cod 2,316 $ 264 2,467 $ 273 5,834 $ 669 1,205 $139 11,822 $ 1,345

Pacific flounders 6,243 922 19,590 2,809 21,783 3,116 2,693 404 50,309 7,251

Pacific hake 3,301 49 86 3 - - - - 3,387 52

Pacific Ocean
perch 25 2 2,148 221 4,939 501 - - 7,112 724

Pollock (note b) 1,692 122 3,742 413 13,305 1,679 1,875 262 20,614 2,476

Rockfishes (note b) 3,929 761 17,507 3,135 11,853 1,488 1,608 160 34,897 5,544

Sablefish (note c) - -

Lingcod (note c) - - - - - - - - - -

Total 17,506 $2,120 45,540 $6,854 57,714 $7,453 7,381 $965 128,141 $17,392

a/Expressed in pounds. Source: Fisheries of the United
tb' States, 1975.
-/Total U.S. catch. National Marine F'isher-
ics Service.
c/Data not available.

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Products and processing

There are 49 Pacific coast processing plants which proc-
ess fresh groundfish for fillets and steaks. California has
21 such plants, Oregon 15, Washington 13, and Alaska 0.

The groundfish market in Washington and Oregon is a
fresh fish market. In these States, fish are landed at proc-
essing plants where they are filleted and either sold on the
local fresh fish market or shipped out of State. Most of
the shipped fish are air freighted to major metropolitan
areas such as Los Angeles and San Francisco. An Oregon in-
dustry spokesman stated that as much as 75 to 85 percent of
their catch is air freighted out of State. Processors in
Washington and Oregon freeze only those fish which are
spoiling.

During the winter months, most of the groundfish caught
in California are sold on the fresh fish market. At this
time of year dealers can generally take all, that are caught.
In the summer, because of the large quantities of groundf ish
caught, the market is glutted, and Northern California
processors have to freeze about 70 percent of the catch.
Processors south of San Francisco sell a fresh fish product
most of the year.

Groundfishing in Alaska is an insignificant industry
due to the economics of the fishery. Currently, most of the
groundfish caught are usually caught incidental to shrimp,
whidh are a primary target for Alaskan trawlers. Much of the
incidentally caught groundfish is thrown away or is reduced
to fishmeal.

113

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Foreign fishing fleets cannot compete in the fresh fish
market because they are not allowed to land fresh fish in
the United States.

Processors buy frozen fish blocks from foreign countries.
These blocks are partially thawed, breaded, and refrozen
and the product is then sold to customers who package them
as fish sticks. Much of the imported fish goes to fast
food stores and other high-volume operations.

Markets

The United States is the principal market for groundfish
products. This country consumed about 9 percent of the
world catch of groundfish in 1972 and received 65 percent
of the total world exports of fillets and blocks. In 1974
the United States produced only about 2 percent of the
blocks it used (table 4).

Growth of the U.S. market for fillets and blocks has been
phenomenal. In 1973 855.4 million pounds of groundfish
products were consumed--practically all as fillets, steaks
portions, or fish sticks. The annual market growth rate
averaged 7 percent during the 5 years ending 1973, despite
steady and sizable advances in price levels.

The continued rise in import volume, up almost 300 per-
cent in 10 years, has made possible the steady growth of
the U.S. groundfish market. Domestic landings have not im-
proved, although the steady deterioration of landings was
arrested during 1970-73. Thus, ever-larger volumes of im-
port fillets and blocks have been required to meet market
needs.

World demand for groundfish products has placed a bio-
logical and economic strain on the supplies of traditional
species. As a result, the composition and source of U.S.
imports is undergoing a considerable change. The composi-
tion (by species) and source (by country of origin) of U.S.
fillet and block imports during 1968 and 1973 are compared
in table 5.

Fifty-eight percent of U.S. block imports during 1972
were cod and 15 percent were pollock. These shares shifted
to 43 percent and 29 percent, respectively, during 1973.
Cod blocks traditionally have been the preferred raw ma-
terial for portions and sticks. The growing cod shortage,
however, has forced increasing dependence on other species,
especially Alaska pollock.

114

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Table 4

Supply of Blocks, 1967-74

U.S. production Imports
Percent Percent Total
of of supply
Quantity total Quantity total quantity
Year (note a) supply (note a) supply (note a)

1967 9,004 4.5 189,504 95.5 198,508

1968 4,235 1.6 261,086 98.4 265,321

1969 3,497 1.3 266,748 98.7 270,245

1970 3,892 1.4 272,655 98.6 276,547

1971 6,186 2.0 311,166 98.0 317,352

1972 3,508 1.0 355,459 99.0 358,967

1973 9,865 2.7 -/358,730 97.3 -/368,595

1974 4,621 1.7 266,073 98.3 270,694

a/Expressed in thousands of pounds.

b/Record.

Source: Fisheries of the United States, 1974
National Marine Fisheries Service.

115

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Table 5

U.S. Imports Of Fillets and Blocks

1968 and 1973 (note a)

Species 1968 1973

(000,000 omitted)

Cod 223.1 237.9
Haddock 55.6 75.8
Atlantic perch 50.5 88.4
Flatfish:
Atlantic 53.6 75.6
Pacific - 55.3
Wolf fish 7.3 7.5
Pollock:
Atlantic 8.4 41.9
Alaska 3.1 62.2
Unclassified 35.5 47.8

Total /437.0 692.4

Source

Canada 214.9 228.0
Norway 42.8 69.4
Denmark, Greenland,
and Faroe Islands 38.4 89.7
Iceland 82.2 110.7
Japan 3.3 133.2
Other countries 55.3 61.5

Total -/437.0 692.5

a/Expressed in pounds.

-/Sum does not add due to rounding.

Source: Indian Ocean Fishery Commission, United
Nations Development Programme, 1974, vol. 40.

116

APPENDIX III
~~~~~~~~~~~~APPENDIX III

Exvessel prices paid for groundfish vary by species,
size, dressed or round weight, season, and location. Ground-
fish landed at Puget Sound ports in Washington generally sell
for less than similar species landed in San Francisco or
Eureka, California. Listed in table 6 are the exvessel prices
paid for various groundfish landed at Puget Sound ports in
early 1976. Large, dressed, black cod (sablefish) was the
highest value fish, bringing 27 cents per pound, followed by
petrale sole at 24 cents per pound.

Table 6

Price List
Fishermen's Marketing Association of Washington
(As of January 20, 1976)

Species Price per pound

Petrale sole $ .24
Sand sole .18
English sole .14
Dover sole (14" and over, 3%
slime allowance) .13
Rock sole (13" and over) .19
Rex sole .13
Rock cod:
Ocean run .105
Red .115
Ocean perch .115
Flounders .08
True cod:
Round .125
Dressed .23
Lingcod:
Round .125
Dressed .23
Black cod:
Round, under 8 pounds .13
Dressed, under 5 pounds .22
Round, over 8 pounds .18
Dressed, over 5 pounds .27
Alaska pollock .08
Minor species, such as skate, etc.,
handled on a local basis >.07

117

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Fishing fleet

The trawl net is the predominant commercial gear used
worldwide for catching groundfish. The trawl net is towed
through the water, on or close to the bottom, by any one of
a variety of large and small fishing vessels.

One major exception to the trawl fishery is the longline
halibut fishery of the northeastern Pacific, where trawls are
barred to U.S. and Canadian fishermen. Other gear is also
used by U.S. vessels to catch groundfish. Pots and traps are
commonly used for sablefish; gillnets, troll, handline, purse
seine, and beach seine gear are also used to catch groundfish.

Trawling in the North Pacific Ocean began in the early
1930s and is a relatively young industry compared to the
salmon and halibut fisheries which were already well estab-
lished at the turn of the century.

Most U.S. and Canadian vessels in the North Pacific are
much smaller than those of other countries. U.S. and
Canadian vessels operate on fishing grounds which, for the
most Rart, are close to homeports, and catches are landed in
an unfrozen, unprocessed condition. In contrast, Japanese
and Soviet vessels fish far from home ports and they must
have onboard processing and freezing for their extended
operations.

The American west coast trawler typically is an aging
boat of 50 to 75 feet, owned and skippered by one man. It
works with a crew of three to five men. This small crew
makes west coast trawling economically possible. Only a
few larger modern trawlers are fishing on the west coast.

West coast trawlers may operate out of several coastal
fishing ports with relatively short runs to fishing grounds.
The only vessels making fairly long trips are those from
Puget Sound ports in Washington. These boats work off the
northwest coast of Vancouver Island and as far north as

118

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Hecate Strait because of the scarcity of local productive
grounds. This can involve round trips of 500 to 600 miles.
We were told by the manager of a Puqet Sound marketinq as-
sociation that 83 percent of their groundfish are caught off
the Canadian coast. On the other hand, groundfishermen from
Oregon and California fish relatively close to their home
ports.

Although many trawl or drag vessels still fish only
part of the time in the winter, there is an increasing
number of year-round vessels at work.

We contacted government officials in the four west coast
States to determine the number of groundfish trawl vessels
in the fishery (see table 7 below):

Table 7 (note a)

Groundfish Trawl Vessels

Operating from the West Coast, 1976

State Number of vessels

Alaska (b)
Washington c 95
Oregon -
California 113

a/Does not include vessels catching groundfish
incidentally.

b/Insignificant.

C/1974 data.

Groundfishing does not exist in Alaska. Federal and
Alaska State fisheries officials told us that nearly all the
trawlers registered in Alaska fish primarily for shrimp,
with some groundfish taken incidentally. Only one trawler out
of Alaska was reported to be operating in the groundfish
fishery. This vessel was catching bait for other boats in the
halibut longline fishery.

Employment

According to State and Federal sources, approximately
280 vessels were engaged in the Pacific coast groundfish
fishery in 1976.

119

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Washington, Oregon, and California industry officials
estimated that the average crew size on a typical trawler is
between three and five, including the skipper. Assuming an
average number of four fishermen per vessel, about 1,120 west
coast fishermen were working in the groundfishing industry.

The number of employees working in the 49 plants that
produce groundfish fillets and steaks is not available.

Recreational fishing

Bottomfishing represents a large and rapidly increasing
portion of recreational fishing on the west coast. Several
reasons for the recent interest in bottom fish are: (1) more
highly prized sportfish such as salmon have declined in avail-
ability, (2) bottom fish are relatively easy to catch and
require little experience or specialized gear, (3) they can
often be caught near major metropolitan areas, and (4) various
groundfish are excellent food.

In the past few years, sportsmen in the Pacific North-
west have become interested in the potential of bottom fish
for sport fishing. Bottom fish along the coasts of Oregon,
Washington, and Alaska represent what may be the last major
undeveloped sport fishery in the country. This resource has
probably been ignored in the Northwest due to the domin ance
of salmon angling, and this dominance has inhibited recre-
ational development of other fisheries. Before the early 1960s,
there were few angling trips specifically for bottomfish.
Nearly all bottom fish caught, including lingcod and halibut,
were incidentally hooked while fishing for salmon. Between
1965 and 1970 the number of bottom fish angling trips in
Washington State increased as interest in bottom fish both as
recreational and food fishes grew.

The outlook in the Pacific Northwest appears to be for
a continued rapid increase in bottomfishing. This forecast is
due to increased population, increased awareness of the bottom
fish potential, and the uncertain future of salmon angling.
However, the predicted increase in fishing for species other
than salmon in the Northwest accentuates the need for more
research on these species. Basic facts on life history, ecolo-
gy, age, and growth patterns are lacking for most of these
species.

Southern California marine recreational fishermen ex-
ploit many coastal fish species. U.S. partyboat fishing, in
which fishermen rent space aboard a boat for a day or half
day, has been popular in southern California since the 1920s.
In the last decade, vartyboat fishermen have caught about 4

120

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

million fish a year. Fishing from private boats, shorelines,
piers, and jetties is also quite popular, but statistics
have not been routinely collected.

We were told by an NMFS official that not much has been
done in the past to compile information on bottom fish be-
cause they have not been important and little funding has
been available to do studies. The most recent stock assess-
ment information has been compiled on the State of Washington
in 1967 and published in 1970. Even less information is
available for Oregon, California, and Alaska.

Effect on the regional economy

The groundfishing industry affects three of the four
Pacific Coast States. The groundfishing industry in Alaska,
as mentioned before, is not significant, although future
opportunities may be great. While no specific information is
available on the economic effect of the groundfish fishery,
the following facts indicate its importance.

1. Statistics prepared for the International North Pa-
cific Fisheries Commission show that 175.6 million
pounds of groundfish were landed by U.S. vessels in
1974.

2. About 280 trawlers directly employing about 1,120
fishermen take part in the fishery.

3. 1975 data showed that 49 plants processed groundfish
into fillets and steaks in the Pacific Coast States.

The effect on the regional economy of wholesalers, re-
tailers, and shipbuilding and overhaul facilities must also
be considered.

Management controls

Domestic

No Federal regulations exist on the taking of bottom
fish in the Northeast Pacific Ocean. The individual States
concerned have prime resource management responsibility.
There appear to be no important State regulations that affect
groundfish harvesting in Oregon, Washington, or Alaska. Cali-
fornia, however, prohibits trawling within 3 miles of the
coast and taxes nearly all landed fish at $.001 per pound;
California halibut is taxed at $.01 per pound.

121

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

International

The United States is a member of the international North
Pacific Fisheries Commission, which is concerned with all
fishery resources in the waters of the North Pacific and ad-
jacent seas. The International Convention for the High Seas
Fisheries of the North Pacific Ocean was brought into force
by Canada, Japan, and the United States in 1953 for the pur-
pose of insuring maximum sustained productivity of fishery
resources in the convention area. The convention provided for
establishing the International North Pacific Fisheries Com-
mission to promote and coordinate scientific studies necessary
to ascertain and recommend conservation measures required to
secure maximum sustained productivity of fisheries of joint
interest.

In addition to the International North Pacific Fisheries
Commission, several bilateral executive department agreements
were negotiated with the Soviet Union, Japan, Canada, and
other nations. These agreements were to reach an understanding
with foreign fishermen so the economic interests of the U.S.
fishing industry could be better protected while the rights
of foreign fishermen on the high seas could also be preserved.
Under terms of these agreements, the other nations have re-
frained from fishing in some areas of special interest to the
United. States in exchange for concessions to fish and transfer
cargoes at several places within the U.S. 12-mile fisheries
zone. In recent years, agreements with the Soviet Union,
Japan, and Poland have included quotas on the catches of some
species and provisions not to fish other species of particular
concern to the United States. Agreements with the Republic of
Korea and Taiwan do not contain catch quota provisions and
prohibit only the taking of halibut among the several bottom
fish species of concern to U.S. fishermen. A special feature
of the agreement with the Soviet Union has been the establish-
ment of a board to facilitate the settlement of monetary
claims arising from destruction of fishing gear or the inter-
ference with fishing operations.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR GROWTH AND
DEVELOPMENT OF THE FISHERY

Resource availability

The extent of habitable grounds on the Continental Shelf
is one of the major factors which determines the size and
potential yield of bottom fish. In the eastern Bering Sea,
the shelf is one of the broadest in the world, having an
average width of about 400 miles with extensive shallow areas

122

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

less than 50 fathoms deep. Over one-half of the eastern Pa-
cific Continental Shelf extending northward from California
is in the eastern Bering Sea.

Although much information on the kinds and quantities of
fish and shellfish occurring in the Bering Sea and Northeast
Pacific is available from research cruises and from records
of domestic and foreign fishing operations, large knowledge
gaps still exist.

We do know, however, that the waters of the Northeast Pa-
cific and Bering Sea are inhabited by some of this Nation's
largest and most valuable fisheries resources. From these
waters, U.S. fishermen harvested in 1971-73 an annual average
of 639 million pounds of fish and shellfish with an annual
dockside value of $170 million. However, the harvest by for-
eign nations from these waters dwarfs that of the United
States and accounts for about two-thirds of the foreign
catch from all waters within 200 miles of the U.S. coast.
Most of the foreign catch is groundfish, which is little
sought after by U.S. fishermen because American fishermen are
unable to successfully compete with the large foreign fleets.
Waters off Alaska are the site of Japan's most important dis-
tant-water fishing grounds, accounting in 1972 for about 60
percent of that nation's worldwide distant-water catch. The
Soviet Union also conducts a large and valuable fishery for
groundfish off Alaska and the Pacific coast. During 1970-74,
these waters contributed 26 percent of the Soviet Union's
catch from the entire Pacific Ocean and 10 percent of the
catch from all marine waters. More recently, the Republic of
Korea, Poland, East and West Germany, and the Republic of
China have commenced fishing operations off the U.S. Pacific
coast.

An estimate of the potential U.S. harvest may be viewed
as the sum of the foreign and domestic catches;~ for 1974 this
was 5.75 billion pounds of groundfish. The U.S. portion of
that catch was only 176 million pounds, or about 3 percent.
Perhaps a better estimate of the potential harvest would in-
clude additional yields that could be obtained from under-
utilized and unutilized resources, such as certain species
of flounders and rockfish. Also, many of the presently
harvested species have been overfished and their yields could
be increased with proper management.

in the spring and summer of 1974, Government and industry
carried out a joint venture to survey the potential of de-
veloping a domestic fishery for Alaska groundfish. Comparing
the results of this operation with surveys in the Gulf of
Alaska during the 1950s and 1960s, the abundance of Pacific

123

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Ocean perch and black cod appears to have declined while
pollock has increased. The decrease in Pacific Ocean perch
and black cod stocks coincides with the development of for-
eign fisheries. Reasons for the increase in pollock are un-
known.

During 1975 NMFS conducted a survey of bottom fish and
commercially important invertebrates inhabiting the Conti-
nental Shelf and upper slope of the northeastern Gulf of
Alaska.

The biomass in the survey area, as estimated from the
otter trawl catches, was 665.8 million pounds. of this ton-
nage, 40 percent were flatfish, 26 percent were roundfish,
and 4 percent were rockfish. invertebrates, sharks, and
skates comprised the remaining 30 percent. Three species--
pollock, turbot (arrowtooth flounder), and snow crab--made
up nearly half (48.5 percent) of the biomass estimate for the
survey area.

Harvesting capability

Adequate harvesting capability--in terms of many
experienced fishermen and suitable vessels--is necessary for
successful fisheries development. Although a sufficient
number of fishermen is available, there may not be enough
vessels to develop a viable groundfish industry. Many large
and recently built vessels in the Alaska shellfish fleet are
based out of Seattle. Many of these are large enough and
suitable for conversion to trawl for groundfish in the Bering
Sea or Gulf of Alaska and are seeking alternate fisheries
employment during the off seasons for crab and shrimp.

The manager of a Seattle fishermen's marketing associa-
tion told us that there is vessel capacity that is not being
used for the groundfish fishery because groundfish prices
have been low and up until now it has not been economical to
convert crab boats for bottomfishing. He said, depending on
the boat, conversion costs could be around $100,000.

The manager of a fishing vessel owners' association told
us that crab boats can be utilized a maximum of 7 months if
they fish for three species of crab. Average utilization now
is about 5 months. He stated that the capacity to fish for
groundfish is available, but that markets for the fish are
not. The association is therefore working with the U.S.
Government and foreign governments to develop agreements for

124

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

cooperative fishing. Under such proposed agreements, U.S.
fishermen would fish for the foreign interests and would
receive a price per pound of fish landed. The foreign nation
processes the fish and takes them home.

Product development and processing

Processing capabilities parallel harvesting capabilities.
In Alaska plants have been designed to handle the traditional
species such as halibut, crab, and shrimp. The labor force is
also accustomed to working with these products. The Puget
Sound area of Washington State has a wider capability in
both physical plants and labor force as the trawl fisheries
have been well established there.

An official of a large Seattle fish processor told us
that it is currently not economical for U.S. processors to
process groundfish into frozen blocks because they cannot
compete with foreign nations. However, his company believes
that U.S. technology will allow this country to compete once
the 200-mile limit is in effect and after the United States
takes over more and more of the frozen market through re-
duced competition. Some of the key factors will be the use
of smaller trawlers by the United States, the use of less men,
mechanical filleting, and more economical shore-based pro-
cessing.

Along the Aleutian chain are located plants, some aboard
vessels, that have physical facilities and refrigeration ca-
pacity adequate to accommodate changes to handle trawl-caught
species. A labor force could be developed from the same
group that is presently employed in shellfish processing.
This is especially true if some form of mechanized processing
is applied. Hand fillet operations would present a more
difficult problem.

The Alaska processing centers from Kodiak to Dutch
Harbor and the communities of the central and southeast dis-
tricts are in a good position to consider conversion to hand-
ling trawl-caught species. With adequate cold storage facili-
ties for stockpiling deliveries of frozen fish, existing
plants could schedule groundfish processing to best fit in
with their operations for other species. This would be a
cost-effective way of utilizing existing facilities and plant
areas. During the off-season for shrimp and crab, deliveries
of frozen groundfish might be supplemented by deliveries of
fresh fish by trawlers making short trips to nearby grounds.

Since 1968 NMFS has been carrying out research in im-
proved methods of utilizing species of fish generally neg-
lected and little used by commercial food fisheries. An NMFS

125

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

official noted that while there is an eager market for a
number of "luxury" species, there is a limited market for
those species which are most abundant.

It appears that the next few years will provide oppor-
tunities for using underutilized species of fish for low-
cost, high-quality protein extenders for meat in a number of
meat products.

For example, tests have been carried out with the muscle
of fish commonly taken from the waters of the northeastern
Pacific to determine how well they perform as partial re-
placers of the lean beef used as emulsifiers and nutritional
protein sources in sausage products. Commercial food pro-
cessors found that fish muscle is satisfactory for many
products. Work underway suggests that drum-dried fish muscle
makes a superior product to soy concentrate used by consumers
to extend ground beef. Fish muscle has many uses, most of
which have never been investigated.

Marketing potential

Annual per-capita consumption of groundfish products
has increased at a much greater rate than consumption for all
U.S. fishery products. The underlying cause of this is prob-
ably the increase in prices of shellfish, halibut, flounder,
and salmon, and the consumer shift to lower-priced ground-
fish products in retail stores. Increased use of groundfish
may also reflect the convenience of breaded sticks and
portion products for use by the consumer. Over 97 percent of
frozen fish blocks for making sticks and portion products are
imported--averaging over 300 million pounds in 1971-74.

In 1974 NMFS contacted a number of seafood purchasing
agents, distributors, wholesalers, and brokers in 13 cities
to analyze market conditions for a potential groundfish
venture in Alaska. NMFS found that there is an interest in
Alaska groundfish for future use depending on price, quality,
and reliability of supply. Most respondents are looking for
new supply sources, new species, better methods of processing,
and better business methods. If domestically caught-and-
produced Alaska-fishery products were marketed as high-quali-
ty items at a fair price, they might account for a large
volume of seafood in U.S. markets.

126

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

OBSTACLES INHIBITING GROWTH
AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE FISHERY

Resource availability

In 1972 the catch by foreign fishermen off the Pacific
coast of the United States and Alaska reached an annual level
of over 6.6 billion pounds.

On the Pacific coast, foreign fishing has concentrated
on Pacific hake, Pacific Ocean perch, black cod, Alaska
pollock, herring, and groundfish of the Bering Sea and Alaska.
U.S. fishermen land very little Pacific hake and almost no
Alaskan pollock--species that supply about three-fourths of
the foreign catch.

Expansion of fishing by Japan and the Soviet Union in
waters contiguous to Alaska has brought them in direct com-
petition with U.S. and Canadian fishermen for some species.
Since 1960, their fisheries have expanded farther south into
the Gulf of Alaska, off the Pacific Northwest, and eventually
to northern California. The Republic of Korea joined the
groundfish fishery off Alaska in 1967, and by 1975 had spread
to the Pacific Northwest. Poland and East Germany also
entered the fishery in 1972. The Republic of China entered
the fishery in 1976.

This expansion has had a tremendous effect on the fish-
ery resources and has complicated problems of managing and
conserving them. Some fish stocks have been overexploited
while most others are already fully utilized.

An NMFS planning document listed species they considered
to be depleted as of August 1975. The following are the Pa-
cific coast groundfish species other than halibut which were
listed

--Alaskan pollock,

--rockfishes,

--yellowfin sole, and

--yellowtail flounder.

Alaskan pollock has been overfished primarily by the
Japanese and Soviet fisheries in the Bering Sea. NMFS scien-
tists report substantial depletion of the Alaskan pollock
stocks and predict lower catches in the future. Pacific Ocean
perch found off the Oregon-Washington coast and in the Gulf

127

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

of Alaska have also been badly depleted by Japanese and
Soviet vessels. The same is true of the yellowfin sole and
other flounders of the Bering Sea.

The Soviet fishery off Washington and Oregon in 1966 for
Pacific Ocean perch led to stock depletion on some grounds
traditionally fished by U.S. trawlers. Since 1971, the
Soviet catch of Pacific hake has been limited by agreement
with the United States to 330.7 million pounds per year, the
amount believed to be the MSY. Recent commencement of fishing
for Pacific hake by other nations--particularly Poland, which
reported its catch to be 125.7 million pounds in 1975--has
resulted in the foreign harvest exceeding by a substantial
amount what the hake resource is believed to be capable of
sustaining.

Harvesting capabilities

Although many large and recently built vessels in the
Alaska shellfish fleet are suitable for conversion to engage
in trawling for groundfish, costs for trawling are higher than
for crab fishing. Trawling for groundfish requires greater
use of power, and hence more fuel, and causes greater stress
on the vessel and equipment than fishing for crab. Vessel
owners point out the need for approximately $100,000 addi-
tional investment to convert vessels (or construct new ves-
sels) equipped for trawling. This is likely to restrict in-
terest in a seasonal fishery unless market prices paid for
groundfish are adequate.

Product development and processing

The fragmented structure of the west coast and Alaska
fishing industry into many small and highly competitive units
has resulted in reduced profit margins and low capital re-
serves for speculative ventures in developing new fisheries
and fishery products. Commercial fishermen in many established
fisheries are now receiving inadequate returns on investment.
However, they continue to fish these resources because fish-
ing for underutilized or unutilized species, which would re-
lieve pressure on established fisheries, is too risky due to
inadequate knowledge concerning abundance, location of the
resources, harvesting methods, and markets for their catch.
In addition, the cost for constructing and operating new f a-
cilities for processing groundfish species is uncertain.

128

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

The finfish species available for development vary not
only in size and shape but also in holding quality. Some
species cannot be'held sufficiently long an ice to allow for
a reasonable length fishing trip.

A 1974 cooperative industry-Government Alaska groundfish
research program provided a good example of some of the
differences in handling and processing finfish compared to
shellfish. Pollock, the most abundant species available in
all areas fished, was found to have rather poor storage
quality regardless of the method of holding. Pollock must be
handled very carefully and must be thoroughly chilled rapidly
after it is landed. Research is needed to develop simple, ef-
fective alternates to icing so that the quality of pollock
landed is maintained and the labor required for handling the
fish aboard the vessel is minimized.

The plants where fish were landed were designed for pro-
cessing other fishery products and were not capable of hand-
ling groundfish without major facility conversion. Even
freezing of whole fish, both individually and in blocks, was
difficult. Brine freezing equipment designed for freezing
crabs was inadequate for freezing whole fish because of the
tendency for fish to pack tightly together, resulting in a
thick mass that required several hours to freeze through. The
shelf and plate freezers commonly used for halibut, salmon,
and crab or shrimp products were not suitable for freezing
individual fish or fillets because of the labor involved in
loading and unloading.

In summary, several areas have the basic processing plant
physical facilities but could not process trawl-caught f in-
fish without major plant conversions. At present, the type of
processing best suited to the resources and markets is un-
known.

Industry is working with the U.S. Government and foreign
governments in order to develop agreements for cooperative
fishing ventures whereby U.S. fishermen would catch fish for
foreign processing. An industry official told us that Poland
wants an agreement from our Government that we will supply
certain amounts of fish to them on contract. This is difficult
because of the nature of the U.S. fishing industry. For
instance, if crab prices go up, our fishermen will move into
this fishery. This makes it difficult to reach such agree-
ments without developing some industry/Government agreements.

129

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Work is being carried out by NMFS to improve methods of
utilizing species of fish that generally are neglected. Sever-
al problems to overcome exist in their work: (1) bottom fish
develop rancid flavors during frozen storage, and to a degree
dependent on species, off-flavors or fishy flavors can de-
velop, (2) resistance to using fish as a meat replacer or
extender exists, and (3) it will be necessary to work with
meat processors while they adjust to using fish in their
products.

Market development

Many bottom species have the common characteristics of
light-colored flesh, low oil content, good texture, and rel-
atively mild flavor. The most acceptable of these are cod,
haddock, both the Pacific Ocean perch and Atlantic Ocean
perch, and a variety of flounders and soles. Few of the
species of bottom fish that are underexploited by U.S. fisher-
men have the desirable flesh characteristics of these species.
Because the American consumer has refused to buy and use
more than a few choice species of attractively displayed fish,
these fish have not been harvested by our fishermen.

An NMFS analysis of seafood industry representatives
contacted in 1974 showed that Alaska-produced pollock would
have competitors in the market place. Poultry, hamburger,
bologna, vegetable proteins, other low-cost fish such as
whiting, Atlantic Ocean perch, and local fresh species--al-
most any protein food under $1 per pound retail--are major
competitors. Most buyers questioned indicated that a reduction
in price of seafood items would be needed to lower the
difference between seafood and beef and poultry.

Because the United States is so dependent upon foreign
seafood imports, potential Alaska groundfish producers, with
their relatively small initial production, will be extensively
influenced by developments in world markets. The United States
probably cannot compete in the pollock block market unless
U.S. production costs can be competitive with Japan and other
foreign suppliers to U.S. markets. The Republic of Korea,
which is developing its North Pacific pollock fishery, is now
competing with Japan in the Alaska pollock block industry.
The Republic of Korea's pollock block prices in 1974 averaged
10 to 20 cents less per pound than the Japanese product, al-
though the quality reportedly was not always as good.

13 0

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

There is still resistance to pollock product purchases
by some large U.S. distributors and retailers. Some carry-out
restaurant chains featured cod on their menus in spite of the
high product cost. However, scme chains may be forced to offer
a more competitively priced product to their customers as cod
prices rise.

Management controls

Domestic

Although much information on the kinds and quantities of
fish and shellfish occurring in the Bering Sea and northeast
Pacific is available from research cruises and from records
of domestic and foreign fishing operations, large knowledge
gaps still exist. This is particularly true of fisheries
development which requires answers to specific questions such
as anticipated catch rates for individual species or for
particular subareas or times of year. To adequately answer
these questions will probably require that production fishing
trials be carried out from chartered commercial vessels in
the areas or times of particular interest.

In many instances, the development of U.S. fisheries is
handicapped by depleted resources. Depletion usually has oc-
curred from overfishing by foreign fleets. This situation
has been aggravated by the many countries fishing in the
Bering Sea and northeast Pacific and by the absence of a
suitable management effort to cope with the problem.

Effects of depleting U.S. coastal fish resources are
readily apparent, especially when they lead to elimination of
fisheries. This has occurred with Pacific Ocean perch off
Oregon, which formerly supported a profitable fishery for
U.S. trawlers. Most of the reduction in size of the Oregon
stocks occurred within the first few years after the initial
expansion of Soviet and Japanese trawling to those waters.
Both the Soviet Union and Japan subsequently agreed not to
conduct purposeful fisheries for Pacific Ocean perch of f
Oregon and Washington. However, this has not resulted in a
resumption of the U.S. fishery because the incidental catches
taken by Soviet and Japanese vessels while fishing for other
species have been large enough to prevent rebuilding of the
Pacific Ocean perch stocks.

131

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Following are examples of complaints expressed by indus-
try representatives concerning U.S. management policies:

--The U.S. Government does not have a strong fisheries
policy.

--The Federal Government has not managed the fisheries
resource from 3 to 12 miles. The Government should
enforce and manage the fisheries resource from 3 to
200 miles. If left to the States to manage, they will
favor their own residents.

--Little or no stock assessment work has been done on
groundfish because they have not been important in the
past, and little funding has been available to do
studies.

International

The International North Pacific Fisheries Commission has
been helpful in preventing early and drastic depletion of
living resources and has contributed to cooperation among the
nations in gathering scientific information for stock assess-
ment. However, the controls provided for within the con-
vention have been insufficient to prevent Japan from expand-
ing her groundfish fisheries in the Bering Sea and Gulf of
Alaska. Nonmember nations of the Commission (such as the
Soviet Union and the Republic of Korea) have also seriously
depleted some stocks.

EFFECTS OF A 200-MILE LIMIT
ON THE FISHERY

Fishing by Japan, the Soviet Union, and other foreign
nations in the Bering Sea and northeast Pacific has created
many problems for U.S. fishermen. The major kinds of problems
have been:

--Resource depletion.

--Preemption of fisheries resources and fishing grounds.

--Destruction of, or interference with, fishing gear
used by smaller U.S. vessels.

Management actions to rebuild depleted stocks to pro-
ductive levels are a prerequisite to developing some U.S.
fisheries. Extended jurisdiction will provide the legal frame-
work for taking needed management actions.

132

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

The advent of extended jurisdiction will for the time
provide the impetus to obtain adequate fishery and bio-
logical statistics and to implement regulations to rebuild
depleted stocks. It also will provide an opportunity to
identify areas, species, or stocks of high potential interest
to U.S. industry and to prohibit fishing by foreign fleets
when such fishing would preclude or greatly impede the
development of U.S. fisheries. The tradeoff to foreign
governments in such situations could be our permission to
fish in areas or for stocks which currently have low develop-
potential for the United States.

133

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

HALIBUT

Halibuts are the largest of all flatfish and one of -the
largest species of fish in the world. The average size caught
by commercial fishermen is between 30 to 35 pounds, but record
size halibut have approached 700 pounds in weight. They are
also the flatfish of most value to fishermen. Pacific hali-
but has been the object of a commercial fishery for about 88
years, but even before that was one of the most important
subsistence fish for a number of Pacific coast Indian tribes.

The Pacific halibut is found along the western coast of
North America from central California to the Aleutian Islands
and the Bering Sea. Halibut season lasts about 4 to 5 months
in the main producing areas, which are usually opened in
early May. The most productive halibut fishing ground during
the period 1968-74 was the section of the Gulf of Alaska from
Cape Spencer west down the Aleutian island chain, producing
about 60 percent of the total landings during that period.

The North American catch of Pacific halibut is a regu-
lated fishery managed by the International Pacific Halibut
Commission. The Commission was established by a Convention
between the United States and Canada in 1923 and was the first
international agreement for joint management of a marine
fishery..

STATUS OF FISHERY

current harvest

Since about 1954, the trend in U.S. landings of Pacific
halibut has been steadily downward. U.S. landings have de-
clined from a high of about 60.7 million pounds live weight
in 1954 to approximately 18.5 million pounds in 1974. Total
U.S. and Canadian catch for 1974 was the lowest reported for
any year since the turn of the century and was only 39 per-
cent of the 1970 catch.

Consequently, in November 1975 NMFS listed Pacific hali-
but stock as being depleted in the Northeast Pacific and the
Gulf of Alaska. NMFS also determined that halibut stock in
the Bering Sea has either been depleted or is in imminent
danger of being depleted. Their definition of depleted
refers to stocks which have been so reduced through overfish-
ing or man-induced or natural causes that fishing must be
greatly reduced so that the depleted stocks can replenish
themselves to produce optimum yield. Howevet, the Interna-
tional Pacific Halibut Commission officials have stated that
halibut stock in the Bering Sea is also depleted and actually
in poorer condition than the stock in the Gulf of Alaska.

1 34

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

While the condition of the Pacific halibut stocks is still
critical, the International Pacific Halibut Commission be-
lieves long term prospects have improved. During the 1975
season, the catch and the catch per unit of effort increased,
the abundance of juveniles in the Bering Sea increased, the
incidental catch declined, and the trawl closures for foreign
fleets were extended. Far greater improvements are needed
before evidence of recovery is certain.

Value of U.S. halibut landings has fluctuated widely.
Almost identical U.S. landings of halibut in 1965, 1966, and
1967, of 40.8, 40.6, and 40.1 million pounds, live weight,
resulted in values for the total catch of $9.3, $9.8, and
$6.5 million, respectively.

The low prices received in 1967 and 1968, which caused
many fishermen to drop out of fishing, resulted in a 1968
catch of about 26.0 million pounds live weight, valued at
about $4.3 million. The drop in price was due to the market-
ing as halibut large quantities of imported turbot, a fish
similar to halibut. In 1969 Canada and the United States
prohibited substitution of this fish for halibut and the
price of halibut rebounded. In 1974 a U.S. landing of about
18.4 million pounds live weight was valued at $9.4 million.
The U.S. landings of halibut by weight, dollar value, and
distance caught from shore for 1972-74 are shown in table 8.

Of the nine Pacific coast fisheries studied, halibut
ranked as number seven in weight landed and number six in
dollar value in 1974.
Table 8
U.S. Landings of Halibut by
Location. Dolar V-ue and Live Weight
1972 11973(note a) 1974(note a)
Pounds Value Pounds vaue Pounds Value
(000 omitted)
Pacific (Alaska and
Hawaii):
0 to 12 miles 9,144 $ 4,438 8,521 $ 4,400 11,593 $5,8121
12 to 200 miles 17,424 8,510 15,463 8,002 6,680 3,393
Beyond 200 miles 45 21 18 9 -
Atlantic (except
Florida):
0 to 12 miles 138 121 116 121 111 138
12 to 200 miles 82 63 52 46 34 32
Beyond 200 miles 1 26 23 31 29
Total:
0 to 12 miles 9,282 4,559 8,637 4,521 11,704 5,95C
12 to 200 miles 17,506 8,573 15,515 8,048 6,714 3,425
Beyond 200 miles 46 21 44 32 31 29
Total 26,834 $13,153 24,196 $12,601 18,449 $9 404
/1973 and 1974 figures are preliminary.
Source: Fishery Statistics of the United States; 1960, 1965,
1970
Fisheries of the U.S.; 1972-74.

135

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Products and processing

The leading U.S. halibut ports on the Pacific coast for
1974 were Kodiak, Petersburg, and Seward, Alaska. During
the 1930s, Seattle received 40 percent of the total halibut
landings. Since then, the number of vessels in the Seattle
fleet has declined, and vessels are selling more of their
catch in northern ports. In 1974 Seattle received only 2
percent of the total landings. The pattern of landings
changed principally because Alaska firms bega-n paying fisher-
men prices that competed with the higher prices traditionally
offered at Seattle. Most fishermen preferred to deliver hali-
but to ports near the fishing areas and to make additional
fishing trips in the time formerly lost in the long run to
Seattle. Table 9 shows the distribution of landings by ports
in 1973 and 1974.

Table 9
U.S. Halibut Landings by Port
Dressed Weight (note a)
Port 1973 1974
(000 omitted)

Kodiak 4,767 3,201
Petersburg 2,971 3,047
Seward 2,850 1,686
Pelican 657 878
Juneau 937 769
Ketchikan 706 465
Sitka 862 463
Seattle 508 432
Others .3,032 2,997
a/Total 17,290 13,938
-Expressed in pounds.

136

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Halibut is usually frozen because of its high market-
ability and ease-of handling in that form; very little is
canned or smoked. Halibut landed at railhead cities can
enter the fresh fish market depending on what the market can
absorb. However, handling of fresh halibut is more demanding
than handling of the frozen products.

Markets

The annual per capita consumption of halibut in the
United States reached a peak in 1960 at .227 pounds when
the actual retail price was 61.9 cents per pound. By 1970
the retail price had risen to 98.6 cents per pound and an-
nual per capita consumption dropped to .148 pounds. (See
tables 10 and 11.) During this time the U.S. landings of
halibut fell from 51.2 to 34.5 million pounds, live weight,
as foreign trawl fleets increased fishing pressure in the
Northeast Pacific.

Between 1960 and 1971, the United States imported
between 23.9 and 32.0 million pounds (product weight) of
halibut each year. Canada has accounted for the great
majority of halibut imported into the United States. In
1971, the latest year figures were available, Canada was the
country of origin for 21.5 million pounds of the total 25.7
millions pounds imported. Japan accounted for 3.8 million
pounds of the total.

Table 10

Aggregate and Per Capita Halibut Consumption
in the United States--1960-70
(Edible weight)

Aggregate Per capita
Year (thousand pounds) (pounds)

1960 40,857 .227
1961 39,577 .216
1962 38,629 .208
1963 34,962 .185
1964 38,587 .202
1965 34,398 .177
1966 31,762 .162
1967 34,396 .174
1968 35,175 .176
1969 33,067 .164
1970 30,151 .148
Source: Economic Research Laboratory, National Marine
Fisheries Service.

p137

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Table 11

Retail Price of Halibut--1960-71
in Cents per Pound

Year Retail price

1960 61.9
1961 70.9
1962 79.8
1963 68.4
1964 68.0

1965 81.8
19 66 86.3
1967 80.1
1968 79.1
1969 9 9 .9

1970 98.6
1971 112.2

Source: Economic Research Laboratory, National
Marine Fisheries Service and Bureau of
Labor Statistics, Department of Labor.

Fishing fleet

The International Pacific Halibut Commission requires
that all vessels over 5 net tons be licensed. The number
of U.S. regular halibut vessels (licensed vessels that land
at least 10,000 pounds during the season) has decreased
from 523 in 1950 to 154 in 1974 (table 12) . However, hundreds
of small vessels (under 5 net tons) have joined the fleet in
recent years. Over 4,000 vessels of all types now land
halibut--most in small quantities. We were told that much
of the halibut fleet consists of old vessels, many of them
built before 1930. Age, however, is misleading; most vessels
have undergone extensive rebuilding, are seaworthy, and are
usually most efficient. Most of the boats being built today
used for halibut fishing are multipurpose vessels with the
ability to fish for halibut and other species.

In the Pacific halibut fishery, the International Pacific
Halibut Commission prohibits the taking of halibut by nets.
This is necessary because the mesh size of nets used in the
commercial trawl fishery, while well suited for use on the
smaller flounders, cod, and other bottom species, tend to
catch an unduly large number of small and young halibut.
These young halibut have not reached their optimum or best
harvesting size. Therefore, halibut are permitted to be
taken commercially only with hook and line gear.

138

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Table 12

Number of U.S. Regular Vessels in
the Pacific Halibut Fishery for
Selected Years

Year Total regular vessels (note a)

1950 523
1955 402
1960 329
1965 2 09
1970 211
1971 19 0
1972 217
19 73 19 7
1974 154

a/A regular vessel is a craft with a capacity
of 5 net tons or over that has landed at
least 10,000 pounds during the season.

Employment

The number of U.S. fishermen employed on regular hali-
but vessels fell from 1,786 in 1958 to 628 in 1974. However,
this does not include the large number of fishermen employed
on small boats for which data is not available.

Recreational fishing

Relatively few sportsmen actively seek halibut, and the
origin of the halibut sport fishery, and its existence to-
day, was mainly as an incidental catch of sportsmen fishing
for salmon.

Those fishing for halibut are mostly seeking food or
trophy fish. Alaska has the largest sport fishery directed
specifically for halibut.

NMFS conducted a saltwater angling survey in 1970 to
estimate the coastwide catch of sportsmen. They estimated
the sport catch of Pacific halibut was 202,000 fish and the
average weight of each fish was 14 pounds, for a total esti-
mated catch of 2,828,000 pounds. This amount is far greater
than that assumed by the International Pacific Halibut Com-
mission or than that indicated by the State agencies. On
the basis of estimates from various agencies, the Inter-
national Pacific Halibut Commission estimated that the number

139

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

of fish taken in the sport catch on the entire west coast
was:

California and Oregon 1,000
Washington 2,500
British Columbia 5,000
Alaska 10,000

Total 18,500

Because of data limitations, 20,000 fish,. or 250,000
pounds, has been proposed as the best estimate of the annual
catch in recent years.

Before 1973 all fishing for halibut, including recrea-
tional and personal use, was governed by commercial fishing
regulations. The International Pacific Halibut Commission
was urged by Federal and State agencies to officially recog-
nize the sport fishery as the sport catch increased and
enforcement became more difficult. Therefore, in January
1973 the International Pacific Halibut Commission adopted
sport regulations which were subsequently approved by the
Federal Government. The 1975 regulations, including changes,
provided for an open season which began on March I and ended
on October 31. The daily "bag and possession limit" was two
fish. Fishing gear was limited to hand-held rod or line
and spear.

Effect on regional economy

Although we could find no specific information on the
economic effect of the halibut fishery, the following facts
indicate its regional importance.

--The vast majority of all halibut caught by U.S.
fishermen in 1974 was landed at Alaskan ports.
Landings at these ports accounted for all but 1.2
million pounds of the 13.9 million pounds (evis-
cerated, decapitated weight) of Pacific halibut.

--Value of the 1974 U.S. halibut catch was $9.4 million.

--In 1974 the U.S. fishery had 154 regular halibut
vessels which employed about 628 men. Many more
small vessels have joined the fishery in recent
years.

In addition to the direct economic effect caused by
landing of halibut at Alaskan ports, the secondary effect of
wholesalers, retailers, and shipbuilding and overhaul facil-
ities in other west coast cities must be considered.

14 0

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Management Controls

The International Pacific Halibut Commission' s sole
function of Pacific halibut is to maximize management yield
for the benefit of Canada and the United States. The Com-
mission has promulgated conservation measures, such as
establishing catch limits, season length, and minimum size
of harvestable halibut to rebuild and maintain the halibut
stock at a level of maximum yield.

The cost of operating the International Pacific Hali-
but Commission is shared equally by the Governments of
Canada and the United Statels. The United States appropriates
funds for the Commission throuah the Deoartment of State,
while Canada's Department of Environment funds their share
of operational costs.

In 1951 the Tripartite Convention for the High Seas
Fisheries of the North Pacific ocean established the Inter-
national North Pacific Fisheries Commission of Canada, Japan,
and the United States. This Convention was to "~ * * ensure
the maximum sustained productivity of the fishery resources
of the North Pacific."

Included in the annex of the Convention are conditions
of abstention for certain stocks of halibut already being
exploited. The halibut originating along th(- North American
coast qualified for abstention by Japan and remained under
the jurisdiction of the Canadian and United States Commis-
sion. Halibut caught west of 1750 W. longitude, however,
were not considered to be of North American origin and did
not qualify for abstention. In 1962 the International North
Pacific Fisheries Commission decided that the halibut caught
in the Bering Sea east of 1750 W. longitude no longer quali-
fied for abstention, thereby placing management responsi-
bility with their own Commission. Consequently, the condition
of halibut stocks in the eastern Bering Sea is reviewed
annually by two international fisheries bodies.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR GROWTH AND
DEVELOPMENT OF THE FISHERY

Resource availability

Halibut stocks in the Northeast Pacific, the Gulf of
Alaska, and the Bering Sea are in such serious condition
that a reduction in the incidental halibut catch would be
required to improve stock abundance.

141

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Harvesting capability

Officials from the International Pacific Halibut Com-
mission told us many skilled halibut fishermen and boats par-
ticipate in the fishery; only the condition of the fish stock
limits the fishery.

Product development and processing

Most of the Pacific halibut landed by U.S. fishing boats
enters the market as fresh or frozen halibut products; little
is canned or further processed. An International Pacific
Halibut Commission official told us that because the price
and demand for halibut in these primary forms is so high,
little need exists to develop new products.

Marketing potential

The official further said that the domestic market for
halibut can easily absorb the U.S. harvest and halibut im-
ports. if additional halibut resources were available,
they also could be easily marketed.

OBSTACLES INHIBITING GROWTH AND
DEVELOPMENT OF THE FISHERY

Resource availability

Industry, Government, and International Pacific Halibut
Commission officials attribute the decline in U.S. halibut
landings to several causes. They cite Japanese and Soviet
trawlers as having the most serious effect on halibut stock.
Halibut are caught incidentally to the trawling for target
species, such as black cod, pollock, and ocean perch. Over-
fishing, another cause of halibut depletion, will be dis-
cussed under the section on management controls.

The total estimated foreign catch of halibut for the
period 1958-72 is shown in table 13. In the 10-year period
1962-71, the foreign catch averaged 25.5 percent of total
landings for Pacific halibut. However, the foreign catch
includes young halibut below the legal size for U.S. and
Canadian setline fishermen. Loss of these young fish is
reducing recruitment of halibut into the setline fishery
stocks.

Harvesting capabilities

Officials of the international Pacific Halibut Commis-
sion and Seattle Fishing Vessel Owners Association told us
harvesting capabilities in the form of vessels and manpower

142

Table 13

Percent of Total Halibut Catch by
Japanese and Soviet Fleets H
1958-72
(Round or live weight)

Estimated Estimated North American Percent landed
Japanese Soviet Total estimated Japanese catch (United Total catch of by Japanese and
Year catch catch and Soviet catch States and Canada) Pacific halibut Soviets

--------------------------------------(millions of pounds)--------------------------
1958 3.2 N/A 3.2 86.7 89.9 3.6
1959 6.1 0.8 6.9 95.3 102.2 6.8
1960 18.7 1.3 20.0 95.7 115.7 17.3
1961 29.6 2.0 31.6 92.6 124.2 25.4
1962 24.9 4.7 29.6 100.0 129.6 22.8

1963 19.1 7.8 26.9 95.0 121.9 22.1
1964 6.5 6.2 12.7 79.8 92.5 13.7
1965 5.4 19.8 25.2 84.4 109.6 23.0
1966 9.7 13.1 22.8 83.0 105.8 21.6
1967 18.7 8.3 27.0 73.8 100.8 26.8

1968 16.7 6.0 22.7 64.9 87.6 25.9
1969 16.8 4.6 21.4 78.0 99.4 21.5
1970 21.1 6.0 27.1 73.1 100.2 27.0
1971 22.5 7.4 29.9 62.0 91.9 32.5
1972 18.5 10.2 28.7 57.2 85.9 33.4
1973 14.9 7.7 22.6 42.2 64.8 34.9

Source: International Pacific Halibut Commission.

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

are available to move into the fishery when the stock
recovers.

Product development and processing

Product development and processing are not obstacles
to revitalizing this fishery. Demand for halibut is already
high. Abundant processors and cold storage facilities are
located in all the major ports where halibut is landed.

Market development

The market for halibut exists and is large; however,
depletion of the stock has limited the amount of halibut
available.

Management controls

The effect of foreign trawlers on the halibut stock
has required the Commission to adopt more stringent conser-
vation measures. However, only the United States and Canada
conform their halibut fishing to Commission regulations.
Japanese and Soviet trawlers have harvested the halibut con-
trary to conservation measures adopted by the International
Pacific Halibut Commission except for the Commission's
size limits which were adopted by the Japanese.

The United States and Canada have attempted to limit
the catch of halibut by Japanese trawlers on recommendations
of the International Pacific Halibut Commission through
agreements by International North Pacific Fisheries Commis-
sion member nations. The Japanese enforcement of Inter-
national North Pacific Fisheries Commission regulations has
been inadequate and some of their vessels have violated the
agreements reached through this Commission. The Soviet Union
is not a member of this Commission and can legally fish
anywhere in waters outside the U.S. 12-mile limit and can
keep any fish they catch. Thus, past actions by the Inter-
national Pacific Halibut Commission to conserve the halibut
stock were offset by the effect of foreign trawlers.

In 1973 the International Pacific Halibut Commission
proposed that foreign trawling be prohibited in particular
areas of the Bering Sea where the incidence of halibut was
high, but trawl effort was low. Other areas would remain
open to trawling yearround and the closed areas would be
open to fishing during those times when the incidental
catch of halibut was low. The Japanese agreed to most of the
closures through negotiations with the U.S. and Canadian
Governments. In 1974 the Japanese, in response to a second

144

~~~~~~~~~~~~APPENDIX III APNI I

proposal by the International Pacific Halibut Commission,
agreed to expand closures in the Bering Sea for 1975 and
additionally agreed to several closed areas in the Gulf of
Alaska. Canada and the United States discussed these clo-
sures with the Soviet Union and similar agreements were
reached for 1976.

The International Pacific Halibut Commission accepts
some responsibility for decline of the halibut stock. The
Commission allowed the catch to exceed the maximum sustained
yield to demonstrate that the stocks were fully utilized, a
requisite for Japanese abstention under the International
North Pacific Fisheries Commission. Stocks continued to
decline even after the International Pacific Halibut Com-
mission reduced the catch limits of the setline fishery.
Reductions in the setline catch were not sufficient to com-
pensate for the increased landings which resulted from the
combined effort of the setline fishery and the increased
incidental catch of halibut taken by the United States,
Canada, Japan, and the Soviet Union. The magnitude of the
incidental catch of halibut was unknown until the early 1970s.
Studies have since shown that the incidental catch of halibut
increased sharply during the 1960s and early 1970s and in
some areas exceeded the catch by the U.S. and Canadian set-
line fishery. The incidental catch effectively weakened
the Commission's management control and was a major reason
why stocks have not responded to conservation measures.

EFFECTS OF A 200-MILE
LIMIT ON THE FISHERY

We believe the major reason for the decline in halibut
abundance is the incidental catch of halibut by the large
foreign trawl fishery off the British Columbia and Alaska
coasts.

The Japanese trawl fishery in the northeast Pacific is
primarily directed at Pacific ocean perch. Walleye pollock
and yellowf in sole are the primary target fish in the Bering
Sea.

Halibut is also caught by U.S. trawl fishermen but by
law all halibut caught by this method must be released.

Many ships from Japan, the Soviet Union, and South
Korea annually fish in international waters off Alaska.
These foreign fleets are capable of depleting the resources
supporting Alaska's largely inshore commercial and marine
sport fisheries. The United States Government has long
recognized this threat and increasingly has used international
agreements to protect vital U.S. fisheries. Only in the

145

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

last 3 years have U.S. bilateral agreements with Japan and
the Soviet Union had a primary regard for halibut.

Halibut fishing interests favor U.S. implementation of
a 200-mile fishing zone. The International Pacific Halibut
Commission anticipates greater control over foreign fleets
when extended jurisdiction is established.

146

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

HERRING

A herring fishery exists on both the Atlantic and Pacific
coasts of the United States. The Atlantic herring, also
known as Atlantic sea herring, is one of several related spe-
cies of fish which are members of the herring family. Along
the U.S. Atlantic coast, other herring-related fisheries ex-
ist for Atlantic menhaden and river herring (alewife and
blueback herring).

The Pacific herring is very similar to the Atlantic her-
ring; both are considered to be only subspecies of the same
species. They differ primarily in spawning habits, growth,
and longevity. Herring are fast swimmers and occur in large
schools which may exceed I million fish. They feed princi-
pally on planktonic crustaceans, store large quantities Of
oil in their bodies, and can be used to produce a large vari-
ety of products.

Altantic herring are found from Newfoundland, Canada, to
Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, but only small amounts of
Atlantic herring are now caught south of Long Island, New
York. Most of the Atlantic herring are landed in Maine and
Massachusetts. There are fisheries for herring juveniles
(under 4 years old) and adults. The U.S. fishermen concen-
trate on juvenile herring which are packed as sardines. How-
ever, interest in adult Atlantic herring is growing due to
increased demand for its use as an edible food product; pre-
viously it had been used primarily in fishmeal production.

Pacific herring can be found throughout the coastal do-
main, from northern Baja, California, on the North American
coast, around the rim of the North Pacific Basin to Korea on
the'Asian coast. There are no indications that herring occur
beyond the edge of the continental shelves in mid-Pacific
waters. Most Pacific herring landed on the west coast are
landed at Alaskan ports.

STATUS OF FISHERY

Current harvest

The total 1975 U.S. landings of sea-herring were 120 mil-
lion pounds, valued at $5.6 million. The Atlantic herring
landings were 80 million pounds, valued at $2.7 million. The
Pacific herring catch of 40 million pounds was worth $2.9 mil-
lion. Another product of the fishery that comes exclusively
from Alaskan waters is kelp with herring eggs. In 1973 the
west coast accounted for 306,000 pounds, valued at $153,000.

147

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

In 19731/the Atlantic herring fishery ranked fifth in
volume and 19th in value (using exvessel price) among Atlantic
coast fisheries. Pacific herring ranked sixth in pounds
caught and eighth in dollar value in 1973 among west coast
fisheries.

1972 Atlantic Coast Herring Landings by State

State Pounds Value

(millions)

Maine 44.7 $1.42
Masschusetts 37.8 .75
Rhode Island 5.1 .11
Other States in New England,
Middle Atlantic, and Chesapeake
Bay combined .9 .03
Additional updated landings not
available by individual State 1.8 (a)

Total 90.3 $2.31

avalue was not available.

1972 Pacific Coast Herring Landings by State

State Pounds Value

(millions)

Alaska 34.87 $2.66
Washington 6.90 1.24
California 2.82 .11
Oregon .04 .003

Total 44.63 $4.013

11973 is the latest year for which data on all the fisheries
was available; later data was not available for the Atlantic
herring fishery.

148

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Products and processing

Unlike most other species, the herring can be used to
produce a wide variety of products. NMFS lists several uses
that are made of herring in this country. For example, her-
ring are used for bait and are filleted, canned as Maine sar-
dines, made into spreads, salted, and smoked. Herring are
also used in the production of meal, oil, and pearl essence.
Lxported herring products include herring roe, and eggs on
kelp.

1972 Processed Value of Herring Products (note a)

Product type Volume (pounds) Value

(millions)

Canned sardines (1.56 million cases) $23.9
Fish and spreads C.02 million cases) .4
Salted:
Cured and refrigerated 12.26 8.5
Fish 8.44 5.1
Roe .26 .5
Eggs on kelp .62 .9
Smoked .45 .2
Meal and scrap 10.97 1.2
Oil 5.06 .5
Pearl essence (b) 1.1
Bait 5.38 .4

Total C/$42.4

aTable does not include some products, such as fillets, which
bwere not classified separately.
bNot available.
clndividual product totals do not add due to rounding.

Atlantic herring are processed at plants principally in
Maine where juvenile herring are canned as sardines. Process-
ing sardines is a relatively labor-intensive canning opera-
tion. The number of plants operating in Maine has declined
from 23 in 1966 to 15 in 1976, due to strong foreign competi-
tion and reduced availability of juvenile herring, according
to industry officials.

149

APPENDIX III APPENDIX

Adult herring are processed into a variety of products
including whole, headed and gutted, and filleted herring.
Most of the adult herring products are exported to Europe.
Until recently, most adult herring landed were used to make
fishmeal, but the majority is now used for food production.

The greatest tonnage of the Pacific herring catch is
sold either as whole frozen fish or as frozen bait. Herring
roe, eggs on kelp, and meal are also processed. In 1974 the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game reported there were 29
plants in Alaska involved in the processing of fresh and fro-
zen herring products. Twenty-five of those plants were in
the southeastern part of the State and on the Gulf of Alaska.
Fourteen plants processed herring roe and herring eggs on
kelp. Only two plants processed herring meal.

Markets

Domestic sardine consumption fluctuated between 0.3 and
0.5 pounds for each person from 1960 to 1974 but declined toN
0.2 pounds in 1975. The decline was due to consumer resist-
ance to higher prices. In 1960 imports accounted for about
one-quarter of domestic supplies and by 1974 imports had in-
creased to about three-quarters. In 1975 the import share
dropped to about one-half of domestic supplies. Price in-
creases caused by high foreign inflation rates, currency
adjustments which favored U.S. products, and depletion of
European herring stocks were major factors contributing to
the decline in imports, according to an industry official.

Domestic consumption of other herring food products is
small and is limited primarily to smoked or marinated herring.
Some adult herring products have been exported in recent years
in response to a strong European demand, combined with the
depletion of European herring stocks.

The commercial fishery for herring in Alaska began in the
late 1800s and since then has supported four distinct types
of industry: (1) manufacturing of fishmeal and oil, (2)
salting and pickling of fish, (3) preparing of the whole fish
for bait, and (4) processing of the eggs on kelp and roe.
The bait, and eggs on kelp, and roe industries are now the
most active in the State.

A 1972 NMFS report indicated that the commercial bait
fishery in Alaska had remained stable at about 4.6 million

150

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

pounds annually for the previous 10 years. However, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game statistics show an increase to
almost 11 million pounds in 1973.

Fishing fleet

The U.S. fleet does not now have the capability to fully
harvest the Atlantic herring resources within 200 miles of
the U.S. coast. The fleet is unable to harvest offshore
stocks, partly because herring deteriorate quickly and partly
because U.S. vessels are not capable of making extended trips
to some offshore herring grounds.

The Atlantic coast herring fleet primarily seeking ju-
venile herring consisted of about 215 boats and 21 vessels in
1972. Many of these craft spend only part of the year fish-
ing for herring. Most of the vessels are old and inefficient,
compared to the relatively modern Canadian vessels, according
to NMFS and industry officials.

Adult herring are caught in large quantities by otter
trawls and purse seines, but recently midwater pair trawling,
a European method using two boats to pull one net, has been
introduced. Juvenile herring are caught primarily by stop
seines.
1972 U.S. Landings of Atlantic Herring
by Gear Type

Type of gear Pounds

Stop seines 33,600,000
Purse seines 24,900,000
Otter trawls 24,100,000
Weirs 3,500,000
Midwater trawl 2,200,000
Pound nets 1,300,000
Other 700,000

Total 90,300,000

on the Pacific coast, herring are taken by purse seines,
various types of gillnets, haul seines, fish pound nets, dip
nets, lampara nets, and trammel nets. Herring eggs on kelp

151

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

are taken by hand picking and by diving. The Alaska Depart-
ment of Fish and Game reported that 28 seine vessels, 2 gill-
netters, and I herring pound netter participated in Alaskan
herring fishery during 1973 and 1974 compared with 10 seine
vessels and 2 pound netters during 1970 and 1971 and 22
seiners and 2 pound netters during 1972 and 1973. The in-
crease in fishing gear during 1973 and 1974 was attributed
to the high prices paid for herring roe. Alaskan herring
eggs on kelp were all hand picked.

Employment

There were 392 fishermen engaged in the Atlantic coast
herring fishery in 1972. Most fishermen were located in
Maine and fished only for part of the year. Processing and
wholesaling establishments in Maine employed about 1,300
people in 1972.

In 1972 NMFS listed 211 Pacific coast vessel fishermen
involved in purse or haul seining for herring, and 195 ad-
ditional fishermen were similarly employed fishing from boats
or from shore. Of the total 406 fishermen using this partic-
ular gear, 381 were from Alaska. We could not determine the
number of fishermen who participated in the fishery using
other gear types because similar statistics were not availa-
ble.

Recreational fishing4

There is no recreational fishing for Atlantic herring,
but herring are part of the diet of popular recreational fish,
such as bluefish and striped bass. Pacific herring does not
support a sport fishery either; however, they are actively
pursued by sport fishermen for use as fresh bait. For in-
stance, in Alaska the presence of herring jigs on sportfish-
ing vessels is almost universal, and the use of gillnets for
bait catching is quite common.

Management controls

Regulation of Atlantic herring stocks is split. Inside
the 3-mile territorial limit, the fishery is regulated by the
States. Beyond this zone, NMFS, in cooperation with the
Coast Guard, enforces regulations adopted by the International
Commission for Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (ICNAF). NMFS and
the Coast Guard monitor fishing activity off U.S. coasts
through aerial surveillance and vessel boardings. IGNAF es-
tablishes annual quotas on the amount of herring that-can be
harvested by member nations.

152

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

The States have not set annual quotas on the herring
catch. However, Maine has established regulations which pro-
hibit catching less than 4-1/2-inch-long herring, except for
bait, and which requires 4-1/2- to 9-inch-long herring to be
used for food or bait. There are no specific herring regula-
tions in Massachusetts, but the State prohibits otter trawling
and purse seining in some areas.

Nearly all the Pacific herring is caught within 3 miles
of the U.S. coastline. Therefore the individual west coast State
governments have management responsibility for this resource.
The herring fishery on the west coast has been a regulated
fishery. Regulations specify the type of gear used, length
and size of mesh of the fishing gear, closed seasons, pro-
tected areas, and quotas.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR GROWTH AND
DEVELOPMENT OF THE FISHERY

Resource availability

Herring resources within 200 miles of the U.S coast in
the Atlantic, while seriously depleted, are large enough to
allow increased use by U.S. fishermen. The estimated MSY is
about 300 to 500 million pounds. Catch statistics for 1975
show that U.S. fishermen caught about 80 million pounds, or
only 22 percent of the total catch of about 360 million
pounds. If herring resources recover to levels of about the
MSY, U.S. fishermen would have available an additional 220 to
420 million pounds over the 1975 level.

A 1972 NMFS report stated that the catch of Gulf of
Alaska herring was considerably less than the estimated maxi-
mum sustained yield of 500 million pounds. The total Alaskan
herring catch for 1973 was 34.9 million pounds, indicating a
very large underutilized stock.

Major spawning areas for California herring are San
Francisco and Tomales Bays. However, a 1973 NMFS report
stated that the San Francisco Bay population had been esti-
mated only once, in 1955, at 24 million pounds. The Tamales
Bay population was estimated in 1972 by State biologists at
about 8 million pounds. The total 1973 California herring
catch was only 2.8 million pounds.

Harvesting capability

Technology is available to improve the harvesting capa-
bilities of U.S. vessels in the Atlantic. NMFS and industry
officials described Canadian purse seiners as being much more
efficient than U.S. vessels. According to these officials,

153

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

subsidized Canadian vessels are newer and carry more sophis-
ticated detection equipment than U.S. vessels. Better equip-
ment enabled Canadian fishermen to locate and catch herring
in the Gulf of Maine when U.S. vessels could not.

To minimize herring spoilage, a NMFS-sponsored develop-
ment program arranged a test of a new method for holding her-
ring at sea. A carrier vessel used to transport herring
from the catching vessel to the processing plant was partly
converted to a chilled sea-water storage system. Tests showed
that herring could be held aboard ship long enough to enable
U.S. fisherman to land herring from offshore areas in good
quality. This system, or an adaptation, may also be useful
in improving the quality of herring landed from inshore areas.

No increase in harvesting capabilities is required to
harvest Pacific herring which inhabit the protected sounds and
inlets in southeastern and central Alaska. However, to take
advantage of the resource located in other waters, such as the
Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska, might require larger vessels and
different types of fishing gear than are presently used in the
small inshore fishery.

Product development and
processing

On the Atlantic coast, increased herring abundance will
enable more efficient use of existing processing facilities.
In addition, NMFS is analyzing the feasibility of U.S. pro-
duction of semiprocessed, marinated herring products currently
imported. Although exact figures were not available on the
extent of these imports, one NMFS official estimated that from
20 to 50 million pounds were imported annually.

Alaska could use herring as a source for fish protein
concentrate when a more economical technique is found to pro-
duce foodstuffs from fatty fish. Using herring for fish pro-
tein concentrate would help the Alaska fishery have a bigger
share of the world market.

Marketing potential

Foreign markets provide an opportunity for expanding the
U.S. herring industry. Consumption of herring products in
West Germany, according to an industry official, is estimated
to be between 200 to 300 million pounds a year. The United
States supplies only a small portion of the European market.

U.S. processors may be able to supply a larger share of
the domestic sardine market at the expense of imports. The
U.S. industry is now better able to compete against imports,

154

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

according to an industry official, because the cost of im-
ported sardines has increased more than the cost of domestic-
ally produced sardines. Higher foreign inflation rates, cur-
rency adjustment which favored U.S. products, and depletion
of European herring stocks were cited as major reasons for the
relatively higher cost of imported sardines.

Increased abundance of juvenile herring off the U.S.
coast is needed for the United States to take full advantage
of this opportunity. With increased abundance, imports of un-
processed Canadian-caught herring could also be reduced. Over
one-half of the 1975 U.S.-Packed sardines, according to an in-
dustry official, was processed from juvenile herring imported
from Canada.

The catching of adult herring by U.S. fishermen and the
transfer of the catch directly to foreign vessels is also a
possibility. A European industry official has had preliminary
discussions with U.S. fishermen on this subject.

In Alaska the fishmneal and oil markets provide an oppor-
tunity for expanding the Alaskan herring industry. A 1972
NMFS report pointed out that Alaska's herring processing
plants were standing idle, although the resource was as
healthy as ever. For example, in 1937, 249 million pounds of
Alaska herring were used to produce fishineal and oil, but the
report said this industry failed due to increased foreign
competition, high labor costs, and restrictive fishery regula-
tion by Alaska.

Another potential opportunity for the herring fishery in
Alaska is the growth of the export market for herring roe and
eggs on kelp. Between 1973 and 1974 the tonnage of these two
herring products greatly increased.

OBSTACLES INHIBITING GROWTH
AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE FISHERY

Resource availability

Atlantic herring stock size and the resultant catches
have shown wide natural fluctuations. Atlantic herring
stocks off the U.S. coast are seriously depleted. Large in-
creases in fishing effort helped maintain high catches despite
a drastic decline in stock abundance.

NMFS reported that, for Alaskan herring stocks, a relation-
ship between the number of herring eggs produced and the re-
sulting adult herring has not been established. Limited
spawnings have occasionally produced a large number of fish,
and heavy spawnings have sometimes resulted in small numbers.

155

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Therefore, removing large quantities of eggs for the specialty
fisheries of eggs on kelp and egg roe has an unknown effect on
the herring population. Considerable research is needed to de-
termine the relationships between eggs produced and resulting
herring because of the increasing demand to harvest the eggs.
Alaska makes studies of the herring fishery using hydro-
acoustical gear to locate and obtain estimates of the number
of fish congregating in large wintering schools. Alaska also
makes annual sampling of known stocks for determining age,
sex, and size composition of fish within each stock. This in-
formation is needed for management decisionmaking. However,
an NMFS official told us the actual size of Alaska's herring
stock was much larger than indicated by the assessment. He
believed the assessment program was insufficient because of a
lack of funding by the State legislature. He believed the
low-stock assessment and the political pressure generated by
salmon fishermen wanting herring preserved as forage for
salmon have been the major factors in limiting Alaska's herring
fishery. Many fishermen think adequate stocks of herring are
necessary to sustain important food fishes, such as coho and
chinook salmon. However, some biological evidence suggests
that these carnivorous fish may feed equally well on other
organisms, especially if herring abundance is low.

Harvesting capability

Due to their age and condition, the vessels now in the
Atlantic herring fishery may not be able to survive storms in
offshore areas where large increases in adult herring catch
would have to be obtained. Other problems cited by NMFS and
industry members were the reluctance of U.S. fishermen to be
at sea for I or 2 weeks which are required to harvest offshore
herring and the risk of losing expensive gear on unfamiliar
grounds. Also industry members may hesitate to make needed
investments to greatly increase domestic landings because of
uncertainties related to the future availability of the re-
source and the stability of the foreign herring market.

Sophisticated foreign-built detection equipment is avail-
able but is subject to tariffs, which increases the cost to
U.S. fishermen. A NMFS official stated that midwater pair-
trawling nets are subject to tariffs, even though they are
not manufactured in the United States. Also U.S. fishermen
must compete with fishermen of foreign nations, which subsi-
dizes the construction of fishing vessels.

In Alaska too much vessel capacity exists in one part of
the herring fishery, due to the l-ow guot-as 4af herring allowed
by the State. For example, an NMFS official told us there
were 42 large purse seiners and 15 tenders, worth about $20
million, participating in the 1975-76 herring roe fishery.

156

He said one net set could yield $20,000 to $30,000 worth of
fish, or one-third of an area's quota. This get-rich-quick
opportunity lures too many fishermen into an already crowded
fishery. But, he said the number of vessels and fishermen
in Alaska's relatively static herring bait fishery is suffi-
cient.

Product development and processing

Reduced abundance of Atlantic herring stocks available
to U.S. fishermen has lessened industry willingness to make
additional investments in processing facilities. Recovery of
the stocks through better management should alleviate this
problem. Low-fat content of adult herring at certain times
during the year is also a problem. Fat content is one de-
terminant of herring product quality. Herring with lower fat
content than desired by European imports receives a substan-
tially lower price.

The southeastern Alaskan herring reduction fishery has
been inactive since 1966. A disadvantage of the more recent
and active herring roe fishery is that this valuable fishery
operates on a later stage in the live history of the herring
than a reduction fishery. Natural mortality will have taken
an additional toll at this stage, and the total tonnage avail-
able will be less than for a reduction fishery. Moreover,
some of the stocks fished by a reduction fishery are not suit-
able for a roe fishery. Consequently, the sustainable yield
for a roe fishery is somewhat lower.

Market development

Developing domestic markets for adult herring products
will take a long time, according to NMFS and industry off i-
cials, because consumers are reluctant to eat fish with dark
meat and bones, such as herring. Large increases in domestic
landings appear dependent on satisfying international markets.
The potential for expanding U.S. exports of herring might be
adversely affected by herring stock recovery off European
coasts or by increased use of European-caught herring for
food production.

Management controls

Fragmented jurisdiction and inadequate knowledge about
herring stock separation and migration among the Gulf of
Maine, Georges Bank, and Nova Scotia stocks are problems af-
fecting fishery management. NMFS biologists believe that
there is some intermixture among these stocks but that its
extent is not fully known. A herring tagging study involving
NMFS and the States is being considered as a means of -providing
additional data. Current ICNAF catch quotas are set for each

157

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

stock and are designed to prevent further population decline
in these seriously depleted fisheries. The potential for
stock recovery would be improved, according to a NMFS of fi-
cial, with further quota reductions in each stock. Stock
recovery also depends on favorable environmental conditions.

The Gulf of Maine herring stock is now fished primarily
by U.S. vessels. ICNAF quotas in this area are not fully
effective because they do not apply inside the 3-mile terri-
torial limit controlled by individual States. To prevent
further decline in the Gulf of Maine, a 35.3 million pound
quota for the adult herring fishery was adopted for 1975.
U.S. fishermen were allocated 23.7 million pounds, but they
caught about 37.2 million pounds. About 8.9 million pounds
were reported as having been caught within the 3-mile limit
where there are no quotas. Assessment studies indicated that
the 1976 quota was further reduced to 15.4 million pounds, of
which the U.S. share was 13.2 million pounds. As of June 15,
1976, U.S. fishermen had already caught 22 million pounds
in total, combining landings within and beyond the 3-mile
limit. ICNAF officials are considering a zero Gulf of Maine
herring quota for 1977, to prevent further stock declines.

Industry officials disagree with the existing quota
systemi on individual stocks. They believe that there is
considerable intermixing among stocks, and therefore any
quota reductions should first be applied to foreign quotas.
A State official also believes that quota reductions should
first be applied to foreign quotas. He added that the
State is not willing to impose quotas in its territorial
waters unless it can be shown that the catch inside State
waters is responsible for the Gulf of Maine stock decline.
This official believes that foreign fleets which have
caught most of the herring off the U.S. coast may have
caused the resource decline.

A 1970 publication by an official of the Bureau of
Commercial Fisheries (currently the National Marine Fisher-
ies Service) noted that throughout the history of the
Alaskan herring fishery, restrictions had been more limiting
than those of almost any other North American herring fish-
ery. Alaska laws have, at one time or another, governed
the length and depth of nets and mesh size; they have also
provided either total or partial exclusion of seines as well
as restrictions on use of the catch (i.e., bait or reduction).
Traps or other obstructions that prevented the free passage
of fish were prohibited. Closed seasons, closed areas,
and quotas have been in effect to limit herring catches,
and all areas closed to salmon fishing were closed to herring
fishing.

158

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

EFFECTS OF A 200-MILE LIMIT ON THE FISHERY

In the Atlantic, more effective management is needed
to insure improved resource availability to U.S. fishermen.
The Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 provides
an opportunity for improved herring management by extending
U.S. jurisdiction over fishery resources to 200 miles off
U.S. coasts and by creating the Regional Fishery Management
Councils. There is, however, still a potential jurisdiction
problem related to controlling the northeast portion of
Georges Bank, a highly productive fishing ground off the
New England coast but partially within 200 miles of the
Canadian coast. Establishing boundaries based on equidis-
tant lines between the Canadian and U.S. coasts would result
in Canada's controlling the northeast portion of Georges
Bank. U.S. officials contend that Georges Bank is an
extension of the U.S. Continental Shelf and therefore should
be under U.S. control. The disputed area is a major herring
spawning ground. Joint United States-Canadian management
will be needed for effectively managing the resource be-
cause some herring migrate between Nova Scotia, Canada,
and Georges Bank.

A potential allocation problem also exists because
juvenile herring used for sardines have had a higher value
but a much lower weight yield per fish caught than adult
herring. once used only for low-value industrial uses,
adult herring are now being used for food products at
higher prices.

The Pacific coast herring fishery is conducted pri-
marily within 3 miles of the U.S. coast and therefore
would not be affected by the 200-mile limit.

159

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

AMERICAN AND SPINY LOBSTERS

Domestic fishermen harvest two types of lobster, the
American lobster and the spiny lobster. The American lobster
is found from Labrador, Canada, to North Carolina. The in-
shore area (within 12 miles of the coast) from Maine to Cape
Cod Bay, Massachusetts, has historically produced the major-
ity of American lobster landings. This 10-legged crustacean is
located in waters ranging from a few feet to over 1,000
feet deep. The greatest numbers are caught in rocky inshore
waters. In recent decades many lobsters have been caught in
offshore areas along the continental shelf, which slopes up
to 100 miles from shore.

After shedding their shells (molting), American lobsters
are especially vulnerable to predators, including other
lobsters. In Maine, the leading lobster producing State,
lobsters reach harvestable size in about 4 to 7 years. The
1973 landings of 29 million pounds, worth $41.6 million,
using ex-vessel prices, ranked this fishery tenth in volume
and first in value among Atlantic coast fisheries. A major
problem in this fishery, is the depletion of the inshore re-
source occurring because inadequate management controls have
led to overfishing of available stocks.

The spiny lobster is found in U.S. waters along the
east coast of Florida from Cape Canaveral to the Dry Tortugas.
The primary concentration is in the southern part of the
State, mostly on the east coast of the mainland and in the
Florida Keys.

The spiny lobster resembles the American lobster in
general appearance but lacks the large claws. Some of its
distinguishing characteristics are numerous spines covering
the body, two especially large spines or horns projecting
over the eyes, and legs longer than those of the American
lobster. Over 4 years are required for spiny lobsters to grow
to a minimum legal harvesting size. In general, adult lobster
movements are described as random wanderings, usually over
short distances of 5 miles or less; but longer wanderings
do occur on occasion.

The U.S. landings of spiny lobsters in 1972 were 12.2
million pounds, worth $12.8 million, which ranked the spiny
lobster eighth in volume and third in value among fisheries
in the Gulf States. The U.S. spiny lobster fishery is con-
centrated primarily in the State of Florida which in 1972

160

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

accounted for 93 percent of the total landings and 92 percent
of the total value. The remaining landings were of a related
species in California except for small landings in South
Carolina, Alabama, and Mississippi. A large portion of the
lobsters landed in Florida have been caught in Continental
Shelf waters off the Bahama Islands. Idle capacity, a major
problem in this fishery, resulted when Bahama declared the
spiny lobster a creature of their Continental Shelf and be-
gan enforcing a ban on foreign fishing on the shelf as of
August 1, 1975.

STATUS OF FISHERY

Ciirrent harvest

Landings of American lobsters in 1975 were 29 million
pounds valued at $49.1 million. Inshore landings have gen-
erally declined since 1960, while offshore landings peaked
in 1970. (See tables 1 and 2.) NMFS officials stated that
the offshore landings data may not be accurate due to the
large number of lobster landing sites which causes difficult
data collection and incomplete reporting by lobster fisher-
men.

161

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

TABLE 1
American Lobster Landings 1960 to 1975

Pounds
Inshore
landings Offshore
0 to 12 landings Total
Miles 12 to 200 Total Value
Year (note a) Miles Landings (Exvessel)

(millions)

1960 29.3 1.8 31.1 $14.3
1961 25.7 2.3 28.0 14.6
1962 26.8 2.7 29.5 15.0
1963 27.3 3.0 30.3 16.8
1964 26.9 4.1 31.0 19.9
1965 24.5 5.7 30.2 22.0
1966 25.6 3.9 29.5 22.3
1967 22.2 4.3 26.5 22.4
1968 27.5 4.9 32.4 25.5
1969 26.8 7.0 33.8 29.0
1970 25.1 8.4 33.5 33.5
1971 24.9 8.4 33.3 35.1
�972 21.6 7.7 29.3 36.1
1973(note b)23.9 5.1 29.0 41.6
1974(note b)22.4 5.8 28.3 42.4
1975 (note b)23.2 5.8 29.0 49.1

a)Most American lobsters are caught within 3 miles of the
coast. For 1973, 1974, and 1975 the percentage of total
lobsters caught inside this zone was 79.7 percent, 72.5
percent, and 74.2 percent respectively.

b)Preliminary data.

162

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

TABLE 2
1975 American Lobster
Landings by State (note a)

Percent
State Pounds Value pounds

(000 omitted)

Maine 17,018 $27,479 58.6
New Hampshire 510 918 1.8
Massachusetts 5,522 9,742 19.0
Rhode Island 3,643 6,545 12.6
Connecticut 647 1,132 2.2
New York 669 1,400 2.3
New Jersey 850 1,555 2.9
Delaware 27 48 .1
Maryland 59 106 .2
Virginia 91 165 .3
North Carolina - - -

Total 29,036 $49,090 100

a/Preliminary data

Table 3 shows a 10-year history of the U.S. and Florida
spiny lobster landings including Florida catch from domestic
and foreign waters. The Florida spiny lobster catches grew
steadily to a peak of 11.4 million pounds in 1972 and then
declined in succeeding years due to increasing harvesting
restrictions by the Bahamian Government. The overall trend
for catches in Florida waters has been gradually upward.
(See table 4). Preliminary statistics for 1975 show a decline
in landings from Florida waters. The major portion of the
decline is attributed to unilateral actions by the Bahamian
Government prohibiting a U.S. spiny lobster harvest in the
continental shelf waters of Bahama.

On August 1, 1975, U.S. fishermen were displaced from
fishing the continental shelf waters of Bahama. Bahama de-
clared the spiny lobster a creature of their continental
shelf making it unlawful for other nations to fish them.
Negotiations with the Bahamian Government have proved fruit-
less, and as a result about 800 fishermen in the Florida
area are unemployed. About 50 vessels are now working the
shelf areas off Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua. How
long this will be permitted by these countries is not known.

163

TABLE 3

Spiny Lobster Landings in
U.S., Florida, and from
Foreign Waters Off Florida
H

H
Total Florida landings H
Pounds
From Percent
Total U.S. domestic From From
landings Percent of waters foreign foreign
Year Pounds Value Pounds Value U.S. (pounds) (note a) waters waters

(millions) (millions)

1965 6.2 $ 3.6 5.7 $ 3.2 92 4.7 1.0 17.4
1966 5.8 2.9 5.4 2.5 92 3.2 2.2 41.1
1967 4.9 3.1 4.4 2.7 91 1.9 2.5 56.6
1968 7.5 5.4 6.2 4.4 82 2.9 3.3 53.2
1969 8.8 6.3 7.6 5.3 86 4.1 3.5 46.1
1970 10.3 6.3 9.9 5.9 95 6.8 3.1 31.6
1971 8.9 7.8 8.2 7.0 97 4.7 3.5 43.1
1972 12.2 12.8 11.4 11.8 97 4.8 6.6 58.0
1973 (note b)
11.4 12.0 11.2 11.7 98 5.3 5.9 52.8
1974 (note b)
12.9 15.3 10.9 13.4 85 6.6 4.3 39.5
1975 (note b)
7.7 9.9 7.5 9.6 97 5.5 2.0 26.7 H
X
a)Includes waters up to 200 miles from U.S. shores. H
~b)~Preliminary data. ~H
bPreliminary data.

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

TABLE 4

1975 Spiny Lobster
Landings by State (note a)

Percent
State Pounds Value Pounds

(000 omitted)

Florida 7,485 9,607 98
California 165 330 2
Haw-aii 4 7

Total 7,654 9,944 100

a/ Preliminary data.

Fishing fleet

The American lobster is fished for in offshore and inshore
areas. Although both are fished for with pots (traps), otter
trawl gear is also used offshore. The inshore pot boats are
generally 25 to 35 feet long, make daily trips, and use wooden
pots. The offshore pot boats range from about 46 to 60 feet,
make trips that generally last from 2 to 5 days, and use pots
of either wooden or metal construction. The offshore trawlers
generally range from 60 to 100 feet and average between 7 and
10 days per trip.

Since trawl gear is suitable for catching other species,
many of these vessels enter or leave the fishery according
to the current prospects for the most profitable type of
fishing. The use of trawl gear declined in the 1970s as
use of pots in the offshore fishery increased.

As shown in table 5, there were large increases in the
number of lobster boats and pots between 1964 and 1973.

165

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

TABLE 5

Number of American Lobster
Boats, Vessels, and Pots

Trawl Total vessels,
Pot fishery fishery boats in trawl Pots
Year Boats Vessels Vessels and pot fisheries (000 omitted)

1964 6,965 63 75 7,103 904
1965 7,252 69 88 7,409 949
1966 6,858 56 87 7,001 947
1967 6,720 58 135 6,913 908
1968 7,027 78 150 7,255 966
1969 7,649 79 140 7,868 1,062
1970 8,658 98 138 8,894 1,455
1971 8,735 141 119 8,995 1,565
1972 9,276 172 81 9,529 1,792
1973 10,141 168 64 10,373 2,165
1974 (note a) N/A N/A N/A 10,278 2,159

a/Preliminary data.

The spiny lobster fishery is primarily a trap fishery.
The traps, usually made of wood slats, account for over 90
percent of the catch landed in Gulf of Mexico States. Inshore
craft are small ranging 20 to 35 feet long, and trips are
made on a daily basis with catches landed alive. Distant
water vessels range from about 45 to 70 feet, make extended
trips, and generally land only lobster tails. Between 1964
and 1974, as shown in table 6, the total number of boats and
vessels in the Florida fishery almost doubled.

166

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

TABLE 6

Number of Spiny Lobster
Boats, Vessels, and Traps

Boats
Year Boats Vessels and vessels Traps

1964 294 47 341 113,653
1965 286 46 332 138,900
1966 376 112 488 150,970
1967 388 140 528 185,925
1968 187 265 452 168,390
1969 235 205 440 164,655
1970 266 226 492 219,100
1971 250 270 520 225,862
1972 275 324 599 272,495
1973 269 402 671 304,490
1974(note a) N/A N/A 658 405,700

/Preliminary data.

Products and processing

The bulk of the American lobster catch is sold alive or
cooked just before consumer sale. Lobsters deteriorate in
quality very rapidly after death. Consequently, lobsters
must be delivered live and in sound condition to shore es-
tablishments for holding, shipment, or for further proces-
sing. To keep the lobsters alive aboard offshore boats and
in holding areas, circulating sea water tanks are required.
inshore boats making daily trips may or may not have holding
facilities.

Processing ashore is essentially a holding operation
prior to distribution of live lobsters to wholesale and re-
tail markets. Processors estimated that about 10 percent of
the lobsters are processed further. Most of these lobsters
are boiled and the meat removed (shucked) by hand. The meat
is sold in fresh or frozen form. Lobster meat is often used
by food processors in various lobster dishes such as bisques,
soups and newburgs.

167

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Almost all spiny lobsters are sold frozen of which
about half of the production is sold whole, either raw or
cooked. The remainder are marketed as tails, whole or split.
Spiny lobsters caught by small craft which make daily trips
are landed alive. Distant water vessels which make extended
trips generally land only lobster tails. There is no auto-
mated processing in this fishery, with the little processing
necessary done by hand.

Markets

The largest markets for live American lobsters are con-
centrated in the Northeastern portion of the United States
close to the fishery. However, lobsters are being shipped
to all 50 States. Most of the lobster wholesaling and pro-
cessing firms are located in New England, close to domestic
supplies and points of entry for Canadian imports. Boston
and New York City are the major distribution centers.

About half of the total domestic lobster supply is landed
in the United States while the remainder is imported from
Canada. For example, in 1973 domestic landings of 29 million
pounds accounted for 53 percent of the total supply of 55
million pounds of lobster. Most of the total supply is con-
sumed domestically with only a small percentage exported.

During the period 1965 to 1973, total annual supply de-
clined by about 16 percent from 65 to 55 million pounds.
Exvessel prices in this time period rose steadily from $0.75I
to $1.37 per pound in Maine.

Domestic markets for spiny lobster have been strong,
with domestic consumer demand much greater than the U.S.
spiny lobster catch. Imports have accounted for the majority
of U.S. supply. For example, in 1974 spiny lobster imports
of 132 million pounds, valued over $150 million, represented
about 91 percent of the supply. The principal countries ex-
porting spiny lobster to the U.S. are Australia, Brazil,
Republic of South Africa, and New Zealand with about one-
third coming from Australia.

Most of the imported lobster is frozen, but a small
quantity is imported in cans. Between 1965 and 1974, the
total annual supply available to the domestic market in-
creased from 127 million pounds to 145 million pounds. In
the same period the exvessel price rose from about $0.56 to
$1.23 per pound in Florida. The United States does not export
spiny lobster in any form.

168

Employment

The number of commercial fishermen engaged in harvest-
ing American lobsters increased during the period 1964 to
1973 from 8,236 to 11,647 respectively. Employment data in
this fishery is shown in the following table.

TABLE 7

Number of American Lobster Fishermen

Total fishermen
Trawl fishery Pot fishery trawl and pot
Year on vessels On vessels On boats and shore fisheries
Regular Regular Casual

1964 365 92 3,708 4,071 8,236
1965 425 96 3,794 4,090 8,405
1966 414 77 3,847 3,636 7,974
1967 636 81 3,823 3,563 8,103
1968 711 131 3,948 3,771 8,561
1969 669 164 4,035 4,079 8,947
1970 633 218 4,639 4,541 10,031
1971 518 395 4 ,927 4,357 10,197
1972 346 511 5,166 4,752 10,775
1973 270 470 5,044 5,863 11,647

The numbers of fishermen engaged in the Florida spiny
lobster fishery measured gains during 1964 through 1973 in-
creasing from 608 to 1,574 total fishermen, respectively, as
shown by the following table.

169

TABLE 8

Number of Spiny Lobster Fishermen

Year On Vessels On Boats and Shore Total
Regular Regular Casual

1964 109 381 118 608
1965 106 469 so 625
1966 232 533 36 801
1967 299 621 27 947
1968 690 288 23 1,001
1969 509 347 29 885
1970 598 441 20 1,059
1971 746 358 45 1,149
1972 902 379 41 1,322
1973 1,133 411 30 1,574

Recreational fishing

Recreational fishermen account for a large percentage of
the lobster licenses but a relatively small amount of the
annual catch. Licensing practices vary among the States.
In Massachusetts, for example, recreational lobster fisher-
men generally have had about three-quarters of the licenses
but have caught less than 10 percent of the reported landings.
The State of Maine, in contrast, issues only commercial lob-
ster licenses; however, with a commercial license fee of $25,
a State official believes that some of the catch is probably
recreational in nature.

There are no statistics available to show the extent
of the recreational harvest of spiny lobsters; however, spiny
lobsters are caught by recreational skindivers.

Management control

U.S. control of the American lobster resource was assured
on January 2, 1974, when the American lobster was declared a
continental shelf fishery resource. This action prohibited
a direct lobste~r fishery of-f U.S. coasts by foreign f~isher-
men and required all incidental lobster catches by them to
be returned to the ocean. Beyond this action, there are
no Federal regulations controlling the lobster fishery.

170

States have management authority over the lobster fishery
within the 3-mile territorial limit. Through landing laws,
States have been able to partially extend their control into
offshore waters. With the American lobster resource spanning
11 States and each setting regulations individually, there
is considerable variation in regulations among the States.
To help resolve this problem arnd improve lobster resource
management, the States and NMFS, through the State-Federal
Fisheries Management Program, initiated a coordinated lobster
management effort in 1972. While some improvements have
been made, progress has generally been slow.

Florida and Georgia exercise the only management controls
ovex the U.S. spiny lobster fishery in the South Atlantic
and in the Gulf of Mexico. Current management in Florida
is directed toward preservation of the species. The total
catch and effort are not limited, however, because the regu-
lations prohibit taking egg-bearing females, all lobsters
with carapace lengths less than 76 mm. (about 3 inches), all
lobsters during the peak-breeding season, March 31 to August
1, and also restrict the type of gear used. These regula-
tions have the primary purpose of insuring and maintaining
the lobster stocks, but do little or nothing to improve
the economics of the industry.

Enforcement of these few rules is difficult because of
the large area involved and the high potential gain/penalty
ratio for the offender. The success of the management
scheme is also limited by the natural distribution of the
spiny lobsters beyond the boundaries of Florida's territorial
waters. State management thus is unable to control the local
high seas harvest or the international recruitment potential.
There are no Federal regulations on spiny lobster fishing in
the South Atlantic, off Florida, or in the Gulf of Mexico.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT

Resource availability

The American lobster is being overfished, resulting in
depletion throughout its inshore range along the Atlantic
coast (within the 12-mile fisheries zone). A study in one
State concluded that nearly all available legal-size lobsters
are caught each year. Scientific studies have also shown
that existing legal minimum-size limits, considered inadequate,
permit most female lobsters to be caught before they can
spawn.
Stock assessments have not been sufficiently complete
to establish a maximum sustainable yield (MSY) for the

171

entire inshore fishery. However, NMFS officials conserva-
tively estimate the MSY at 25 to 30 million pounds per year.
Although the lobster fishing effort has increased substantially,
landings in the inshore area have declined. For example,
landings in Maine, the leading producer State, dropped from
a range of 21 to 24 million pounds in the early 1960s to 17
million pounds in 1975. Although a precise MSY cannot be
established for the offshore lobster stocks because of in-
adequate catch statistics, an approximate amount of 7.5
million pounds per year has been estimated. NMFS officials
believe that catches of offshore lobsters have been within
the fishery's sustainable limits.
Based on available information, NMFS and State biolo-
gists are convinced that American lobster stocks can be
better protected and supplies substantially increased through
implementation of a comprehensive management program. Key
elements in the program recommended by State and Federal
officials in 1972, as part of the joint State and Federal
management effort, included:

--Establishing a uniform minimum legal carapace
length of 3-1/2 inches, which was considered
to be the minimum needed to achieve optimum
economic and biological objectives.

--Developing a program to effectively control
entire fishing effort.

The plan also provided for establishing (1) reciprocal
enforcement among States, (2) licensing and reporting re-
quirements for fishermen, and (3) escape vents in traps for
undersized lobsters. The plan recommended prohibiting (1)
landing of lobster meat, (2) notching 1/of female lobsters,
(3) possession of egg-bearing lobsters, (4) a maximum-size
limit, and (5) possession of detached lobster parts.

The trend in Florida landings of spiny lobsters from
1953 through 1973 was generally upward. The recent increases
were largely due to the additional foreign-water lobsters
landed from the Bahamaian, fishery; however, a gradual in-
crease in landings from U.S. waters was also occurring.
During this same period there was a decrease in productivity
that is, less catch per unit of effort, indicating that ad-
ditional stocks are not available to provide the opportunity
for growth. An MSY has not been established. There are no
known commercial size stocks not being exploited.

I/Making a V-shaped cut in the tail flippers for identi-
fication purposes. It was found that such cuts make the
lobster vulnerable to certain diseases.

172'

Harvesting capability

Currently there is excess harvesting capacity in the
inshore fishery. Landings in this fishery have generally
declined even though there has been a large increase in the
number of fishermen, boats, and pots. Accordingly, although
the type of gear is efficient, the overall harvest is not
very efficient. Biologists estimated that the MSY for the
inshore fishery from Maine through North Carolina could be
taken with about I million pots. In 1975 preliminary data
indicates that there were 2 million pots in the fishery, or
double the capacity needed. Due to the displacement of U.S.
fishermen from Bahamian waters, the spiny lobster fishery
also has excess harvesting capacity.

Product development and processing

Some additional American lobster products have been
tried, such as boiled lobster frozen whole, but processors
expect the bulk of the lobster catch to continue to be sold
in the most demanded form, live or cooked just prior to
sale. Lobster processors stated that major improvements to
existing processing techniques are not needed. Future im-
provements in processing or product development for spiny
lobster are not currently needed.

Marketing potential

Demand is considered strong and market prices have
steadily increased for the American lobster. Increased
supplies can be absorbed into existing domestic markets.
The market potential for the spiny lobster also appears
healthy, with demand growing steadily and market prices
increasing substantially. The future demand is estimated
to be greater than the foreseeable future supply potential.

OBSTACLES INHIBITING GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT

Resource availability and management control

Improved resource availability is dependent on the im-
plementation of an effective management program. Except for
prohibiting the possession of egg-bearing lobsters, which
all States adopted, implementation of the lobster management
plan has been slow. This has been due to difficulties,
anticipated or encountered by State administrators, in ob-
taining acceptance of the proposed regulations by fishermen
and/or State legislatures, lack of data, and reconsideration
of the need for certain regulations in some States.

173

Although the State-Federal management committee for
lobster agreed that a 3-1/2 inch minimum carapace length
was necessary to achieve optimum management goals, it con-
cluded that implementation was not feasible for at least
several years. An increase in the minimum-size lobster
which could be legally harvested would initially serve to
reduce supplies, and the committee recognized that it would
be extremely difficult to gain the support of industry and
legislative officials for such action. Accordingly, the
committee set a 3-3/16 inch interim goal for all States by
January 1, 1976. This was not achieved.

Existing minimum-size limitations as of July 1976,
4 years after committee adoption of the plan, are shown
below:

Number of States Minimum carapace
size (inches)

6 3-3/16
3 3-2/16
1 3-1/16
1 no regulation

The original committee proposal of 3-1/2 inch minimum
carapace was based on research conducted in Maine waters.
Several States questioned the applicability of this study
to conditions in their States. However, additional research
indicated that current fishing mortality rates are too high
and current minimum sizes are too low in all areas.

None of the States have adopted a plan to effectively
control lobster fishing effort, but some actions have been
taken. For example, since adoption of the lobster manage-
ment plan, numerous bills to limit the number of licenses
and amount of lobster gear have been submitted to the Maine
State legislature, but none have been enacted. The legisla-
ture did, however, impose a moratorium on issuance of ad-
ditional lobster licenses between May 15, 1974, and December
31, 1975. Passage of the moratorium was prompted by a chal-
lenge to a Maine statute requiring State residency of 3
years for license qualification. About 10,500 lobster
licenses were issued before the May 15, 1974, deadline, a
substantial increase over the 7,894 licenses issued for
the 1973 season.

Massachusetts issued about 1,280 commercial lobster
licenses in 1974. In July 1-975 Mas-sachuse-tts ena-cted le~gls-
lation placing a moratorium on the number of inshore com-
mercial lobster licenses. The limit was set at 1,300, with

174

an allowance for a 10-percent increase under certain cir-
cumnstances.. The legislation also pro Tides-for a lobster
fishery study to develop rules ana regulations tor annual
license limits and to control the amount of gear that can
be used. An industry official stated that the State legis-
lature will be considering bills specifying gear limits and
other measures in the latter part of 1976.

The U.S. spiny lobster fishery in the Gulf of Mexico and
South Atlantic waters is considered to be under intensive
use. The primary obstacle limiting the growth of the spiny
lobster fishery is the limited availability of spiny lobsters
in U.S. waters. Also, the Bahamian Government prohibits U.S.
fishermen from harvesting spiny lobsters on the Bahamian con-
tinental shelf which has been a traditional fishing area for
the U.S. fleet.

*The catch and the effort data which show a declining yield
per each unit of effort indicates that the resource may be
reaching its limits. However, there is insufficient infor-
mation regarding the origin of the U.S. stocks, biological
activities of the species, and catch statistics by both com-
mercial and recreational fishermen to establish the maximum
sustainable yield for the fishery. Therefore, it is not
known whether the restrictions prescribed by Florida are
effective.

Harvesting capability

Excess harvesting capacity in the inshore American lobster
fishery limits the potential for improving the efficiency
of the overall harvest. The number of boats, pots, and
fishermen have increased while landings have decreased.
While some steps have been taken by individual States to
lessen the problem, as noted previously, effective control
over fishing effort has not been achieved.

The domestic fishery for spiny lobster is also considered
to have excess harvesting capacity. In addition, because
Bahama recently prohibited U.S. fishing activity in their
waters, the displaced U.S. fishermen are now mostly idle.
Even before the Bahama situation developed, the domestic
waters were already fished heavily and capital inputs into
the fishery generally increased at a faster rate than landings
increased, thus decreasing the output per unit of effort.

Unfortunately, these idle fishermen cannot be absorbed
efficiently into the U.S. jurisdiction because of resource
limitations. An analysis of what would happen if the dis-
placed fishermen moved into the Florida waters estimated

175

that the catch per unit of effort would drop 28 percent
due to the increased pressure on the stocks.

The Federal Government is presently assisting in allaying
the financial burdens of the displaced spiny lobster fisher-
men. The Government has authorized $2.3 million in financial
assistance which is being used to help fishermen convert
into other economically viable fisheries and to help families
make general economic adjustments. The program is for 1 year,
and its success will not be known for some time. Three spiny
lobster vessels have been converted for shark'fishing but the
success of this venture will not be known for a while.

Negotiations have been held with the Bahamian Government
but the efforts to regain access for U.S. fishermen to these
foreign waters have not been successful. A solution to this
problem will be difficult if Bahama refuses to further
discuss the issue.

Product development and processing

There are no major obstacles to product development or
processing of the American lobster. However, processors
stated that because most of the lobsters are sold alive,
improper handling, particularly while they are in transit
to markets, can be a problem. High temperatures, high
humidity and rough treatment can increase lobster mortality.
There are no obstacles related to product development or
processing of the spiny lobster.

Market development

Demand for American lobsters in domestic markets is strong.
Lobsters are highly valued as a food item. Expansion of the
market is, however, limited by the availability of lobster
resources which can be improved by better management.

Continuing market equilibrium for the spiny lobster could
be threatened if the fishermen who have been displaced from
the shelf grounds off Bahama crowd into the Florida grounds.
These grounds are already under heavy fishing pressure as
indicated by a decreasing catch per unit of effort; and
additional effort could further erode the catch per unit of
effort across the board for all fishermen. The end result
could be to increase the cost of harvesting each lobster and
to increase the retail price of lobster, which could lead to
a transfer of consumer demand to imported lobster or sub-
stitutes and to idling of more lobster fishermen.

176

EFFECTS OF A 200 MILE LIMIT

The Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976
extends U.S. jurisdiction over coastal fisheries resources
and provides for improved fishery management. Although
the majority of American lobsters are caught within 3 miles
of the U.S. coast, there is an important lobster fishery
in offshore waters. Also, the American lobster is a con-
tinental shelf fishery resource. It has not yet been de-
termined how implementation of the act will affect regulation
of the lobster fisheries. This is expected to be determined
once Fishery Management Councils are in operation.

The 200-mile jurisdiction will extend protection to that
part of the spiny lobster fishery caught by U.S. fishing
craft off the U.S. shores in the 12- to 200-mile zone. A
NMFS official stated that the effect of the act on the regu-
latory status of the fishery would be determined when the
Regional Fishery Management Councils begin their operations.

Bahama's extension of their continental shelf and prohibi-
tion of fishing on the shelf by other nations has idled
about 250 U.S.-based vessels and 800 fishermen who worked
the Bahamian shelf. About 50 of these vessels are crossing
the Gulf of Mexico into the Caribbean trying to get estab-
lished harvesting spiny lobster on the shelf areas of
Guatamala, Honduras and Nicaragua. But their position on
these shelf areas is tenuous because the countries could
exercise jurisdictional prerogatives at any time and force
these fishermen to leave.

177

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

MENHADEN

The menhaden fishery, one of the most valuable fisheries
in the United States and the largest in volume of landings,
is centered on the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts of the
United States. In 1974 the value of menhaden landings was
about $66.4 million or 7.4 percent of the national total for
all species; about 2 billion pounds of menhaden were landed,
which was about 40 percent of the U.S. total catch and by
far the greatest in volume for any single specie.

Menhaden are used exclusively to produce meal, oil, and
solubles. The menhaden industry is composed of large inte-
grated operations with processors owning the vessels, pro-
cessing plants, warehouses, and distribution systems. Gen-
erally, the same companies operate on both the gulf and At-
lantic coasts.

STATUS OF FISHERY

The gulf menhaden yield greatly exceeds that of the
Atlantic; over 90 percent of the catch in both areas is with-
in 3 miles of the coast.

The average size of the gulf species at any particular
age i-s less than that of the Atlantic species. Atlantic
menhaden live longer than the gulf menhaden (10-year old
Atlantic menhaden have been recorded) . Most gulf menhaden
caught are 1 to 2 years old; fish older than 4 years are
rare.

Current harvest in the Atlantic

Landings of Altantic menhaden in the 1975 fishing season
amounted to 605,770,000 pounds--ll percent less than the
683,178,000 pounds landed in 1974 and 27 percent less than
831,643,000 pounds caught in 1972. The historical peak was
in 1956 at 1,537,403,000 pounds.

Annual landings of Atlantic menhaden have shown a clas-
sic response to a progressively developing fishery. Landings
increased steadily to a peak in 1956, and then declined as
the harvesting rate exceeded the growth rate of the menhaden
population. The population and hence landings, have recov-
ered greatly since the low in 1969. This is thought by NMFS
to be due, at least in part, to a 54-percent reduction in
observed fishing effort, and enhances NMFS' belief in the
efficacy of controlling thie amount o-f effort.

178

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

The biological research program on Atlantic menhaden
by NMFS and its predecessor agencies began in 1955. Major
questions concerning the species in landings, population
composition and migrations, recruitment patterns, fecundity,
age and size of fish in landings, growth, and estimates of
natural and fishing mortalities, and effects of fishing have
been answered. These reports and analyses form the necessary
components to the present store of knowledge and understand-
ing of the resource and fishery.

NMFS points out that since the resource appears to be
almost constantly changing and responding to fishing and to
natural environmental changes, continued research on the
fishery is warranted and should prove fruitful. Future re-
search, however, will generally contribute refinements to
the present understanding.

The leading Atlantic Coast States for menhaden landings
before 1972 were New Jersey, Virginia, and North Carolina.
Virginia accounted for about half or more of the landings.

Major Atlantic menhaden ports are:

Middle Atlantic --Port Monmouth, New Jersey

Chesapeake Bay --Readville, Virginia

South Atlantic --Beaufort, North Carolina
Southport, North Carolina
Fernandina Beach, Florida

Current harvest in the gulf

Landings of gulf menhaden in the 1975 fishing season
amounted to 1,196,977,000 pounds. This catch ranks as the
fourth largest ever made in the gulf fishery, surpassed only
by the 1970, 1971, and 1974 catches.

NMFS had predicted a 1975 catch of 1,441,808,400 pounds
a 20-percent overstatement of the actual. Poor fishing
weather, moderate fish abundance, and changes in menhaden
distribution along the northern gulf coast in 1975 contribu-
ted to a moderate decline in landings over 1974.

In 1973 NMFS underestimated the landings by 2 percent
and in 1974 overestimated the landings by 1 percent.

Most of the menhaden catch is landed in Louisiana. Of
the total menhaden landed in the Gulf States from 1948
through 1975, over 70 percent were landed in Louisiana.

179

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

The gulf fishery began to expand in about 1947. Gulf
landings show a trend since 1946 that is remarkably similar
to that on the Atlantic which has generally been upward.
The landings decreased in 1957 and 1958 and are unexplained
as are those in the 1967 season. The record catch of gulf
menhaden in 1971 exceeded the catch of any other single-
species fishery in U.S. history. Since 1971 landings have
declined but no trend is indicated.

Since 1963 the gulf menhaden has supported the Nation's
largest fishery and in recent years has accounted for about
25 percent of the total landings by U.S. fishermen. Landings
from 1963 through the 1975 season have exceeded those of the
Atlantic menhaden, the original fishery, whose history goes
back to colonial times.

NMFS thinks much consideration should be given as to why
the gulf landings, apparently peaking in about 1970, have
shown no signs yet of declining, as in the Atlantic, in the
face of a technical development of harvesting and processing
at least equal to the Atlantic. Part of the reason is be-
lieved to lie in imposing the increasing harvesting rates
on a virgin stock, instead of on a stock already exposed to
a large harvesting rate. Part of the reason may also lie in
some rather overt "management" by the industry. The same
industry that experienced economic disaster on the Atlantic
coast appears to be closely watching and voluntarily limit-
ing the effort. For example, after a tremendous increase in
the catch in 1971 the industry reduced its effort the next
year by 5 percent. Though part of the reason for a reduc-
tion may have been induced by market, labor, or processing
conditions, it indicates a flexible industry that is cau-
tiously responsive to fluctuations in the gulf, which are more
apparent because there are fewer age classes in the fishery.

Biological research on the gulf menhaden resource and
purse seine fishery by NMFS was started in 1964. The pur-
pose of these studies was then, as today, to determine, as
much as possible, the effects of man's fishing and catch on
the well-being of the fish stock and to aid in the wise util-
ization and conservation of this large renewable resource.
To answer this question, a research program was designed that
would plan for the systematic collecting and analyzing of
information from the fishery and its operation which would
permit reliable conclusions about the gulf menhaden and de-
pendent fishery.

180

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

The leading gulf menhaden ports are:

--Moss Point, Mississippi.

--Empire, Louisiana.

--Morgan City, Louisiana.

--Cameron, Louisiana.

--Intracoastal City, Louisiana.

--Dulac, Louisiana.

Products and processing--Atlantic and gulf

The gulf menhaden yield twice the oil as the Atlantic
menhaden, but the same quantity of meal.

The products for which menhaden is used include fish-
meal, oil, and solubles--products that are used in dozens
of ways. The fishmeal is high in protein, minerals, and
other essential nutrients, and is an excellent additive in
poultry, swine, and cattle feed.

More than a hundred uses have been developed for the
menhaden oil alone. The oil is used in bath soaps and the
manufacture of lipstick, and the preparation of lard substi-
tutes, in which huge quantities of oil are shipped to Europe
for that purpose. In Europe, it also goes into the manufac-
ture of candles, soap, leather dressing, etc. The oil is
used in manufacturing paints, varnishes, stains, and large
quantities are still used by the leather industry. The sol-
ubles include fluid protein and water soluble amino acids,
which are important to human health.

An attempt was made during World War II to process and
can menhaden for humans, but the extreme oiliness and many
small bones prevented the species from reaching popularity
as a table fish.

The processing of menhaden is highly mechanized. Men-
haden are unloaded by pumps from the hold of the vessel and
weighed and conveyed through a continuous process of steam
cooking, pressing, and separation of liquids and solids.
The solid portion or press cake is dried and ground into
fishmeal.

The liquids are centrifuged to separate the oil and
stickwater. Stickwater is further reduced by evaporation to

181

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

obtain a soluble product high in protein content, vitamins,
and minerals.
The domestic production of menhaden products for
selected years are shown below.

Year Dried scrap and meal Solubles Oil
Pounds Pounds Pounds
(000 omitted)

1960 436,846 $19,202 131,700 $2,999 183,403 $11,582
1965 351,918 25,869 146,360 4,666 175,204 13,241
1970 377,100 34,658 143,782 3,574 186,283 16,833
1971 442,008 34,969 182,482 3,773 242,071 19,268

Markets--Atlantic and gulf

Menhaden account for most of the U.S. domestic fish-
meal production. Other domestic fish used for fishmeal are
anchovy, tuna, and mackerel. Menhaden provides less than
half of the total domestic fishmeal demand and the United
States has had to import large quantities principally from
Peru and Canada.

U.S. imports declined in 1973 and 1974 because Peru
decreased its exports to the United States. U.S. exports
of f�shmeal increased dramatically during this period be-
cause prices in Europe were higher than in the United States.
However, 1975 reversed the trend of 1973 and 1974.

The United States exports a major part of the domestic-
ally produced menhaden oil. The Netherlands is a major buyer,
as are Sweden, the United Kingdom, and West Germany. Even
though the level of 1975 oil export decreased, it was at about
the same level as the 1970-74 average. FDA bans the use of
menhaden fish oil for human consumption in the United States.

Fishing fleet

The number of vessels active in the Atlantic fishery
peaked in the mid- to late 1950s when active vessels numbered
over 100. The number of active vessels has declined since
that time.

The number of vessels active in the Gulf of Mexico
fishery during this same period has been comparatively steady.
The most dramatic change has been in the rapid rate at which
vessels have increased in average size as shown by their
registered net tonnaqe.

182

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

The vessels are highly specialized and fish during
daylight hours in relatively shallow waters, generally
about I to 3 miles offshore.

The number of fishing vessels assigned to a menhaden
plant varies with plant size and availability of fish. A
plant of average size is supplied by 6 to 10 vessels.

Menhaden are caught by the purse seine method, in which
a large seine (net), designed to be set by two boats around
a school of menhaden, is so arranged that after the ends have
been brought together the bottom can be closed. The fishing
fleet includes aircraft (spotter planes) which find the men-
haden and direct by radio the setting of the net. Menhaden
vessels range in size from about 125 feet to 200 feet long,
are built of steel and range from 150 to 700 tons. The
purse seine boats are constructed of aluminum, about 36 feet
long and 10 feet wide and are equipped with a diesel engine
that powers the boat and the hydraulic seine block. The
purse seine nets, some 1,200 feet long and about 60 feet deep,
can encircle an area the size of two football fields. The
fleet's mechanized catching operations are quite efficient.

Atlantic

In 1975 a total of 61 vessels were reported as landing
menhaden, compared to 63 which were active in 1974 and 58 in
1973. Fifty-one vessels were active in 1969-72 and 54 in
1970.

more fishing vessels and more effort were observed in
the South Atlantic in 1975 than in the 1974 season, and fewer
in the Chesapeake Bay, Middle and North Atlantic areas.

--14 vessels were reported landing menhaden in the
North Carolina fall fishery in 1975.

--0were active in 1974 and 4 in 1973 when the
catch was a record low since at least 1940.

Gulf

The fleet operating in the gulf during 1972 consisted
of about 75 vessels, with an average age of about 13 years.
The larger vessels were almost 200 feet long and carried
300 tons of fish.

In 1975 78 purse seine vessels were active in the
fishing industry, an increase over the 71 vessels in the
1974 fleet. During the last 11 years, the gulf fleet has
averaged 79 vessels per season, with the lowest number, 66
in 1973, and.92, the highest, in 1966.

183

APPENDIX III
APPENDIX III

Employment--Atlantic and gulf

The menhaden vessel crew numbers about 16 or 17 men
and includes a captain, pilot, engineer, cook, and net
handlers.
The number of fishermen and employees involved in pro-
cessing and wholesaling is shown below.
Processing and
Year Fishermen wholesale employees

1960 4,353
1965 2 ,72 2
1970 2,066 909
1972 1,970 899
1973 1,850 1,165
1974 N/A 1,165

The quality of menhaden crews is deteriorating and in-
centives are offered to attract reliable crews. The incent-
ives include

--minimum catch guarantee on which the wage is based,

--bonuses to those who stay with the fleet the full
season, and

--modern efficient vessels with good living conditions.

Recreational fishing

There is no recreational fishing for menhaden.

Management controls

Passage by the United States of the 12-mile contiguous
f~ishing zone in 1966 effectively prevented the entrance of
foreign fishing fleets into the Atlantic and Gulf States men-
haden fisheries.

Atlantic2

The Atlantic menhaden fishery is under no formal manage-
ment scheme. There are no regulations controlling either
total eff-ort or catch.

We were told that if any management is exercised in the
menhaden fishery it is done so voluntarily by industry.

Gulf

There is no formal management control of the gulf men-
haden fishery. Even though Louisiana, Texas, and Missis-
sippi recognize a common season, no regulations or constraints

184

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

exist to control either total catch or fishing effort. All
management actions are exclusively voluntary by the industry.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR GROWTH AND
DEVELOPMENT OF THE FISHERY
Resource availability--Atlantic

NMFS believes that production can be increased if the
fish stocks are carefully managed. Its estimate of MSY for
this resource is 881,840,000 pounds. The 1975 catch was
605,770,000 pounds.

Resource availability--gulf

NMFS's latest MSY estimate for the gulf is over 1
billion pounds. NMFS studies and analyses showed that:

--The gulf menhaden resource is healthy and producing
an annual catch that is considered sustainable.

--Due to dependence of the fishery on mostly 1- and
2-year old menhaden, sizable fluctuations in an-
nual landings should be expected.

--Major expansion in landings or in fishing effort is
not suggested by the information and analyses
available at this time.

--Overfishing, or the taking of excessive amounts of
fish, is not indicated.

--Adequate numbers of adult gulf menhaden are presently
available for spawning and to insure the future pro-
duction of eggs and resulting .young fish for the near
term.

--The future of the gulf menhaden resource and pro-
ductive fishery depends on maintaining the exist-
ing quality and quantity of estuary habitat essential
for this species.

An industry representative said that the estimates of
potential resources for the gulf and Atlantic seem reasonable.
But, he said that others in the menhaden industry would prob-
ably not accept this data and would adamantly attack it.

Harvesting capability--Atlantic

The harvesting capability in the Atlantic menhaden
fishery is adequate. NMFS believes there should be less

185

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

effort in the Atlantic fishery. Excessive fishing pressure
has been cited as the primary reason for the reduction in
landings in the 1960s.

An industry representative said there is excess capa-
city but he does not wholly agree that this excess is the
primary reason for the reduction in landing. Although-it-
may have been a contributing factor, he said that there are
others in the industry who would strongly disagree about the
excessive fishing pressure and cite ecological changes as
the prime reason.

Harvesting capability--gulf

NMFS believes potential exists for continued growth of
the gulf menhaden on a limited controlled basis. Controls
would set parameters on catch, effort, and yield by season.
The philosophy is to allow increased yield until the MSY is
met or slightly exceeded. To accomplish this, additional
vessels may be added to the gulf fleet.

An industry representative said that in his opinion this
is poor management strategy. He favors better utilization
of the existing vessels, which in his opinion can increase
effort by about 10 percent, if the goal is to gradually ap-
proach the MSY; to avoid exceeding the MSY he would favor
reducing the effort of the existing companies by the same
amount across-the-board.

Product development and processing--
Atlantic and gulf

Menhaden are used widely in the manufacture of many
products and the uses continue to grow. The processing
methods are continually being improved.

Marketing potential--Atlantic and gulf

The market for the menhaden products is international
and as such affords additional opportunities for expansion
through natural market growth.

Some NMFS officials believe that if the FDA would allow
the use of menhaden oil for human consumption, the menhaden
oil could be marketed nationally. However, the economic im-
pact on other oils, such as vegetable, safflower, corn, soy-
bean, palm, and peanut, now used is not known nor to what
extent oil imports would be reduced. The net effect an t-he-
U.S. balance of payments is not known.

186

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Management controls

Atlantic

NMFS personnel believe, that in view of the fishery
conditions, a management plan, biologically oriented, is
necessary for the survival of the Atlantic menhaden fishery.

NMFS made a stock status analysis for 1955-69 and
concluded that:

--fishing had a considerable effect on the resources,
--the stock had been diminished as a result of excess
fishing, and
--the resource could recover only if the fishing rate
were reduced.

NMFS personnel think that sufficient data is available
to establish an adequate management plan and landings for the
Atlantic menhaden could be doubled within 3 years if the in-
dustry reduced its effort by 25 percent.

The history of landings shows the benefits to be gained
by regulating fishing effort at a level which will produce
the maximum sustainable value.

The current industry attitude is to use a management
plan that will involve cooperation between States, Federal
agencies, and the industry. Consulting fishery biologists
for industry also endorse management.

Gulf

NMFS believes that the MSY for gulf menhaden is being
approached but cannot be certain as yet to definitely state
what is the approximate MSY.

Predictive yields for the gulf menhaden are made each
year by NMFS. Forecasts for the last 3 years were reasonably
close to observed catches and differed from actual landings
by 2 percent in 1973, 1 percent in 1974, and 17 percent in
1975. NMFS is not technically positive of the MSY for this
fishery. Their opinion is, however, that future increases
in effort may result in increased landings but the fishery's
maximum production level should be approached with a definite
plan and caution.

NMFS states that the system must not be too restrictive,
but must allow for expansion, until there is clear evidence
that the peak of production has been reached or slightly
passed.

187

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

NMFS has suggested, through a draft management plan
for the gulf, a quota system as an initial step toward manag-
ing gulf menhaden.

if the system were implemented for the 1976 fishing
season, the quota established would be based on the current
estimated MSY of 1,093,481,600 pounds plus an increment
based on statistical confidence limits around this point
estimate. Using an 80-percent confidence level, an upper
MSY limit of 1,179,461,000 pounds is established as the
tentative harvestable quota for the 1976 fishing season.

For this system to be effective everyone in the industry
would have to comply. If one company breaks the control
barrier, there could be a problem of sticking to the manage-
ment plan.

NMFS thinks that there should be some enforcement
authority for the catch and effort quota and that the com-
panies should have only limited authority to adjust the catch
quota.

An industry representative agreed that the time to
protect the fishery is when it is healthy, and that some
mangement planning and regulation would probably be needed.
lie cautioned, however, that the Government should not have
the exclusive regulatory authority. In his opinion manage-
ment should be a closely coordinated effort of all parties
concerned--Federal, State and industry.

OBSTACLES INHIBITING GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT

Resource availability--Atlantic

The menhaden resource in the Atlantic has been fully
exploited, in the opinion of NMFS, and population will not
sustain the past levels of fishing effort because the re-
source is limited as follows:

--The Atlantic menhaden resource is being fully ex-
ploited throughout its range and strong evidence is
available to show that landings in recent years
cannot be maintained.

--The Atlantic resource is not being utilized to pro-
vide the most pounds from the population that is
present, as evidenced by the abundance of young
f ish in c-atche-s__

--The trend in abundance of young menhaden throughout
their range has been downward for the past several
years.

188

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

--In recent years, as in the 1960's, fishing pressure
had reduced the number of spawning age females,
affecting reproduction of menhaden.

NMFS believes that the fishing pressure has been
primarily responsible for declining yields in the Atlantic,
although industry contends that deterioration of the
nursery areas has been a prime cause for the decline. NMFS
does not discount nursery area deterioration as having some
effect on reducing the size of future stocks but has found
little basis for a strong supporting argument.

Gulf

The gulf menhaden yield is thought to be near its peak,
which would limit potential harvest, but some growth is pos-
sible. There is concern that the growth be controlled and
measured.

Harvesting capability

Atlantic

Indications are that the harvesting capability exceeds
that which is needed to catch the resource available. NMFS
says that the fishing effort is presently greater, about 25
percent, than what is required to achieve MSY, and could do
irrepairable damage to the number of harvestable menhaden.

Gul f

The capability is no obstacle for the gulf fishery at
this time. The MSY is thought to be close, in which case
the growth of harvesting capability would be limited by the
resource available to harvest.

Product development and processing

No obstacles exist in product development and proces-
s ing.

Market development

No obstacles exist in menhaden market development.
The market is developed; only the supply of menhaden is
limited.

Management controls--Atlantic and gulf

There are no management controls.

189

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

EFFECT OF A 200-MILE LIMIT ON THE FISHERY

Menhaden are caught almost exclusively within the 12-
mile contiguous fisheries zone and are already protected from
foreign fishing fleets. Establishment of the 200-mile limit
will have no effect on the menhaden fishery.

There is no foreign activity in the menhaden fishery
and U.S. menhaden vessels are not active in any foreign
waters.

An industry official said that even though available
statistical data shows no foreign activities of menhaden in
the 12-to 200-mile zone and beyond, some may exist. Men-
haden have been observed on foreign vessels on occasions
when vessels were boarded for inspection. There is no
supporting data for this.

OTHER MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

Since the'populations of menhaden in the gulf and At-
lantic fisheries are close to full exploitation, the only
opportunity for further major development of the fishmeal
industry seems to be in using the thread herring population
in the gulf.

This resource is thought by NMFS to exceed menhaden
and might be harvested with menhaden vessels because the
thread herring resources are harvested at periods when the
menhaden is not.

The thread herring product is equal in quality to the
menhaden and the feasibility of production and processing
was illustrated in the mid-1960s when a processing plant
was built in Florida for thread herring; but, Florida legis-
lation prohibited purse seining in State waters.

190/191

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

OYSTER

oyster fisheries are found on the Atlantic, gulf,
and Pacific coasts of the United States. Three species of
oysters are harvested commercially. The eastern oyster
is harvested principally along the Atlantic and gulf coasts
from Massachusetts to Texas and the Pacific and western
oysters are harvested along the Pacific coast from Califor-
nia to Alaska.

Oysters are bivalve mollusks. They are sedentary,
attaching themselves to clean, hard surfaces in bays and
inlets. In some areas, oysters grow between tidal levels
where they are exposed to the *air during low tide. The
oyster fishery is exclusively in the territorial sea within
the States' jurisdiction. In the United States, about 40
percent of oyster production comes from private aquaculture--
private industry growing aquatic animals for commnercia~l
purposes.

STATUS OF THE FISHERY

Current harvestI

In the early 1900s Atlantic coast oyster production
declined drastically due to overexploitation. Since about
1935, production has decreased at a slower rate. Landings
averaged about 50 million pounds per year in the 1950s and
declined to an average of 28 million pounds per year in the
1960s and 1970s (see table 1). A major reason for lower
production during the last two decades was a severe oyster
disease known as MSX. This disease killed large numbers of
oysters in the higher salinity areas of the Middle Atlantic
and Chesapeake Bay, particularly in Virginia, Delaware, and
New Jersey. Environmental changes caused by floods and
pollution and lower return on investments in oyster growing
areas also contributed to the decline.

In 1975 oyster landings along the Atlantic coast were
26.6 million pounds valued at $25.1 million, accounting for
about 50 percent of total U.S. oyster production. Landings
from the Chesapeake Bay area (Maryland and Virginia) were
21.5 million pounds, or 81 percent of Atlantic production.
In 1972 about 70 percent of the Atlantic coast oyster land-
ings, excluding Florida, were harvested from public beds,
primarily in Maryland. Landings in most of the other Atlan-
tic States were taken primarily from private beds. In 1973

'The latest data available was used in all cases.

192

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

the Atlantic eastern oyster fishery ranked ninth in volume
and fifth in value among fisheries along the Atlantic coast.

In 1975 oyster landings along the gulf coast were
19,639 million pounds, accounting for 37 percent of the U.S.
oyster production. The State of Louisiana has been the
largest producer, with 1974 production at 10 million pounds
worth $6.3 million. Most of the oysters landed in the
Gulf States, with the exception of the State of Louisiana,
are harvested from public beds.

In 1972 the gulf oyster fishery ranked sixth in volume
and fourth in value among the Gulf States' fisheries.

In 1975 oyster landings along the Pacific coast were
6,977 million pounds, accounting for 13 percent of the U.S.
oyster production. The State of Washington has been the
largest producer, and small quantities have been harvested
in Oregon, California, and Alaska. The Pacific coast oyster
production has declined since 1959, when 12.3 million pounds
were landed. In 1972 oyster production ranked seventh out
of nine in dollar value among the Pacific coast fisheries.
Table 1 shows U.S. oyster landings for all regions from
1950 to 1975.

Table 1
U.S. oyster Landings By Region, 1950-75
(Meat weight)
Total
all region
Year Atlantic Gulf Pacific (note a)
-(thousand pounds)
1950 55,886 12,292 8,239 76,415
1951 52,761 11,519 8,709 72,990
1952 57,506 14,637 10,100 82,242
1953 56,465 12,836 10,418 79,719
1954 59,510 11,443 10,969 81,922
1955 51,954 13,881 11,680 77,515
1956 50,692 13,513 11,928 75,134
1957 45,689 14,307 11,662 71,658
1958 44,753 10,407 11,235 66,396
1959 38,617 13,721 12,372 64,710
1960 32,884 16,098 11,028 60,070
1961 33,858 18,240 10,207 62,305
1962 26,445 18,838 10,754 56,037
1963 24,514 24,139 9,791 58,444
1964 27,176 23,385 9,953 60,534
1965 26,367 19,156 9,165 54,688
1966 26,214 17,182 7,827 51,223
1967 30,471 21,747 7,739 59,957
1968 27,377 26,739 7,770 61,886
1969 25,461 19,765 6,973 52,199
1970 27,897 17,714 7,991 53,602
1971 29,558 20,266 8,144 57,938
1972 29,398 18,260 8,400 56,058
1973 30,418 14,914 6,599 51,931
1974(note b) 27,565 13,652 3,656 44,873
1975(note b% 26,547 19,639 6,977 53,163

a Some total figures do not add due to rounding.
b Preliminary.

193

Products and processing

Oysters are marketed fresh in the shell or in various
forms after the meat has been removed by a process called
shucking. Oyster meats are sold fresh (raw), frozen (plain
or breaded) , and canned.

Raw oysters must be shucked by hand, a slow and diffi-
cult process. Hand shucking has been used for many centur-
ies and is still the predominant method fih use. The
shucker inserts a knife into the oyster and cuts the muscle
attached to the shell. The shucked oysters are then graded
by size, cleaned, and packed for sale. Oysters may also
be shucked by steaming open the shell which allows the meat
to be easily removed and prepared for canning. Meats from
the steamed oysters are of no use on the fresh market and
are primarily used in soups, chowders, and stews.

Markets

Oysters are distributed evenly throughout the Nation,
with oysters in the shell marketed mainly in the coastal
States. In some cases shucked oysters are placed on half
shells and sold as fresh opened oysters.

Oyster consumption is greatest during September to
April, when most of the catch is landed. This reflects the
fact that oysters are chiefly consumed fresh and that many
believe oysters are unsafe to eat in other months.

Oyster imports have increased greatly since 1955 when
about 1.4 million pounds of meat worth $686 thousand were
imported. By 1973, imports had grown to 18.5 million
pounds, valued at $12.6 million, and accounted for 29 per-
cent of the oysters consumed in the United States. (See
table 2). Canned oysters make up the bulk of the imports.

The United States does not export a large amount of
oysters.

194

~~~~APPENDIX III ~APPENDIX III
APPEND IX II I

Table 2

Quantity and Value of Oyster Imports
to the United States, 1955-73(note a)

(Meat weight (pounds))

Fresh and Canned
Year frozen(note b) (note c) Total Value (all forms)
(000 omitted)
1955 23 1,368 1,391 686
1956 141 1,787 1,928 869
1957 86 2,489 2,575 1,028
1958 13 5,002 5,015 1,587
1959 4 5,536 5,540 1,965

1960 64 6,533 6,597 2,302
1961 99 7,162 7,261 2,496
1962 105 7,282 7,387 2,883
1963 1,035 7,871 8,906 3,706
1964 743 7,411 8,154 3,320

1965 968 8,003 9,001 3,842
1966 854 11,174 12,028 5,054
1967 2,686 14,986 17,672 6,912
1968 2,066 13,484 15,550 6,528
1969 1,072 15,550 16,622 7,319

1970 1,578 13,906 15,484 9,356
1971 905 8,790 9,695 7,879
1972 2,920 19,389 22,309 15,842
1973 1,877 16,631 18,508 12,580

-Source: Imports and Exports of Fishery Products, Bureau
of Census 1955-73.
b onversion factor for imported oysters to meat weight is
0.75.
S/Conversion factor for imported canned oysters to meat
weight is 0.93.
195

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III
Fishing fleet

Oysters are harvested by dredge, tongs, rakes, and
by hand. Between 1960 and 1972 the number of vessels used
to harvest oysters on the Atlantic coast (excluding Florida)
increased from 745 to 1,197 while the number of boats
declined from 5,972 to 3,382.

Oysters are harvested in the Gulf States by dredging
or hand tonging from boats and vessels ranging from row-
boats to shrimp vessels. In Louisiana, oyster boats de-
signed for harvesting are used by most of the fishermen.
These boats are flat decked and are about 50 to 80 feet in
length. Most Louisiana and Texas fishermen use dredges,
whereas almost the entire oyster harvests in Florida and
Alabama are hand tonged. Both methods are used in Missis-
sippi. NMFS statistics show that for 1972, 1,374 dredges
and 1,769 tongs were used to harvest 72 and 27 percent
of the Gulf States' production, respectively. The harvest
involved 1,887 boats and 526 vessels.

Vessels in the Pacific coast oyster fishery are used
primarily as dredge platforms. The operation size deter-
mines the vessel and equipment used.

Employment

The number of fishermen has been declining since 1960
when about 10,500 fishermen were employed. In 1972, 6,827
fishermen were employed in the Atlantic coast oyster fishery,
excluding Florida. About 5,500 fishermen harvested oysters
with tongs, rakes, or by hand, relatively inefficient har-
vesting methods. Employment data for oyster processing is
not readily available; however, according to State and
industry officials employment in oyster processing plants
has also declined.

NMFS reported that there'were 3,990 fishermen involved
in the Gulf States' oyster fishery in 1972. Figures were
not available on employment in processing and wholesaling.
Employment in the oyster fishery ranges from full time to
part time. Most Louisiana oystermen work oysters on a
full-time, year-round basis, while in Texas, most of the
oyster harvesting is done by fishermen who are primarily
shrimpers. Around Florida's largest oyster producing area,
Apalachicola Bay, many people are engaged principally in
oystering. The productivity of Florida oyster fishermen
is low because those engaged in the industry use inefficient
harvesting methods.

On the Pacific coast, the labor force is made up of
families and small businesses who work together and hire

19 6

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

additional labor during peak working periods. Some pro-
cessors own oyster farms and employ people yearround.
Figures are not available on employment in processing and
wholesaling.

Recreational fishing

On the Atlantic and Pacific coasts the recreational
catch is small and does not have a large effect on the
commercial oyster fishery.

In the Gulf States conflicts between recreational and
commercial fishermen are expected, due to increased recrea-
tional fishing as oyster prices and population pressures
increase.

Management controls

Oyster resources are located inside the 3-mile ter-
ritorial limit and thus are managed by the States. Consid-
erable variation exists among the States, but generally,
regulations cover minimum shell size at harvest, harvesting
methods, seasons, and leasing of private beds. improvement
of oyster beds, through repletion programs, is also a
concern of management. To survive, oysters need a clean
hard surface, such as old shells, to which they can become
attached; some shells are planted in the growing areas. in
areas where natural reproduction is insufficient or does
not occur, seed oysters are planted.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR GROWTH AND
DEVELOPMENT OF THE FISHERY

Resource availability

Resource availability can be increased by improvement
of oyster grounds, seed hatcheries, and aquaculture tech-
niques. It is affected by a combination of natural factors,
such as salinity changes and diseases; and man-induced
changes, such as overexploitation, and bacterial and indus-
trial pollution.

Biologists in Maryland and Virginia estimate that
resource availability in the Chesapeake Bay can be increased
up to 10 times the current level if adequate investments
are made to enhance potentially productive areas.

According to a 1973 study, Apalachicola Bay, which
accounts for more than 80 percent of the Florida landings,
contains about 46,000 acres suitable for growing oysters.
However, commercially harvested acreage only amounts to

197

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

about 6,000 acres. output in the bay could be increased
through reef planting and enrichment. Additional gains are
possible from relaying; that is, regularly taking oysters
from poor growing areas and placing them in more suitable
environments; reef cultivation and redesign; disease and
predator control; preventing undesirable ecological changes;
and promoting ecological changes helpful to the fishery.
These management techniques are applicable to other areas
as well.

Opportunities also exist for increased production of
the Pacific coast oyster. The resource is seeded, grown,
and cultivated in bays and estuaries; the more area seeded
with young oysters, the higher the production potential.

increased development of State and private oyster seed
hatcheries would offer a chance for selective breeding and
improvement of the basic oyster stock. The hatcheries would
also provide a source of seed oysters. Given increased demand
at profitable price levels, production could be greatly
increased.

Harvesting capability

Atlantic, gulf, and Pacific coast oyster fishermen have
the vessels and gear for harvesting available oyster re-
sources, but efficiency could be improved. For example,
dredges could be used in place of less efficient manual
methods, such as hand tonging.

Product development
and processing

An automated shucker capable of processing raw oyster
products is needed. Several have been developed but none
have been commercially successful. New methods could
cause a processing breakthrough for the industry.

Product development has proceeded slowly, with most
oysters sold to the consumer in a fresh-shucked form. Some
convenience foods, such as breaded oysters, oyster soups
and chowders, and stews are produced. Oyster meat is a
unique product with potential for wide consumer acceptance.
Using cooked oysters NMFS researchers developed several
frozen product forms including oyster blocks, oyster
stuffing, oyster casserole, and oysters in cocktail sauce;
and even more can be developed. Product forms meeting the
needs of the consumer and restaurants and having long shelf
life appear to have the highest potential for success.

198

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Marketing potential

Due to the many small processors, industry promotion
is relatively low. Some State agencies have helped with
oyster promotional campaigns, but State and industry offi-
cials believe that oyster promotion has been insufficient.
These officials expressed concern that many young adults
are not eating fresh oysters and that as a result the
demand in this traditional market may be declining. Other
factors affecting consumer demand include: the desire for
more conveniently packaged and easy to prepare products,
the belief that oysters are a seasonal, luxury product,
and consumer reluctance to eat oysters due to publicity
about bacterial and chemical pollution in their growing
areas.

Since most promotional efforts have been directed at
the industry's principal product, the fresh oyster, oppor-
tunity exists to expand promotional activities to other
product forms. Demand for these products may prove suffi-
cient to attract additional investment in oyster production
and processing activities.

OBSTACLES INHIBITING GROWTH
AND DEVELOPMENT

Resource availability

Production of oyster resources can be greatly expanded.
However, aside from unusually large natural population
increases, investments in enhancement programs are necessary.
Increases in production costs resulting in lower rates of
return, lack of high-quality oyster seed supplies, and a
high risk of loss due to disease, predators, floods, and
pollution continue to block investments in private beds.

Private lease holders in some Atlantic States have
only been assigned marginally productive areas to cultivate.
Several States have programs to improve oyster beds in
potentially productive public areas; however, State offi-
cials said that funding for this purpose is limited. Even
though the harvest of oysters from public areas is taxed
to support repletion programs, the funds are insufficient
to improve many potentially productive areas. Many State
officials and resource studies conclude that if such areas
were leased, investment, production, and harvesting effi-
ciency would increase.

Oyster production in the Gulf of Mexico is affected
by salinity of the water and mortality by predators; too
much or too little salinity and oysters cannot survive.

199

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

The major production areas of Louisiana and Mississippi
suffer from salt water intrusion which is becoming a bigger
problem each year. In Texas, the major production area,
Galveston Bay, suffers from fresh water flooding, causing
production to fluctuate seasonally and yearly. Alabama
production areas suffer from both salt water intrusion and
fresh water flooding.

The adverse effects of pollution in growing areas are
another obstacle to oyster production. The James River in
Virginia is an example of one highly productive oyster area
being affected. A research study by the Virginia institute
of Marine Science indicates that chlorine from a sewage
treatment plant has contributed to declining oyster produc-
tion in the river. Tests showed that chlorine levels in
parts of the river were found to exceed the amount fatal to
oyster larvae in the laboratory. A pesticide known as
kepone had also been discharged into the river. Due to
this contamination, on December 17, 1975, the Commonwealth
of Virginia prohibited the taking of shellfish from the
James River and its tributaries from Richmond to the mouth
at Chesapeake Bay. On May 21, 1976, the restriction on
harvesting shellfish in the James River was removed.

Bacterial pollution has also resulted in the closing
of oyster beds. In one State about 180,000 acres of shell-
fish growing areas have been closed to harvesting. Officials
there said that while much of the area is not natural oyster
ground, it includes some hiqhly productive areas, one of
which contains about 50,000 acres. Oysters can be trans-
ferred from polluted waters to clean waters and reharvested
after they have been purified, but harvesting twice increases
the cost, making this practice uneconomical.

In Louisiana, 33,000 acres suitable for oyster produc-
tion are closed. The richest production area in Mississippi,
Biloxi Bay, is closed to harvesting, as are parts of Texas'
largest production area, Galveston Bay. In Florida, 58 per-
cent of the shellfish waters of the State are closed because
of unacceptable water quality. This is the principal cause
of shellfish shortages in that State. Along the Pacific
coast the entire oyster yield comes from private farms. The
fishery is not limited by resource availability but future
growth and development depends on suitable environments,
consistent oyster seed supplies, and continued biological
research.

Harvesting capability

The Atlantic oyster fishery has highly mechanized gear
available for harvesting, but it cannot be used to its full

200

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

capacity. While no limits are placed on the amount of
gear in public oyster areas, States generally regulate the
type of gear allowed. For example, patent tongs and oyster
dredges are prohibited in most public areas in one State,
and where they are allowed, daily catch quotas are in effect
and dredge size is limited. Dredges have to operate under
sail power except for 2 days a week when motor power is
allowed.

State officials explained that to meet management
goals for public areas harvesting regulations, such as
protecting and enhancing oyster resources, maintaining
employment opportunities and a traditional culture for
large numbers of people, and minimizing conflicts among
users of the resource are necessary. These goals are not
specifically stated in laws or regulations, but can be
inferred from their effects on the oyster fishery. In
contrast, regulation of private growing areas involve
relatively few restrictions. The capability to harvest
oysters is also impaired by restrictive State regulations
and the protective attitudes of the fishermen in the gulf.

The prohibition against dredges in the tricounty
area around Apalachicola Bay, Florida, is the result of a
desire to spread the available resource among as many
persons as possible and eliminate improper use of gear
which damages natural reefs. Texas prohibits the use of
more than one dredge per boat, of a size no greater than
36 inches across, to discourage exploitation by Louisiana
oystermen.

On the Pacific coast, the extensive use of hand labor
inhibits growth and development of the oyster fishery.

Product development and processing

An oyster's shell is hard to open and this makes
processing oysters in a raw form difficult. In the
Atlantic and Gulf States, processing is done mainly by hand
which is not easily available, particularly in periods when
demand and supplies are at high levels. Processors ex-
plained that many persons do not want to shuck oysters
because wages are relatively low, employment is seasonal,
and the work is laborious and often messy. They also
believe that competition from other types of jobs, welfare,
and unemployment compensation limit the number of people
willing to shuck oysters. Due to labor supply problems
the need for machine processing of raw oysters is increasing?
but development has been hindered by the wide variations in
oyster size and shape.

2 01

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

On the Pacific coast, oyster processing is laborious
and an automatic oyster shucker is needed.

The oyster industry has been slow to introduce new
products. The industry is made up of many small processors
who claim that they are undergoing a cost-price squeeze
which prevents them from accumulating the capital needed to
invest in product development and new processing techniques.

Market development

On the Atlantic coast reduced oyster resources have
hindered prospects for market development. Enhancement of
oyster grounds could improve resource availability; however,
with many small units in the industry and limited State
funding, there is a lack of capital available to substan-
tially increase investment in improvements, promotional
activities, product development, and mechanical processing
equipment. Industry members are independent and are
reluctant to join together in cooperative activities.

In the gulf, perishability of the oyster and its
unfamiliarity outside coastal areas are the main reasons
for the decline in oyster per capita consumption.

While oysters sell as a speciality item, half shell
and fresh-shucked oysters do not fit the fast food merchan-
dising needs of the modern restaurant, nor the convenience
requirements of the modern household.

The Pacific coast oystermen do not have the capacity
to promote their product. A cooperative effort is needed
that would provide improved distribution and marketing sys-
tems.

The future growth and development of the Pacific
coast oyster industry may be jeopardized by Korean imports.
From 1972 to 1973, U.S. imports of Korean oysters increased
60 percent. The current bilateral fishing agreement with
Korea allows importation of canned, smoked, steamed, boiled,
and frozen oysters. Fresh-shucked and live oysters are
not permitted for importation because of a shellfish
disease. When this problem is resolved, the Republic of
Korea may be allowed to export fresh, shucked, and live
oysters to the United States. According to an NMFS official,
west coast oystermen may not be able to compete with the
low Korean prices.

202

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

EFFECTS OF A 200-MILE
LIMIT ON THE FISHERY

The U.S. oyster fishery is totally within State juris-
diction and thus is not affected by the enactment of the
200-mile limit.

2 03

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

SALMON

Five species of Pacific salmon comprise the fishery:
chinook, chum, pink, coho, and sockeye salmon. In 1975 the
pink and chum salmon accounted for about 45 percent of the
U.S. commercial landings. Sockeye salmon accounted for about
26 percent and is considered the most valuable species for
canning purposes. The chinook and coho salmon are the least
abundant of the species and are important for commercial troll
and sport fisheries.

The U.S. commercial salmon fishery, located along the
Pacific coast from California to Alaska, employs more vessels
and fishermen than any other U.S. commercial fishery. Landed
value of salmon has ranked first or second among all finfish
fisheries between 1940 and 1975. In 1975 salmon also ranked
first in value of fish products exported from the United
States.

STATUS OF THE FISHERY

Current harvest

U.S. landings of Pacific salmon in 1975 were 201.6 mil-
lion pounds worth $116.3 million--a gain of 4.8 million
pounds, but a decrease of $5 million in value compared with
1974. The 1975 harvest was the second smallest since 1915,
when 120.4 million pounds were taken, and was below the 1970-
74 average of 278.4 million pounds. The following table shows
thie 1972 U.S. commercial salmon catch by species and by State.

204

Table 1

U.S. Commercial Salmon Catch for 1972 (note a)

Species

States All species Sockeye Pink Chum Coho Chinook
(000 omitted)
Alaska 31,959 6,590 15,920 7,065 1,831 553
Western 4,468 2,600 177 1,397 70 224
Central 9,437 3,073 3,344 2,726 252 42
South-
eastern 18,054 917 12,400 2,942 1,509 287
Washington 3,864 1,227 4 895 1,253 486
Oregon 1,293 43 <0.5 1 925 324
California 650 - <0.5 - 158 492

Total (note b) 37,766 7,860 15,924 7,961 4,167 1,855

a/Expressed in numbers of fish.

b/Totals may not add due to rounding.

Source: International North Pacific Fisheries Commission 1972 Statistical Yearbook.

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Products and processing
The salmon fishery produces a wide variety of food and
industrial products with all parts of the salmon being uti-
lized. All five species of salmon are canned; other popular
forms are steaks, fresh or frozen fillets, and smoked or
salted. only chinook and coho salmon enter the fresh and
frozen market in quantity, though pinks and chums are occa-
sionally used to substitute for seasonal gaps in supply.
Salmon eggs (roe), once considered a worthless byproduct of
Alaska's salmon fishery, now provide millions of dollars to
tne States of Alaska and Washington. In 1972 the two States
processed about $12 million of salmon roe. Fishmeal and fish
oil are also produced. Table 2 shows the major salmon pro-
ducts produced in 1972 for the States of Alaska, California,
Oregon, and Washington.
Table 2
Value ofMao
Salmon Products for 1972
(in millions of dollars)
Salmon products Value
Canned $ 89.8
Caviar--egg roe 11.9
Smoked 5.6
Fresh/frozen 5.1
Salted 2.3
Total $114.7

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, National
Marine Fisheries Service, Fishery
Statistics of the United States, 1972.
Living Marine Resources, Inc., reported that an industry
survey in late 1973 of 82 salmon processing plants in Alaska,
Washington, Oregon, and California indicated a total replace-
ment value of $191 million for cannery facilities and support
operations.
Salmon canneries vary in size and age. According to an
industry official, canning capacity is adequate in Washington,
Oregon, California, and in most areas of Alaska. He indicated
that, in the event of a large unexpected salmon run, the can-
ning capacity in any one area may not be adequate to harvest
all the fish. During large runs, the canneries must also
work "around the clock" because the Pacific salmon deteriorate
rapidly once caught and must be processed quickly if their
initial high quality is to be maintained.
After the salmon have been caught, fishing vessels often
transfer their fish by hand to tender boats which take them
to the cannery. Fishing vessels, however, can take their catch
directly to the cannery. In the cannery, automation takes
over. The fish are placed on a conveyor belt and automatically
beheade:3, finned, split, and gutted while at the same time
being cleansed by water jets. The belt carries the fish to
knives that cut the salmon into can-size pieces and filling
machines place the chunks of salmon into cans. Much of the
hand labor has been eliminated.

206

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Markets

U.S. aggregate consumption of salmon in 1970 was 188
million pounds: 137 million pounds canned and 51 million
pounds noncanned. Per capita consumption was .922 pounds; an
increase over the past 4 years, but still lower than a high
of 1.8 pounds in 1949. From 1960 to 1972, per capita consump-
tion of canned salmon remained quite stable at an average of
.77 pounds. During 1973-74, average canned salmon consumption
was .3 pounds per person. From 1960 to 1970, the average ex-
vessel price of all species increased from 19 to 24 ceafts a
pound. By 1974 the average ex-vessel price of salmon had in-
creased to 62 cents a pound.

In 1975 the United States imported 9.2 million pounds of
fresh and frozen salmon and 3.3 million pounds of canned sal-
mon, for a total value of $15.4 million dollars. Canada and
Japan were the principal suppliers.

In 1975 the U.S. exports of salmon--fresh, frozen, and
canned--were worth $101.4 million. Approximately 10 percent
of the U.S. canned salmon and 35 percent of the fresh and
frozen salmon are exported. According to NMFS officials, the
demand for fresh, frozen, and canned salmon is good and pro-
bably will continue. Economical jet air service to domestic
and foreign markets is creating additional demand for fresh
and f:iozen salmon.

Fishing fleet

The Pacific salmon are taken commercially in a variety
of ways--by purse seines, by drift and anchor gill nets, by
trolling gear, and, on a very limited scale, by reefnets and
fish wheels. In 1972 purse seines and gill nets accounted for
about 88 percent of the salmon catch. Table 3 shows the
number of vessels and boats by State and gear type.

207

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Table 3

Summary of Salmon Vessels
and Boats for 1972

Total,
exclusive
Type Washing- Cali- of dupli-
of gear Alaska ton Oregon fornia cation (note a)

Purse
seine 1,048 192 (b) (c) 1,147
Gillnet
(anchor)2,525 331 199 (c) 3,055
Gillnet
(drift) 4,051 1,476 514 (c), 5,962
Troll 1,895 2,703 1,714 1,795 7,705

Total 9,519 4,702 2,427 1,795 17,869

A vessel can be licensed in more than one State. Con-
sequently, column figures may or may not equal the sum
shown in the total column.

Use of purse seines prohibited.

c/ Use of purse seines and gillnets prohibited.

Source: National Marine Fisheries Service,
Fishery Statistics of the United States, 1972.

Employment

The Pacific salmon fishery supports more fishermen than
any other U.S. fishery. In 1972 NMFS reported that 28,709
fishermen were in the fishery. With the enactment of State
laws in Alaska and Washington, which established programs to
limit the number of fishermen or vessels in the salmon fish-
ery, the number of fishermen should eventually stabilize.
The number of fishermen and their respective gear, for 1972,
is shown in table 4.

208

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Table 4

Number of Fishermen by
Gear Type and State
1972 (note a)

Washing- Cali-
Alaska ton Oregon fornia Total

Purse
Seine 5,360 1,195 (b) (c) 6,021
Gillnet
(anchor,
set,
stake) 2,556 417 199 (c) 3,172
Gillnet
(drift) 4,860 1,689 514 (c) 6,964
Troll 3,767 3,452 2,470 3,590 12,552

Total 16,543 6,753 3,183 3,590 28,709

/ A fisherman can be licensed in more than one State. Con-
sequently, column figures may or may not equal the sum
shown in the total column.

/ Use of seine nets is not permitted.

-/ Use of gillnets is not permitted.

Source: National Marine Fisheries Service,
Fishery Statistics of the United States, 1972.

209

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

in addition to the number of fishermen working in the
Pacific salmon fisheries, about 7,000 people, according to
a 1974 report prepared by Living Marine Resource, Inc. , were
employed in the salmon processing operations.

Recreational fishing

The United States and Canada maintain large and important
recreational fisheries for Pacific salmon. Nearly 2 million
salmon are caught annually by approximately I million fisher-
men. Public participation in sport salmon fishing is continu-
ally increasing along the Pacific coast.

An NMFS report showed that the salmon sport fisheries'
average annual expenditure from 1965 to 1970 was conservative-
ly estimated at $28.6 million. In 1973 Washington, Oregon,
and Idaho reported 880,138 salmon anglers.k/These fishermen
caught about 1.5 million fish, with most fishing concentrat-
ing on the chinook and coho salmon. In 1973 the State of
Washington had the largest recreational salmon catch, ac-
counting for about 45 percent of the total Pacific sport sal-
mon catch. The State of Washington estimated $42.2 million
in expenditures were due to the sport salmon fishery in 1973.

A Washington State fishery official said that the effect
on the commercial harvest of salmon by recreational fishermen
is significant in Washington and Oregon. An Alaska State Fish
& Game official said that recreational salmon fishing does
not presently have a serious widespread effect on Alaska's
commercial salmon fisheries. He said, however, that in the
vicinity of the major population centers, the recreational
fishing pressure is strong and commercial fishing for sport
target species has been restrained.

Management controls

Five States, various Indian tribes, and the Federal
Government all exert some control over the Pacific salmon
fishery. In 1953 theCongress passed the Submerged Lands Act,
granting coastal States the rights and powers to manage,
administer, develop, and use their natural resources. This
gave the States of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and California
jurisdiction over fishery resources. These States have juris-
diction over fishery resources in the 0-3 mile territorial
waters of the United States (as well as jurisdiction over
their own citizens engaged in fishery activities, even though
those activities take place beyond the territorial limits of

k/Figure includes steelhead fishermen in Idaho.

210

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

the State. According to NMFS, before passage of the Fishery
Conservation and Management Act of 1976, no clear authority
for management by either the States or the Federal Govern-
ment existed in the Contiguous Fisheries Zone (3-12 miles)
and the resources beyond 12 miles were controlled only
through international bilateral or multilateral agreements.

our discussion of management controls at the State level
will be limited to the State agencies of Alaska and Washing-
ton, recognizing that the other States of Oregon, California,
and Idaho also have natural resource management agencies.

Salmon in Alaska

In Alaska, prior to statehood, the salmon resource was
managed by the Federal Government. With statehood in 1959,
management authority was transferred to the State. The
Department of Fish and Game administers the State program for
the management, conservation, and development of the commner-
cial fishing, sport fishing, and game resources.

The State Board of Fish and the State Board of Game are
seven-member boards appointed by the Governor. These boards
establish open and closed seasons and areas, the means and
methods used in pursuing, capturing, and transporting fish or
game,-.and their limits and quotas. The Department of Public
Safety is responsible for patrolling and enforcing State
fishing regulations.

The Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission is a
regulatory agency created by the 1973 legislature. The Com-
mission's objectives are to promote conservation and sustained
yield management of the fishery resource for the economic
health and stability of commercial fishing in Alaska. The
Fisheries Entry Commission evolved after years of controversy
regarding access to the fisheries. The State of Alaska first
attempted to limit the number of fishermen in 1967. The pro-
gram was declared unconstitutional by the Alaska Attorney
General. In 1968, a limited entry regulation was proposed by
the State Boards of Fish and Game and supported by legis-
lation. In 1971 both the regulations and the State law were
found by Alaska Superior Court to violate parts of both the
U.S. Constitution and the Alaska State Constitution. A
constitutional amendment was approved by the voters of Alaska
on August 22, 1972. The amendment gave the State the power
to implement a limited entry program.

211

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Alaska's current limited entry program became effective
on April 27, 1973. In 1975 the Commission regulated entry for
the first time into 18 commercial salmon net fisheries and
the power troll fishery. According to the Commercial Fisheries
Entry Commission's 1975 Annual Report, access to the 19 salmon
fisheries put under limited entry is regulated through the is-
suance of entry permits, each of which enables a person to
operate a unit of gear in a particular fishery. Permits are
issued on the basis of an applicant's past participation and
economic dependence in the fishery for which he is applying.
Permits are freely transferable so that access to a fishery
is not blocked. The level of effort remains the same, since
one person must leave the fishery to every person who enters.
Permits may be transferred for a price.

The Commission conducted a permit price survey on permit
sales through August 1975. The survey indicated that while
specific prices covered a somewhat wider range, the average
price paid for an entry permit varied from $750 for a gillnet
fishery permit to $11,035 for a purse seine fishery permit.
The survey also determined that in the majority of cases
where financing is necessary, permit sales are financed by
the transferor of the permit, or a bank. Of the respondents,
7.5 percent indicated that a processor had financed the pur-
chase.

According to the Commission's report, the transition
from an open access fishery to one with regulated access has
generally been smooth, although it has been met with opposi-
tion from some quarters. A lawsuit has been filed challenging
the constitutionality of the State law regulating entry into
commercial fisheries. Also, an initiative petition drive suc-
ceeded in gaining enough signatures to put the question of
repealing that State statute onto the November 1976 general
election ballot.

The commission reported that the effect of reduced gear
levels in 1975 compared to 1974 was varied. In most cases, it
resulted in additional fishing periods for the fishermen, al-
though the amount of additional fishing time varied according
to the strength of the salmon runs. The greatest effect was
probably in the southeast Alaska salmon fisheries, where the
majority of Washington State fishermen affected by the Judge
Boldt decision would otherwise have fished.

During 1975 the Commission began determining the "opti-
mum" number of entry permits for each of the 19 salmon fish-
erie operating under the entry regulation system that year.
Establishing an "optimum number" is necessary in order to
identify those fisheries that will require a "buyback" pro-
gram. The law provides that in any fishery where the optimum

212

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

number of entry permits is less than the number of entry per-
mits in the fishery, a voluntary buyback program for the
fishery will be instituted by the Commission. Under the pro-
gram, the Commission would enter the market for permits, and
vessels and gear where necessary, as another buyer. Separate
programs are to be set up for each fishery requiring buyback
and each program is to be funded by the permit holders in the
fishery for which it is established. Funding is to come from
an annual assessment of up to seven percent on the gross catch
of the individual permit holders.

Salmon in Washington

In the State of Washington, the Department of Fisheries
manages the salmon resource. An objective of the Department
is to achieve optimum harvest of the salmon without impairing
their reproductive capacity or endangering the State's overall
resource. The Department manages the harvest to insure fair
distribution among three user groups: licensed commercial
fishermen, treaty right (Indian) fishermen, and personal-use
sports fishermen. The Fisheries Department is also engaged in
issuing licenses and enforcing fishing laws and regulations.
The Washington Department of Fisheries also comanages salmon
in certain State waters. The Columbia River Pact is an agree-
ment between Washington and Oregon for regulating, preserving,
and protecting fish in the Columbia River.

In 1974 the State of Washington enacted limited entry,
in the form of a moratorium, on new licenses for the salmon
fisheries between May 6, 1974, and January 1, 1977. This peri-
od was designed to allow the State and the industry "to eval-
uate the moratorium and recommend to the legislature be-
fore January 1, 1977, a phase II approach to limit gear entry
into the State's commercial salmon fisheries.

Indian treaty fishing rights

Through recent Federal court decisions, the States of
Washington and Oregon and the Indian treaty tribes have been
called upon to comanage the salmon resource they share. The
question of off-reservation fishing rights of Treaty Indians
in the Pacific Northwest and the degree to which those rights
may be regulated by the State governments have been matters
of continuing controversy for many years.

Off-reservation fishing rights of Indians are based on
a series of treaties negotiated between the U.S. Gover-nment
and Indian tribes in the mid-1850s. These treaties provided,

213

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

in language similar to the following from the Medicine Creek
Treaty, that:

"The right of taking fish, at all usual and ac-
customed grounds and stations, is further secured to
said Indians, in common with all citizens of the
Territory, and of erecting temporary houses for the
purpose of curing * * *." (10 Stat. 1132)

Court decisions have held that these rights became the
supreme law of the land protected by article six of the
Constitution, and they could not be interferred with by the
States. Thus, treaty Indians had a different status than non-
Indians whose fishing activities are subject to whatever po-
licies or restrictions the States impose.

Furthermore, the Indian treaties were not a grant of
rights to the Indians, but rather a grant of rights from them
to the non-Indians, with the Indians reserving to themselves
those rights not granted. The treaties specifically protect
those reserved rights. These basic principles of Federal
law, which undergird the decisions in Indian treaty rights
cases, have been the-subject of much misunderstanding and some
have found them difficult to accept. A major development in
this longstanding dispute was the landmark decision of the
U.S. District Judge George H., Boldt in the case of United
States v. Washington, 384 Fed. Supp. 312 (W.D. Wash, 1974)
affd, 520 F 2d 676 (9th Cir, 1975) decided in Tacoma, Wash-
ington, on February 12, 1974. On June 4, 1975, the U.S.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Judge Boldt's deci-
sion in U.S. v. Washington; rehearing denied July 23, 1975.
On January 26, 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court denied to re-
view U.S. v. Washington thereby affirming Judge Boldt's
decision and the ruling of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals.

The suit was filed against the State of Washington on
September 18, 1970, in the U.S. District Court, by the U.S.
Department of Justice at the request of the U.S. Department
of the Interior, acting on behalf of the United States and
as trustee for several Indian tribes.

The area covered by the case is that portion of the
State of Washington west of the Cascade Mountains and north
of the Columbia River drainage area, and includes the U.S.
portion of the Puget Sound watershed, the watersheds of the
Olypmic Peninsula north of Grays Harbor watershed, and the
off-shore waters adjacent to those areas-

214

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

A basic issue in United States v. Washington involved
the degree to which the State could regulate and restrict
the off-reservation fishing rights of the treaty Indians and
whether existing State laws and regulations were discrimin-
atory against the Indians. The question of onreservation
fishing was not an issue in the lawsuit, all parties conced-
ing that Indians have an exclusive right to fish within their
reservations.

Judge Boldt held that the treaty right extended to "all
usual and accustomed qrounds and stations," which he defined
as "i * * every fishing location where members of a tribe
customarily fished from time to time at and before treaty
times, however distant from the then usual habitat of the
tribe, and whether or not other tribes then fished in the
same waters." He said, however, that the term did not in-
clude places "used infrequently or at long intervals and
extraordinary occasions."

The treaties secured to the Indians the right to fish
"in common" with non-Indians. This means that neither group
of fishermen is the same. The State and many non-Indians have
argued that this provision of the treaty means that each
Indian is to have access to the fishing grounds on the same
footing as each settler--that the State can impose on each
individual Indian the same restrictions it imposes on each
individual non-Indian. But the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
said "The Supreme Court long ago considered this construction
***and rejected it."

Judge Boldt held that "in common with"! means sharing
equally the opportunity to take fish that would normally
reach the off-reservation usual Indian fishing places. Thus
each party--the Indians on the one hand and the non-Indians
on the other--is entitled to the opportunity to harvest up to
50 percent of the harvestable numbers of such fish.

The allocation formula has been one of the most widely
discussed provisions of the Court's decision. Several features
of it should be noted. First, the Court strictly limited the
fishing right to those fish not needed for maintaining the
runs. "Harvestable fish" are only those above the numbers
needed to assure adequate spawning. Second, the fish to be
shared include fish that would reach the Indian usual fishing
grounds if they had not been caught previously by fishermen
who are subject to State control. This includes some of the
fish taken in the ocean fisheries by Washington-based fisher-
men as well as those taken in the State's inland marine waters
located ahead of the Indian fishing areas. Third, because of
the "special treaty significance" to Indians of fish for

215

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

traditional Indian religious and other ceremonies and person-
al subsistence, the Court excluded fish actually used for
those purposes from the sharing formula. It also excluded
fish taken on the reservations, since the treaties reserved
these areas exclusively for the Indians.

In August-1975 U.S. District Court Judge Robert Belloni
issued a supplemental order in the case of United States v.
Oregon, calling for the States of Washington and Oregon, with
the cooperation of the tribes, to promulgate comprehensive
rules to assure the treaty tribes an opportunity to take up
to 50 percent of the harvest of Columbia River fall chinook
salmon destined to reach the Indians' fishing ground, when
the States permit to be taken by all. Together, the Boldt and
Belloni decisions cover the major salmon runs of Washington
and Oregon and principally affect who catches the salmon
resources, Indian or non-Indian fishermen.

International management controls

In addition to State controls, salmon are subject to
some international agreements. The International Pacific
Salmon Fisheries Commission calls for the conservation and
rehabilitation of sockeye and pink salmon occurrinq in the
Frazer River of Canada and adjacent waters. For these two
species, the convention goes beyond a strictly management
function to provide for an equal division of the catch be-
tween the United States and Canada. The International North
Pacific Fisheries Commission includes the United States,
Canada, and Japan. The Commission has the responsibility to
study fish stocks, recommend joint conservation action, and
administer absention from any stocks intensively exploited
in the North Pacific ocean. The Commission limits the Japan-
ese take of North American salmon.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR GROWTH AND
DEVELOPMENT OF THE FISHERY

Resource availability

According to NMFS, available Pacific salmon resources
are, for all practical purposes, fully utilized. However,
several opportunities exist to increase salmon resources
through various enhancement, aquaculture, and rehabilitation
programs.

The Pacific salmon resource can be increased by con-
structing hatchery systems to incubate, hatch, and grow young
salmon. Along the Pacific coast, over 100 salmon hatcheries
are operating and several more are planned, especially in

21 6

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

the State of Alaska. Recent advances in technology for salmon
aquaculture and removal of legal barriers to private owner-
ship of salmon have combined with a scarcity of wild stocks
to stimulate private investment in ocean farming of Pacific
salmon.

According to NMFS, ocean farming is a form of aquaculture
in which young salmon are artificially propagated and then re-
leased into the ocean to feed and grow. Upon return to their
originating river, the mature salmon are harvested. Some
ocean farmers rear salmon in salt water pens to a harvestable
size to be sold commercially.

Rehabilitation of the salmon fisheries is a long-term
program to add to the fishery by reestablishing or increasing
natural salmon runs. According to a 1974 salmon industry
study, maintaining, protecting, and improving the present
freshwater habitat of the salmon will provide for increased
salmon production. This can be done by improving spawning
grounds, facilitating passage over dams and other obstacles
to migration, prohibiting construction of hydroelectric pro-
jects, defraying or eliminating industrial practices which
adversely affect the freshwater environment, and operating
hatcheries and sustaining or improving the runs.

Harvesting capability

According to NMFS, the U.S. salmon industry's harvesting
capability is more than adequate to harvest the available
salmon resource.

Although harvest capability is adequate, Washington
State fisheries officials believe that effective fishery
systems should salvage at least one-quarter of a million or
more chinook males that are now wasted. Restrictive regula-
tion has prevented progressive development of selective fish-
ing gear to take advantage of such opportunities.

Another opportunity for more effective harvesting is the
development of a more accurate system to predict the size of
salmon runs. Inaccurate forecasts can result in too many or
too few fish reaching the spawning grounds.

Product development
and processing

According to industry officials, salmon products ara
widely accepted throughout the United States and processors
have not found expansion to other product forms necessary.

21 7

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Marketing potential

According to'-an industry and a Washington State Fishery
official, the salmon market has been strong and is expected
to continue. The fishery has demonstrated its ability to
market unexpectedly large catches which have occurred periodi-
cally.

OBSTACLES INHIBITING GROWTH AND
DEVELOPMENT OF THE FISHERY

Resource availability

An independent analysis of Alaska's salmon fishery pre-
pared for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game in 1975
showed that the causes for the overall decline in salmon
abundance vary from one area to another. Some of the major
reasons given for the decline are: overfishing, management,
habitat degeneration, adverse climatic conditions, and for-
eign fishing.

One of the most important causes in the decline of
salmon is that too many fish have been caught. When this oc-
curs, it does not allow sufficient numbers of fish to escape
for spawning. Salmon resources are difficult to manage ef-
fectively, especially in Alaska with a multitude of salmon
streams and small human population.

Habitat degeneration covers many human actions and natu-
ral occurrences that result in losses to the habitat needed
by the salmon. The more frequently identified causes of habi-
tat loss or damage are: hydroelectric projects, logging, min-
ing, wind storms, floods, earthquakes, and sand and gravel
removal. These problems among others will hinder future
salmon resource availability.

Adverse weather conditions can also cause declines in
the salmon resource. The most common conditions that cause
loss of eggs or increased mortality among salmon fry are ex-
tremely low temperatures, reduction of water supply due to
unusual freezing, and silt or washout resulting from flood
conditions. The poor runs of adult salmon in Alaska in 1973,
1974, and 1975 are believed to have been in part due to the
unusually cold winters in the early 1970s. Severe winters
and changes in sea-surface temperatures could have an accumu-
lative effect upon future Alaska salmon populations.

According to the Alaska salmon study, Japanese high seas
fishing has not been an important factor in the overall de-
cline of Pacific Northwest salmon. The report indicated that

218

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Japan's fishing activities, however, de have a large effect
on the Bristol Bay sockeye salmon of Alaska. The estimated
average annual catch is about 2.5 million salmon. Any further
limitations in salmon landings by Japan could provide an in-
crease to the U.S. fishermen in Bristol Bay.

Harvesting capability

Although harvesting capability is adequate, restrictive
harvesting regulations are prevalent throughout the salmon
industry. For example, the State of Alaska prohibits the use
of a drum seine or net reel. Seine vessels cannot be more
than 50 feet registered length, monofilament gillnets cannot
be used, and a troller cannot have more than four lines. Also,
in some districts the length of gillnets is restricted and in
other districts the use of seines is prohibited. Limitations
on fishing time and fishing areas are widespread. According
to NMFS, the above regulations restrict economic efficiency
in the Alaska salmon fisheries.

In California, only troll lines are permitted. Oregon
allows troll lines and drift gilinets. Washington limits the
size of gillnets and purse seines, limits the number of troll
lines, prohibits the use of monofilament gillnets, and pro-
hibits and restricts many other devices. The States also re-
quire minimum net mesh sizes for conservation purposes. In
these States, seasons are limited and fishing within season
is limited by weekly closures in many areas. According to
NMFS, these regulations and limitations restrain economic
efficiency and cause underutilization of gear.

Product development
and processing

Industry representatives told us that no major obstacles
exist in the Pacific salmon industry concerning product de-
velopment and processing.

Market development

Salmon industry officials said that strong domestic and
foreign markets exist for all forms of salmon products. one
official indicated that the availability of supply was the
major obstacle in developing new markets.

Management controls

Several entities are involved with managing the U.S.
salmon resource. No single entity, however, has complete con-
trol over the salmon resource throughout its entire migratory
range.

219

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

According to the 1975 Alaska salmon study, several
problems are associated with managing the salmon fishery in
Alaska. Some of these problems include no precise information
about stock' population, probable return timing and spawning
destination, the large size of the State, the multitude of
salmon streams, and the financial and manpower needs of the
State being out of balance with the resources to be managed.
According to an NMFS official in Alaska, other problems af-
fecting Alaska fisheries are: The existence of an over-
capitalized fleet, user group pressure for more fish, and
Japanese fishing of Bristol Bay sockeye salmon.

According to a Washington State Fishery official, some
of the problems concerning fisheries management in Washington
are: an overcapitalized fishing fleet; continued user group
pressure for more fish; uncontrolled transfer of catch from
one fishery or fishing group to another; and regulating the
offshore troll fisheries.

EFFECTS OF A 200-MILE
LIMIT ON THE FISHERY

According to a 1971 NMFS report on the ocean distri-
bution of salmon, all major North American salmon stocks are
also present outside a 200-mile line in the Gulf of Alaska.
However, the present Japanese catch of U.S. salmon is limited
by International North Pacific Fisheries Commission. Under
the Commission, the Japanese salmon fleet is prohibited from
fishing for salmon east of the provisional abstention line
at 1750 west longitude. The NMFS report states that this
abstention line provides practically 100-percent protection
from Japanese high seas fishing for all North American salmon
stocks except for the Alaska sockeye salmon and possibly the
chinook salmon originating in western Alaska.

The Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976,
which extends the U.S. jurisdiction over fisheries resources
to 200 miles, calls for a renegotiation of all international
agreements and treaties to make them conform to the act. It
is unknown at this time how renegotiation will affect the
provisional abstention line, but nevertheless the act provides
for exclusive U.S. management authority over all anadromous
species such as salmon throughout the migratory range of the
species beyond the conservation zone. An exception to this
policy occurs when such species are found within any foreign
nation's territorial sea or fishery conservation zone
recognized by the United States. Therefore, U.S. salmon stocks
should remain under the management control of the United
States, with or without the abstention line, if the United
States enforces provisions of the Fishery Conservation and
Management Act of 1976.

220

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

SCALLOPS

There are three types of scallops harvested commercially
in the U.S.: sea, bay, and calico. The sea scallop is the
most important fishery, accounting for 74.4 percent of the
total 1975 scallop landings and 80.6 percent of the value,
using exvessel prices. Sea scallops are mollusk shellfish
usually found on gravel beds, sand, or pebbles mixed with
shells. Adult scallops are basically sedentary bottom
dwellers, though they can swim short distances by flexing
their shells together. While individuals are mobile, tag-
ging experiments indicate that populations do not migrate.
Sea scallops have a saucer-shaped shell and grow as large
as 8 inches in diameter.

Sea scallops are found primarily along the Continental
Shelf from the Strait of Belle Isle, Newfoundland, Canada
to the mouth of Chesapeake Bay. Georges Bank, located off
the coast of New England (see fig. 1), has been the major
production area, accounting for about two-thirds of U.S.
sea scallop landings in the past 3 decades. Massachusetts
is the leading State in the sea scallop fishery with over
half of the recorded landings and value in 1975. The sea
scallop fishery in 1973 ranked ninth in value among U.S.
Atlantic coast fisheries. In addition to the Atlantic fish-
ery, there is a small sea scallop fishery off the coast of
Alaska.

Bay scallops are less plentiful. They are found mainly
in grassy bottoms of shallow bays and estuaries from Cape
Cod, Massachusetts to the Gulf of Mexico in 1- to 50-foot
depths. Their maximum size is about three inches in diame-
ter. The calico scallop is located along the Atlantic
coast, from slightly north of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina
to Florida and along the coast throughout the Gulf of Mex-
ico. It is closely related to the bay scallop although
slightly larger and acquires the name "calico" from the
mottled or calico appearance of the shells.

STATUS OF THE FISHERIES

Current harvest

U.S. landings of scallops, as shown in figure 2, have
followed a declining trend in the last decade. In 1975,
however, due to increased abundance in some areas, landings
of sea scallops increased to 9.7 million pounds, from 6.5
million pounds in 1974. The overall declining trend in sea
scallop landings was caused by a combination of factors
including reduced'resource abundance and increased competi-
tion from foreign imports. NMFS officials cited overfishing

221

Sfroif ~~~~~~~~~of BeleIs

A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~2

NEW1,C)UN -AND~~

QUEBEC~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

P4 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5

( 40
~~~~MA

55, z

75. 70, 5 60, 5

FIGURE 1. MAJOR SEA SCALLOP FISHING GROUNDS OF THE NORTHWEST ATLANTICH

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

20
\ %'
19

1 3 , \TOTAL SCALLOP LANDINGS
/\
12 ~~\ /

0~~~~ 1/
12

lo /

SEA SCALLOP LANDINGS /
7 -.

3
BAY SCALLOP LANDINGS

01 :.:'::'" *'"':'""' -:-...:.:..:i .....- ~,~,~o~,,,o~ ~~!~,~-.~..':. t..................
0 . ~~~~~~~~~~~~CALICO SCALLOP LANDING.....
0 . . . . . . . ...I I
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975
(CALENDAR YEAR)
F I G U R E 2. SCALLOP LANDINGS

223

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

of the resource, primarily by Canadian fishermen, as an
important factor in the decline in resource abundance.

Since 1969 imports, coming mostly from Canada, have
exceeded domestic scallop production. U.S. fishermen relate
extensive Canadian Government subsidization of the fishing
industry to the favorable position that its fishermen have
been able to develop in the scallop fishery. For example,
the Canadian Government will pay 35 percent of the approved
cost of eligible fishing vessels. With reduced abundance
and increased foreign competition, many U.S. scallop fish-
ermen transferred their operations to other fisheries.

Table 1 shows the distribution of 3975 landings, based
on preliminary data, by State. Most sea scallops are har-
vested beyond the 3-mile territorial limit. Preliminary
data for 1975 showed that 83 percent of the sea scallops
were caught more than 3 miles off the U.S. coast. Calico
scallops are harvested beyond the 3-mile limit, while bay
scallops are harvested entirely within the 3-mile limit
under jurisdiction of individual States.

TABLE 1
1975 SCALLOP LANDINGS'BY STATE (note a)
(Meat weight)
Sea Scallop Bay Scallop Calico Scallop Total Percent of
Pounds Value Pounds Value Pounds Value Pounds Value Value
(000 omitted)
Massachusetts 5,383 $10,166 1,350 $2,700 - 6,733 $12,866 57.6
Maine 1,594 3,019 - - 1,594 3,019 13.5
Rhode Island 104 194 - - 104 194 .9
New York 270 389 444 713 714 1,102 4.9
New Jersey 711 1,391 - - 711 1,391 6.2
Maryland 4 6 - - 4 6 -
Virginia 1,266 2,324 - - 1,266 2,324 10.4
North Carolina - - 139 111 139 111 .5
Florida - 15 11 1,400 812 1,415 823 3.7
Washington - - 1 N/A - - 1 N/A -
Alaska 403 520 - - 403 520 2.3
Total 9,735 $18,009 1,949 $3,535 1,400 $812 13,084 $22,356 100

Percent 74.4 80.6 14.9 15.8 10.7 3.6 100 100

apreliminary data.
N/A--Not Available.

Fishing fleet

Vessels used in harvesting sea scallops are mostly
small draggers between 50 and 200 gross tons. The scallops
are harvested by using a dredge consisting of a heavy metal
frame mounted on runners and a bag of steel rings. There
is no standard design for a dredge; each fishermen modifies
the basic design. The dredge shown in the photograph on
page 225 is typical of an off-shore sea scallop dredge. The
basic dredge design, although old, is considered fairly
efficient.

224

APPENDIX III
APPENDIX III

XS SD

I% a 2

SEA SCALLOP DREDGE.

225

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Many of the vessels can quickly be converted between
trawling for groundfish and scalloping to accommodate chang-
ing fishing and marketing conditions. In recent years,
with declining stocks and increased foreign competition,
many of the U.S. scallopers have transferred their operations
to groundfishing. The total number of vessels fishing for
sea scallops as shown in table 2 greatly declined. However,
total U.S. and Canadian fishing effort is approximately
the same as in the early 1960s. The number of boats (under
5 tons), mostly fishing out of Maine ports, has greatly
increased. In 1966, 36 boats harvested sea scallops, while
in 1972, there were 174 boats in the fishery. Detailed
evaluations of the fleet's condition were not available;
however, industry and NMFS officials consider the sea scal-
lop fleet to be in generally good condition.

TABLE 2

NUMBER OF VESSELS HARVESTING
ATLANTIC SEA SCALLOPS

Year Number of Vessels

1958 164
1959 160
1960 155
1961 1.33
1962 121
1963 95
1964 9 3
1965 155
19 66 12 3
19 67 117
19 68 17 0
19 69 14 9
1970 82
1971 76
19 72 9 0

Products and processing

Processing of most sea scallops begins at sea right
after the dredge is hauled up and the contents emptied on
deck. The sweet flavored muscle, referred to as the "eye,"
is removed (manually shucked) from the shell. The rest of
the scallop is discarded overboard. Meats are washed in sea
water, packed in new clean muslin bags holding about 40
pounds, and stored under ice. Since scallops die shortly
after being taken from the water, they are shucked aboard
ship. Plant processing of scallops consists of rewashing

22 6

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

the meats, and boxing for fresh and frozen markets. The
bulk of the shucked scallop meat is sold either fresh or
frozen without further processing; however, an increasing
percent is processed into precooked convenience foods
frozen for retail sale.

Markets

Scallops are a highly desired seafood item. Demand for
this product is strong and, accordingly, exvessel prices
have generally followed an increasing trend, as shown in
table 3.

Available supplies, as noted in table 4, by combined
domestic landings and imports, show a decline from the
mid 1960s, a leveling off in the late 1960s and early 1970s,

TABLE 3

EXVESSEL SCALLOP PRICES

Exvessel
Year price per pound

1960 $ .35
1961 .38
1962 .41
1963 .46
1964 .55
1965 .66
1966 .48
1967 .76
1968 1.08
1969 1.04
1970 1.28
1971 1.41
1972 1.83
1973 1.69
1974 1.52
1975 1.85

and an increase in 1975. During the last two decades the
import share of the domestic market has increased rapidly.
In 1960, the import share of available scallop supplies was
only 19 percent. Since 1970, the import share has ranged
from 60 to 71 percent. Most of the scallop imports are
obtained from Canada, but substantial quantities are also
obtained from Iceland and the United Kingdom. The United
States does not export scallops.

227

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

TABLE 4

SCALLOP SUPPLY BY YEAR

Imports U.S. Landings Total Supply Import Share
Year Pounds Value Pounds Value Pounds Value of Total Supply
(note a)
(000 omitted)

1965 16,495 10,643 22,801 14,976 39,296 25,619 42
1966 16,712 8,375 19,612 9,666 36,324 18,041 46
1967 13,461 9,314 12,750 9,137 26,211 18,451 51
1968 14,581 15,709 15,398 16,711 29,979 32,420 49
1969 14,322 14,654 11,625 12,252 25,947 26,906 55
1970 16,830 19,666 10,837 12,403 27,667 32,069 61
1971 17,389 21,932 10,226 13,629 27,615 35,561 63
1972 20,820 36,194 10,401 17,489 31,221 53,683 67
1973 19,833 33,625 7,972 13,198 27,805 46,823 71
1974(note b) 18,100 28,106 9,200 13,417 27,300 41,523 66
1975(note b) 19,737 37,183 13,084 22,356 32,821 59,539 60

aExpressed in percent.
bpreliminary data.

Employment

As the number of vessels declined, the number of fisher-
men onboard also declined. In 1966, there were 1,356 fish-
ermen on Atlantic sea scallop vessels. By 1972, the number
had declined to 731. The number of fishermen on sea scal-
lop boats and on shore, however, including casual fishermen,
increased from 59 in 1966 to 294 in 1972. Since scallops
are processed in some plants that process other species,
there is no specific employment data available to identify
the number of employees processing scallops.

Recreational fishing

Recreational fishing is a minor activity, and has little
effect on the commercial harvest of sea scallops.

Management control

Within the 3-mile territorial limit, States have juris-
diction authority over scallops. Although several States
have sea scallop regulations, given the limited availability
in inshore waters except in Maine, these regulations have
little effect on the fishery. The State of Maine, which
accounted for 95 percent of the sea scallop landings inside
the 3-mile limit in 1975, has several scallop regulations
including a closed season in some areas, licensing require-
ments, and a minimum size limit.

228

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

No U.S. regulations exist for sea scallops beyond the
3-mile limit where most are caught. Attempts to introduce
scallop regulations through the International Commission
for Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (ICNAF) have not yet been
successful. In 1972 ICNAF passed a resolution recommend-
ing the adoption of sea scallop regulations providing for a
minimum harvestable shell size of 95 millimeters (3.8 inches)
and an average count of scallop meats of forty units or less
per pound. Canada objected to the regulations and filed a
reservation followed by the United States, thus not binding
either government to the ICNAF recommendation. Canada's ob-
jection, according to an NMFS official, was based on the
immediate adverse effect that the regulations would have on
the Canadian scallop fishermen. The United States filed its

22 9

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

reservation after Canada, because of the unfairness that
would result if only U.S. fishermen had to comply.

The Canadian Government has adopted less stringent
measures and is expected to gradually attain the recommended
regulations. NMFS officials stated that the regulations
F ~~would have had only minimal effect on the U.S. fishermen
because they generally harvest larger scallops. As of
July 1976, however, U.S. officials, with domestic industry
suprort, were planning tLo withdraw the reservation by the
United States and begin implementing the sea scallop regula-
tions recommended by ICNAF.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT

Resource availability

No maximum sustainable yield (MSY) figure is available
for sea scallops. Due to its nature, though, the MSY con-
cept may not be applicable to the sea scallop resource.
With existing information, however, NMFS biologists have
concluded that overall sea scallop abundance is considerably
lower than in the 1960s and that the yield would be increased
by postponing the age of first capture by several more years.
For example, NMFS surveys in 1975 found a important set of
young scallops south of Long Island and east of Sandy Hook,
New Jersey in the Middle Atlantic Bight, and on the Northern
Edge and Peak on Georges Bank. NMFS biologists believe
these scallops should not be harvested for at least two more
years to obtain higher meat yield. An NMFS biologist esti-
mated that the average annual yield for the sea scallop on
Georges Bank, the most productive sea scallop area, may be
about 20 million pounds, provided stocks are allowed to
rebuild and fishing effort is controlled at reasonable
levels.

The status of the Alaska sea scallop is not clear but
it appears that catches may not increase much above present
landings of under 2 million pounds per year. Bay scallop
landings have generally ranged between 1 and 2 million
pounds annually; large increases beyond this level are not
expected. Calico scallops are considered an underutilized
resource. Although no MSY has been established, an NMFS
official estimates that it i's probably many times the annual
landings rate which has fluctuated widely, up to 1.9 million
pounds in 1966.

Harvesting capability

If the abundance of sea scallops increased dramatically,
the scallop fleet could be expanded rapidly, because many

230

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

vessels in the U.S. groundfish fleet can easily be con-
verted to scallop fishing.

Product development and processing

With current market acceptance, there is little need
to develop new product forms. Processing of sea scallops
is relatively simple and current processing methods appear
to be efficient.

Marketing potential

Scallops are a highly desired food item and enjoy a
favorable marketing position capable of absorbing increased
supplies.

OBSTACLES INHIBITING GROWTH 4ND DEVELOPMENT

Resource availability and management control

Lack of information has been an obstacle limiting full
determination of the availability of scallop resources.
A new stock assessment is needed, particularly in relation
to estimating the current population sizes and recruitment.
While more data is needed, there is adequate information to
initi ate management regulations. On the basis of available
data, NMFS officials believe that the Georges Bank resource
is being overfished, primarily by Canadian fishermen. Many
scallops, they explained, are harvested at sizes much
smaller than the size producing maximum yield. NMFS offi-
cials have also noted small sea scallops being harvested in
Middle Atlantic scallop beds by U.S. fishermen. Adoption
of proposed sea scallop size regulations, as noted previously,,
would belp to increase availability of this resource.

Harvesting capability

Although the exvessel price of scallops has been rela-
tively high, reduced overall resource abundance and strong
foreign competition limit opportunities for increasing the
fleet size. Industry officials cited other general problems
affecting the scallop fishery, such as import duties on
foreign electronic fishing gear and high protection and
indemnity insurance premiums because of the Jones Act (46
U.S.C. 688).

Product development and processing

Processors of sea scallops indicated that their only
obstacle to plant and product expansion is the limited supply
of the resource.

2 31

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Market development

Resource availability is the main deterrent to market
expansion.

EFFECTS OF A 200-MILE LIMIT

More effective management is needed to assure improved
and continued resource availability to U.S. fishermen. The
Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 provides an
opportunity for improved sea scallop management through ex-
tension of U.S. jurisdiction over fisheries resources to
200 miles off coasts and by creation of the Regional Fishery
Management Councils. There is, however, still a potential
jurisdiction problem related to control of Georges Bank.
Establishment of boundaries based on equidistant lines
between the Canadian and U.S. coasts would result in Cana-
dian control of the northeast portion of this area. U.S.
officials contend that Georges Bank is an extension of the
U.S. Continental Shelf and therefore should be under U.S.
control. Since highly productive scallop grounds are located
in the disputed area, many U.S. fishermen consider it impor-
tant to their financial stability.

232

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

SHRIMP

Shrimp is the most valuable fishery in the United
States. Landings of 343.6 million pounds in 1975 were
worth $226.2 million to fishermen. In 1975, the United
States imported 201.5 -million pounds of shrimp products
worth $346.2 million. In the same year, domestic exports
amounted to 34.3 million pounds worth $64.3 million.

Viability of the -fishery is threatened by stock deple-
tion in some areas, inadequate management da-ta, environ-
mental deterioration, and excess harvesting capacity. On
the other hand, the development of underutilized species,
management program improvements, cost reductions, and
limited entry into the harvesting segment of the fishery
provide opportunities to improve the U.S. shrimp fishery.

STATUS OF THE FISHERY

Current harvest

In 1975, Alaska led the Nation in volume of shrimp
caught; however, Texas was the leading State in value, with
landings worth $87.9 million.

The Gulf States in 1975 accounted for 79 percent of
the value of the shrimp harvest by landing 49 percent of
the total U.S. catch. Although Pacific coast landings have
increased, the value of Gulf shrimp landings continues to
exceed the value of landings from all other regions. His-
torically, the Gulf has provided over 76 percent of the
landed value of U.S. shrimp.

Gulf of Mexico

in the Gulf fishery, only three species of the family
Penaeidae are caught in large numbers--the brown shrimp,
the white shrimp, and the pink shrimp. Also fished are the
seabob and the royal red shrimp. These shrimp are caught
off the coasts of Louisiana, Texas, Florida, Alabama,
Mississippi, and Mexico. Most Penaeid shrimp are caught in
depths of 50 fathoms or less and their life history is tied
to estuaries. Panaeids spawn off shore and probably do
not live much more than two years; the average life span is
thought to be about 18 months. The fertilized eggs develop
rapidly into larvae and juveniles that are carried by cur-
rents shoreward into extensive shallow estuaries where the
shrimp grow rapidly for 2 or 3 months. As they near matur-
ity, they leave these grounds and return offshore to complete
the life cycle. Gulf shrimp are considered to be an annual
crop.

23 3

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

The greatest portion of Gulf shrimp are harvested by
Louisiana and Texas fleets in these States.

Gulf of Mexico shrimp landings (note a)
State 1972 1973 1974 1975
------------ 000 omitted ---

Florida, west coast 22,828 26,137 28,462 28,168
Alabama 17,549 12,019 13,922 14,056
Mississippi 7,951 3,681 .5,316 4,044
Louisiana 83,032 58,648 59,581 53,134
Texas 97,578 81,720 78,677 70,509

Total 228,938 182,205 185,958 169,911

a/Expressed in pounds.

Shrimp taken in waters off Mexico and landed in the United
States accounted for about 11 percent of the value of land-
ings in 1974.

The shrimp fishery continues to be the most important
fishery in the Gulf of Mexico in terms of value, while being
second to menhaden in volume.

Estimates of recent year catches by U.S. flag vessels
in other countries, mostly in Central and South America,
are in the area of 14 million pounds annually worth about
$18 million and average about 70,000 pounds per boat.

Cuban and Mexican vessels trawl in the Gulf of Mexico
off Florida and Texas. The following schedule shows the
estimated quantity (pounds) harvested.

Fishing Area
nation fished 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975

Cuba off
Florida 57,440 10,240 20,480 75,000 135,000
Mexico off
Florida - - - - 105,000
Mexico off
Texas 783,000 83,820 - - 225,000
Cuba off
Texas - - 1,710,000 1,110,000 1,665,000

234

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Atlantic coast

The North Atlantic northern shrimp fishery was closed
indefinitely on April 15, 1976, by the Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission. Stocks had been declining at
an alarming rate and landings had dropped sharply since
1972. In 1975, 11.7 million pounds of shrimp worth $3.1
million were landed. Recommendations for 1977, if any, will
be made to the Commission after a review of the fishery dur-
ing the fall of 1976.

The northern shrimp is found off the coasts of Massa-
chusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine. The species migrates
from coastal areas to about 25 miles offshore. In recent
years the majority of the catch was made beyond the 3-mile
territorial limit under State jurisdiction. Attempts to
maintain catch levels in view of declining stock abundance
resulted in increased landings of small (male) shrimp. This
adversely affected stocks because of the unique biological
characteristic of sex transformation from male to female
during the shrimp's third year. The life span of the northern
shrimp ranges from 4 to 6 years.

The South Atlantic fishery is based on three major
species--the pink shrimp, the white shrimp, and the brown
shrimp--most of which are caught within 3 miles of the
U.S. coast from North Carolina to southern Florida. Also
fished are the rock shrimp and the royal red shrimp. White
shrimp is the predominant species in terms of commercial
harvest. Although most shrimp are caught during their first
year, it is estimated they can live up to 2 years.

In 1975 shrimp landings on the South Atlantic coast
amounted to 24.9 million pounds worth $30.3 million. The
fishery has generally prospered during its 100-year history
without stock depletion. The fishery appears to be operating
at or near the MSY.

Pacific coast

The Pacific coast fishery is based on species of the
family Pandalidae. The northern pink shrimp is of commer-
cial importance in Alaska. The ocean pink shrimp is the
principal species of the lower Pacific coast (Washington,
Oregon, and California) fishery. Pink shrimp has made up
the bulk of the Pacific coast shrimp catch.

In 1975 shrimp landings on the Pacific coast amounted
to 136.9 million pounds worth $14.5 million. Alaska was
the dominant State with landings of 98.3 million pounds
(approximately three-quarters of the total Pacific catch).

235

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Landings in other Pacific States amounted to 24 million
pounds in Oregon, 9.7 million pounds in Washington, and 4.9
million pounds in California.

In 1975, for the fourth consecutive year, Alaska led
the Nation in volume of shrimp landed. The greatest portion
of the Alaskan catch was harvested in Kodiak waters and
landed in Kodiak, making it the Pacific coast's number one
shrimp port.

In relation to other Pacific coast fisheries, the
shrimp fishery was sixth in dollar value in 1972. More
current data was not available.

Products and processing

Shrimp are processed into different combinations of
the following major categories:

--fresh, frozen, or canned;
--whole, or headless (peeled or unpeeled);
--raw or cooked; and
--breaded.

Specialty (burgers, creoles, cocktails, gumbos, soups,
and dips), smoked, sun-dried, scrap, and meal product forms
are also produced.

The United States processed 297.6 million pounds of
shrimp products in 1972, worth $417.8 million. Raw and
breaded shrimp in fresh and frozen forms accounted for the
greatest part of the volume and value of total production.
Frozen shrimp, most of which goes to institutional markets,
dominates sales. As the frozen shrimp market has expanded,
fresh shrimp sales have accounted for a smaller share of the
total market. As shown below, canned shrimp represented
about 8 percent of production.
Percent of U.S. Production--1972
Item Volume Value
Fresh and frozen:
Raw 40.6 44.3
Cooked 10.1 9.0
Breaded 36.1 33.7
Specialties 4.4 3.0
Specialties 90.0

Canned:
Regular 8.0 9.3
Specialty .1 .4

Other:
(Smoked, sun-dried,
scrap, and meal) .7 .3
Total 100.0 100.0

236

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Fresh, frozen, and canned products from the Gulf States
accounted for about 65 percent of 1972 production in both
value and volume.

Percent of U.S. Production--1972
Volume Value
Gulf of Mexico Pacific coast Atlantic coast
Item Volume Value Volume Value Volume Value

Fresh and
frozen:

Raw 37.8 41.3 1.0 0.8 1.5 1.8
Cooked 0.7 1.0 3.4 3.2 5.2 3.6
Breaded 20.7 18.3 3.0 3.6 9.0 8.8
Specialties 0.1 0.1 - - 1.0 0.6

59.3 60.7 7.4 7.6 16.7 14.8

Canned 5.0 7.0 3.0 2.3 - -

Total 64.3 67.7 10.4 9.9 16.7 14.8

Note: These production figures do not account for total
U.S. production because inland production and minor
product forms are not shown.

Processing may be as simple as beheading (either before
or after landing), sorting, and then icing the shrimp; or
as complicated as peeling, deveining, cooking, breading,
canning, freezing, and sun drying. Procedures may vary
from region to region and among processors.

Important advancements have been made in shrimp
processing techniques since World War II. Freezer tech-
nology improvements led to new shrimp product development
and expanded the potential market for shrimp. Mechanical
shrimp peelers, introduced from the Gulf to the Pacific
coast in 1957, greatly reduced the need for expensive man-
ual labor. By 1974 the mechanical peeler processed the
majority of the shrimp on the Pacific coasts including
Alaska. Processing firms at major Atlantic shrimp ports
are using automatic cleaning, peeling, cooking, and freez-
ing equipment. Shrimp are graded by machine. In the Gulf
of Mexico, hand labor is still used to remove heads from
shrimp but much of this activity takes place on board the
vessel.

237

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Markets

Domestic demand for shrimp has been strong; per capita
consumption has risen since 1960.

Domestic consumer demand has been much greater than
shrimp production in the United States; therefore imports
since the 1950s have been of importance to the domestic
market. The amount of shrimp products imported in relation
to U.S. landings grew significantly from 1954 to 1961. From
1961 to 1974, for every pound of shrimp landed in the United
States an additional pound or more was imported (except in
1971).

In 1974 the United States imported a record 228.9 mil-
lion pounds of shrimp worth $387.3 million. Imports in 1975
amounted to 201.5 million pounds worth $346.2 million.

Shrimp is the major fish product imported with respect
to value, accounting for 25 percent of the value of all
imported edible fish products in 1975. Mexico supplied 40
percent of the shrimp imports in 1975 with India and Panama
being the other principal sources. The United States uses
more than 25 percent of the total world shrimp production.

in the Gulf and South Atlantic regions, average ex-ves-
sel prices per pound increased steadily from 1965 through 93
1972 (except 1967 and 1970), then jumped dramatically in I93

Periodically, supply increments exceed consumption by
a large margin and this can cause marketing problems. From
1950 through 1968 there were four price breaks in shrimp
markets. Each occurred during a slowdown in the national
economy.

--194 -Resulted from increase in domestic landings of
record levels.

2 38

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

--1959-60 -Resulted from increased landings augmented
by the largest annual increment in imports
during the period.

--163and 1967 - Resulted from rapidly expanding
imports coinciding with high domestic land-
ings, which caused supplies to exceed de-
mands weakened by the business recession.

The substantial wholesale and retail price increases
in 1973, was due, principally, to a reduced annual crop--
the result of adverse environmental conditions--and increased
fuel costs.

The peak of an upward Gulf and South Atlantic demand
trend was reached in fall of 1973 during the time of the
meat boycott. Consumer demand shifted from meat to other
options and shrimp prices increased even faster. But
problems developed in 1974 and early 1975 in shrimp market-
ing.

The gains in 1972 and 1973 particularly brightened the
market outlook and suppliers anticipated further increases.
The increase in per capita supplies of shrimp in 1972 was
double the increase in consumption, resulting in enormous
inventory buildups. The carryover into 1973 was a record
inventory of 93 million pounds of shrimp.

The large carryover helped sustain consumption during
a period when both domestic landings and imports were in
short supply. Toward the end of 1973, however, landings
and imports improved at a time when demand weakened notably.
(Imports reached a record 229 million pounds in 1974.) The
severity of the shrimp market led to NMFS establishing an
Emergency Marketing Program (EMP) in November 1974. Al-
though the ex-vessel price rebounded in 1975 to record
levels, EMP was active through June 1976. In fact, the
1975 recovery had been even more dramatic than the decline.

In 1975 domestic shrimp product exports accounted for
about 24 percent of the total value of edible domestic
seafood products exported by the United States. In recent
years over half of the northern shrimp landings have been
exported. Domestic shrimp products worth about $64.3 mil-
lion (34.3 million pounds) were exported in 1975.

Fishing Fleet

The primary gear in use off the Atlantic, Gulf, and
Pacific coasts is the shrimp otter trawl. Beam trawls,
pots, butterfly nets, and traps are also used, but they
account for only a small portion of the catch.
2 39

The U.S. shrimp fleet varies within the Atlantic, gulf,
and Pacific regions.

In the North Atlantic, lobster boats and small trawlers
seasonally rigged for shrimp trawling constitute the major-
ity of the fleet in terms of numbers of vessels and account
for about 40 percent of the total catch. The trend is to-
ward larger vessels, specially designed and equipped for
operations farther offshore during the warmer seasons.

In the South Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico, there
are both offshore and inshore fleets. The most common off-
shore vessels are the "Florida-type" trawlers, constructed
of wood, steel, or fiberglass. They are 50 to 85 feet long
and are double-rigged for towing two nets simultaneously.
The Florida-type vessels have a round bottom, flared bow,
and a broad, square transom stern. The deckhouse and engine
are forward and the clear fishing deck and fish hold are aft.
Typically the vessels are diesel powered. Vessels in the
50-to 70-foot class are generally powered by 100-to 200-
horsepower diesels. Most of the vessels are equipped with
electronic navigational aids and have the capacity for wide-
ranging fishing operations.

The vessels used for inshore shrimping in the Gulf and
South Atlantic exploit the bays, estuarine areas, and near-
shore areas. There are many small boats of 5 net tons or
less--often referred to as the "mosquito fleet"--display
ing quite a variety of designs and individual styles of
construction. Many of the smaller boats are gasoline pow-
ered although there is a trend toward diesel power. These
boats are usually rigged for towing a single trawl.

On the Pacific coast, the boats and vessels used to
harvest shrimp are also components of the groundfish and
crab fleets; only different fishing gear is used. They
are extremely varied in description and as such there is
no typical shrimp boat or vessel. Most range in length
from 65 to 115 feet; the overall range in length is from 30
to 150 feet.

NMFS statistics show that in 1972 6,663 boats and
7,007 vessels participated in the 1972 shrimp harvest.
Boats and vessels in the U.S.
Shrimp Fishery--1972
Boats Vessels
Otter Other Otter Other
Region trawl gear Total trawl gear Total
North Atlantic 256 61. 317 185 - 185
South Atlantic 980 70 1,050 1,394 - 1,394
Gulf of Mexico 4,848 411 5,259 5,134 45 5,179
Pacific 4 33 37 184 65 249
Total 6,088 575 6,663 6,897 110 7,007

240

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Employment

Although employment statistics are published as an
inventory of personnel employed in the shrimp fishery, the
figures do not reflect the numbers of personnel involved
exclusively in harvesting shrimp. Many of those reported
as shrimp fishermen also harvest crab, groundfish, oysters,
or lobster.
The number of fishermen who harvested shrimp in 1972 were:

Shrimp fislhermen
On boats
Regular Casual On vessels

North Atlantic 375 197 550
South Atlantic 519 818 3,031
Gulf of Mexico 4,787 2,343 13,615
Pacific coast 38 19 730

Total 5,719 3,377 17,926

Employment data for the processing and wholesaling seg-
ments of the fishery was not available because these industry
segments are diversified in terms of the species processed
and wholesaled. NMFS personnel do not believe it is possible
to identify the number of persons involved in processing or
wholesaling the species of a particular fishery.

Recreational Fishing

In 1974 NMFS made a pilot recreational fishing survey,
in the Northeastern States. This effort was the first part
of a national program to annually estimate and report the
number of recreational fishermen, their finfish and shell-
fish catch, and their fishing expenditures.

in the survey of the Northeastern United States the
1974 recreational catch of northern shrimp is reported to
have been about 9,000 pounds. According to an NMFS official,
minimal catches by North Atlantic recreational fishermen
have little effect on the resource.

As another part of the national program, NMFS conducted
a survey in 1975 of the Southeastern and Gulf States.

2 41

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Recreational shrimp fishing in the South Atlantic is esti-
mated to be widespread--about 10 to 15 percent of the total
catch of shrimp -in the region.

In the Gulf of Mexico, recreational fishermen in some
coastal areas harvest large quantities of shrimp. An
unpublished 1968 report by the Louisiana Bureau of Sport
Fisheries and Wildlife estimated that the Louisiana sport
shrimping activity in 1968 involved a catch of 18,650,000
pounds of shrimp. Commercial shrimp landings in Louisiana
for that year amounted to about 67,767,800 pounds.

NMFS had planned to survey the Pacific States in 1976
but this part of the program has been delayed. According
to Alaska, Washington, and Oregon State officials, little
recreational fishing for shrimp exists on the Pacific
coast. The only measurable amount, approximately 3,000
pounds in 1975, was caught in the Puget Sound in Washington.

Management Controls

Management of the U.S. shrimp fishery is fragmented.
There are no overall management programs for species common
to the various States of the South Atlantic, Gulf, and
Pacific segments of the fishery. Individual State regulation
is the Yule. Only the North Atlantic region manages the fish-
ery on a comprehensive basis.

North Atlantic

The northern Atlantic shrimp fishery was completely
unregulated until Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts
initiated action jointly with NMFIS to cooperatively manage
the northern shrimp species as part of the State-Federal
Fisheries Management Program. In 1973 the three States
adopted an interim net mesh size regulation designed to pro-
tect small male shrimp and delegated authority to the At-
lantic States Marine Fisheries Commission to regulate the
fishery. In November 1973 the Commission issued the interim
net mesh regulation. Due to limited resources, however, the
States did not fully enforce the regulation. A decline in
the shrimp population continued and additional conservation
measures were needed. In June 1975 the Commission adopted
a July 5 to September 27, 1975, fisherywide season closure.
Even with this, 1975 landings of 11.7 million pounds were
27 percent more than the 9.2 million pound limit the biolo-
gists recommended as the total allowable catch. On April 15,
1976, the Commission closed the northern shrimp fishery
indefinitely. Recommendations for the 1977 fishery, if any,
will be made to the Commission by the Northern Shrimp Sec-
tion when they review the fishery during the fall of 1976.

242

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

South Atlantic

There is no overall management scheme in effect for
those species common to the South Atlantic States. Laws
and regulations regarding seasons, gear, areas, and/or the
size of shrimp taken vary by State. For example, no mini-
mum shrimp count is specified in the Carolinas while Georgia
limits the catch to 45 shrimp (heads on) per pound and
Florida allows a count of 70 shrimp per pound (decapitated).
In 1973 a cooperative State-Federal management committee
was established to examine the feasibility and desirability
of managing the shrimp fishery on a regional basis. The
shrimp fishery was selected tor cooperative management be-
cause it was the most valuable fishery in the Southeast
region and was evenly distributed among the States.

By May 1975 a proposed comprehensive management plan
proposal for the South Atlantic shrimp fishery had been
completed. The plan recommends actions to deal with the
problems identified during the initial planning phase. A
State official believed that implementing recommendations
would begin after formal acceptance by the States. As of
June 1, 1976, the plan had not been accepted by the States
due to uncertainties concerning implementation of the
Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976.

Gulf of Mexico

There is no overall management program for the Gulf
shrimp fishery nor has one been proposed. Like the South
Atlantic States, State-to-State variations in laws and reg-
ulations exist. Texas limits the catch count to 39 shrimp
(heads on) per pound. Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama
allow a count of 68 per pound, while Florida limits the
count to 47 per pound but allows 5 percent of the catch to
be greater than 47 count. Two States limit mesh sizes, two
do not, and the Florida limit varies an a county-by-county
basis.

State agencies usually regulate shrimping in the
nursery area (bays and bayous) to insure survival of small
shrimp until they are large enough to migrate from the
estuarine area. Passage by the United States of the 12-mile
contiguous fishing zone in 1966 aids in protecting from
foreign fishing fleets that part of the Gulf resource with-
*in the 12-mile zone. (About half of the shrimp caught in
1975 by U.S. vessels off the Gulf States were taken in the
12-mile zone).

243

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Pacific coast

The Pacific fishery is under management of the individ-
ual States.~ All the States control the amount of shrimp
caught by catch quotas or limited seasons. California,
Washington, and Alaska also regulate the fishing gear used
in the fishery.

The 12-mile contiguous fishery zone effectively cur-
tailed fishing by foreign fleets for Pacific shrimp.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT

Potential for growth and development in the U.S. shrimp
fishery is based on the

--improvement of stocks through effective management,

--commercial development of underutilized species, and

--utilization of new gear and techniques to increase
catches per unit effort.

Resource Availability

Opportunities for an expansion of the amount of re-
source available depend on

--discovering new shrimp stocks,

--implementing effective programs to improve the status
of currently utilized stocks, and/or

--developing a major commercial effort to harvest
several underutilized stocks.

Because the discovery of unknown stocks is not likely,
increases in resource availability may only be possible
through an improvement of existing stocks or the commercial
development of underutilized stocks.

Stock improvement

Improvement of the North Atlantic shrimp stock may be
possible. Biologists believe that reductions in landings
are necessary to permit the stocks to rebuild. As discussed
above, the fishery was closed in early 1976. Recommenda-
tions for the 1977 season are yet to be considered.

In the South Atlantic area, the shrimp fishery appears
to be operating at or near the MSY under present fishing

24 4

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

practices. Fishery managers and scientists have identified
opportunities for better management. For example, higher
yields could be obtained by increasing the age at capture
in some areas.

In the Gulf of Mexico, opinions among NMFS personnel
vary as to resource availability. Some say that sufficient
data do not exist to estimate the biomass, establish an MSY,
or formulate a management program. Other NMFS personnel con-
tend thatE the gulf fishery is operating at or near the MSY--
i.e., fully exploited under present fishing.practices.

Commercial development

Some Gulf and South Atlantic species are harvested in
limited quantities; none constitute a major commercial en-
terprise. These species include rock shrimp, caught mainly
in shallow waters along the Florida coast, and royal red
shrimp, caught in deep water (150 to 250 fathoms).

In the future, a potential for major commercial activ-
ity may develop for these species and offer an alternative
to fishermen who may become displaced from the present
shrimp fishery or other fisheries.

On the Pacific coast, some opportunities exist in
Alaska for developing underutilized shrimp resources, but
development depends on harvesting being economically viable.

Harvesting capability

New harvesting techniques may allow more shrimp to be
caught for each unit of effort expended by the fishermen;
that is, more efficiency, not greater aggregate catch.
These increases in catch per unit effort may result from the
use of twin-trawls, metal traps, onboard headers, electric
trawls, and separator trawls.

Some shrimpers are now using twin-trawling techniques--
towing two trawls on a single pair of otter doors--on an
experimental basis. Advantages of this gear over the con-
ventional double rig include:

--Increased fishing efficiency (an increase of 8.6
percent has been demonstrated).

--Ease of handling and the light weight of two 35-foot
trawls as opposed to a single 70-foot trawl.
--Slower towing of nets and sharper vessel turning with
fewer incidents of tangling.

245

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

A recent innovation in the Atlantic has been the intro-
duction of metal traps, similar to lobster traps. Use of
these traps mnakes possible shrimp harvesting in rocky areas
inaccessible to trawls. Some conflict may arise, however,
where metal traps and trawl gear are used on the same fish-
ing grounds.

Another device is an onboard heading machine which
offers the possibility of reduced labor costs. A Texas-
based firm claims to have developed such a device.

Research into variations of shrimp trawls has been and
is being done. The objective of this work is to increase
harvesting efficiency.

--Electric trawl -- the principle is to administer
an electric charge to force shrimp from their habDi-
tat and to harvest as they emerge. The objective
is to (1) increase catch per unit effort, (2) pro-
vide a harvesting capability at times when shrimp
are burrowed into the bottom, and (3) force shrimp
from untrawlable areas such as coral and sponges.

--Separator trawl -- the principle is to prohibit the
entry or allow the escape of finfish while trawling
so that less "trash" fish are brought aboard. This
reduces the culling effort as well as provides for
the conservation of those fish which would ordinar-
ily be discarded. The project to develop a separator
trawl was about half complete in early 1976. NMFS
personnel feel that the design goal of 90 percent
separation of discards while limiting shrimp losses
to 10 percent can and will be met.

Product development and processing

Improvements in processing and product development are
not needed for the major commercial species. A capability
exists to adequately process these shrimp in a manner accep-
table and marketable to the consumer. Because consumer
demand is forecasted to increase in the future a need for
product development is not likely to arise.

Marketing Potential

The marketing potential is unlimited as currently seen--
demand is far greater than any foreseeable supply potential.
Shrimp markets are well developed and capable of absorbing
increased supplies; however, State officials believe that
some South Atlantic States could benefit by identifying and
utilizing alternative markets and by improving existing
markets.

246

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

OBSTACLES INHIBITING GROWTH AND
DEVELOPMENT OF THE FISHERY

High operating costs, the magnitude of the harvesting
capacity, and the limited size of the harvestable resources
are obstacles to growth and development of the U.S. shrimp
fishery.

Resource Availability

The primary obstacle inhibiting growth of the fishery
is the limited amount of resource available for harvest.
Opportunities to commercially develop or improve existing
stocks, previously discussed, are coupled with specific
inhibiting factors. Environmental deterioration is a
potential problem which could affect existing stocks.

Stock improvement

Improved resource availability for the North Atlantic
shrimp depends on effectiveness of the management program
implemented by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commis-
sion. The Commission closed the season indefinitely in
1976 and is waiting for recommendations for 1977. While
biologists believe that reductions in landings will be
necessary to permit the stock to rebuild, additional data
on catch effort and the rate of stock replacement is needed
to make appropriate recommendations for management.

The present State management systems in the South
Atlantic are operating under several constraints, including
biological information gaps such as mortality, growth, and
spawner-recruit information, inadequate catch and effort
statistics, insufficient social and economic data, lack of
jurisdiction in waters outside State control, and enforce-
ment problems.

Commercial development

Commercial development of the unused resource avail-
able in Alaskan waters depends on harvesting being econom--
ically viable, as the unused resources are in high-risk
and high-cost areas.

The Bering Sea segment of the fishery is depleted--
stocks have been so reduced that fishing effort must be
greatly reduced so that stocks can replenish themselves.

Commercial development of the royal red shrimp and
rock shrimp of the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico is
limited. Research efforts so far have not shown that

247

APPENDIX III APPENDIX ITT

quantities are available for major commercial development.
A Texas study concluded that rock shrimp probably cannot
support a fishery alone, but may supplement the brown
shrimp fishery if stable markets are created. NMFS explora-
tory fishing for the deepwater crustaceans located some
resources, but not in sufficient quantities to encourage
commercial development.

Environmental considerations

A potential problem, which could affect available
resources, involves sustaining environmental conditions to
assure that the general level of shrimp stock will continue
to be available in the future. The success of recruitment
and survival depends heavily on environmental conditions
in the nursery areas, which are subject to pollution from
various sources including dredging and urban and industrial
construction and growth.

Environmental deterioration of the Mississippi Delta
System is a major concern. The Delta estuaries and wet-
lands form a resource that, in view of biological produc-
tivity, must be considered one of national importance.
The delta estuaries of Louisiana's coast account for about
25 percent of the total fish harvest of the conterminous
United States.

For the most part, Gulf shrimp resources are annually
renewable and consist of short-lived animals with a life
cycle of oceanic and estuary phases. Marked fluctuations
in the size of shrimp populations can probably be induced
by yearly differences in spawning success and survival of
young which depend to a large extent on biological and
physical environmental conditions.

During the past 30 years about 500 square miles of
delta land mass has been lost. Some environmentalists
interpret the decline in catch per unit of effort as indi-
cative of estuary deterioration. By 1973 the amount of
shrimp landed for each unit of effort declined to less than
half the 1967 level.

Harvesting capability

Capability to harvest the available resource may exceed
that necessary for an optimal harvest and is subject to
increasing operating costs.

248

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Harvesting capacity

Stock depletion in the North Atlantic is directly re-
lated to an intense buildup of fishing effort resulting in
a harvesting level greater than stock replacement. Biolo-
gists believe that environmental factors have 'also contrib-
uted to the stock decline. In 1967 there were 89 vessels;
in 1972 about 400. Because of this increase in vessels,
and the decline in stocks, this fishery is considered to
have excess harvesting capacity. The extent of this excess,
however, has not been determined since there, is a wide
variation in vessel size and many vessels also harvest
other species.

The catch per unit effort in the South Atlantic is
quite low due to the large number of vessels. Only the high
price of shrimp enables many vessels to operate at a profit.
It is easier to enter vessels in the fishery than to re-
move them because these capital investments have low resale
values. Consequently, investment in vessels may have
exceeded an optimal level.

The shrimp harvesting capability along the Gulf coast
appears to exceed that required to harvest the available
resource. Shrimp landings over the last 11 years or so
have been essentially constant. Generally, the catch per
unit of effort has decreased which indicates more intensive
effort for a relatively constant level of shrimp stock
(i.e., more vessels and increased fishing power).

Operating costs

Increased fuel, insurance, and financing costs have
been a major problem for fishermen. Fuel costs (diesel)
have increased 300 to 400 percent since 1973, insurance
rates are up dramatically--especially for wooden hulls--and
interests rates are high. Costs of gear continue to rise.
Equity requirements (25 percent) were high for financing
new vessels even before all these other cost increases
occurred. Meeting the equity requirement is now more diffi-
cult because of the high vessel cost; $100,000 to $200,000
and more in some cases. Credit is a serious problem.

Of course, much of these costs have to be included in
the cost of shrimp, but elasticity of market acceptance
determines the extent to which these costs can be transferred.
if the market prices do not rise proportional to increased
operating costs, the return per unit of effort will decrease,
especially considering the decreasing catch per unit of ef-
fort; a lower value per share for the crew could result, as
well as lesser quality and crew availability.

249

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

In the labor market, low wages and seasonal employment
result in a labor shortage. Frequent personnel changes
also decrease operating efficiency of a crew.

The adoption of new gear and methods is sometimes slow
because fishermen resist change.

The harvesting efficiency of shrimp fishermen may be
improved by the adoption of electric trawls currently avail-
able. This has not been done, not only because the required
conductive tow cable now available is more expensive than
conventional cable, but also because the loss of an electric
trawl represents a loss of about $3,000 to $4,000 versus
$1,000 for loss of a conventional trawl.

Product development and processing

Although dock and supply facilities, as well as stor-
age space and the adequacy of local processing, appear to
be rather limited in most areas of the South Atlantic
United States, no product or processing obstacles exist
for the major species. There is a reluctance on the part
of processors to handle the underutilized royal red and rock
shrimp due to processing problems which include the small
size of the shrimp and the hardness of their shells.

Market development

No obstacles to market development were found. The
shrimp market is well developed and capable of absorbing
increased supplies.

Management Controls

Problems associated with fishery management in the North
and South Atlantic have been discussed. We found no manage-
ment controls that inhibit development of the shrimp fishery
in the gulf or Pacific.

EFFECTS OF THE 200-MILE LIMIT

Atlantic coast

The northern shrimp is subject to management under the
Fisheries Conservation and Management Act of 1976. The
South Atlantic shrimp is caught predominantly within 3 miles
of the U.S. coast and is expected to remain under the ex-
clusive jurisdiction of the States.

250

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Gulf of Mexico

About 40 percent (using 1975 statistics) of the shrimp
caught by U.S. fishing craft off U.S. shores are in the 12-
to-200-mile zone. Thus, the 200-mile extended jurisdiction
will provide protection for a large part of the domestic
shrimp fishery.

The 200-mile limit will permit regulating foreign
vessel activity, but the foreign activity in recent years
has not been significant in relation to U.S. vessel activ-
ities off foreign shores (primarily Mexico and the North-
eastern coast of South America).

Unless other countries permit U.S. vessels to continue
using their waters, the extended jurisdiction policy will
force many U.S. vessels into U.S. waters. This increase in
the U.S. shrimp fleet may not be offset by the exit of
foreign vessels and may add to the fishing effort, result-
ing in a lower catch per unit of effort exceeding the rela-
tive stock available to U.S. shrimpers. Cuban vessels,
active in U.S. waters, harvested less than 2 million pounds
of shrimp in 1973, 1974, and 1975; Mexican activity in U.S.
waters was not significant.

.In addition, the extended jurisdiction will provide
protection for the deepwater crustaceans if extensive com-
mercial development moves in that direction.

Pacific coast

Since the majority of all Pacific coast shrimp re-
sources are within the 12-mile contiguous fisheries zone
and are already protected from foreign fishing fleets,
establishing a 200-mile limit would have no effect on the
shrimp fisheries.

As discussed above, problems exist in the shrimp fish-
ery along each coast. Some of the problems which are inter-
related and common to more than one coast are:

--Lack of or limited availability of shrimp resources.

--Excess harvesting capacity.

--High operating and financing costs.

--Biological data gaps.

--Habitat environment deterioration.
251

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

The more critical areas needing solutions are the
Pacific and North Atlantic areas in which some action has
already been initiated: quotas in the Pacific and tempo-
rary closure of the North Atlantic.

The lack of or limited availability of resources seems
to be the problem of most concern. The main causes for the
problem may be attributed to increased fishing pressure and,
as some believe, deteriorating environmental habitat. Sec-
ondary causes may be common property nature of the resource,
unlimited entry, lack of management, and growing markets.

Imports

imports are needed to meet the domestic market demand.
In most periods the increases in imports and domestic pro-
duction have not been so large as to exceed the growth in
demand.

Possibly, from the consumer's viewpoint, any protective
policy would result in even higher prices during periods
of reduced domestic landings. However, if the imported
shrimp were to have an undesirable effect on the domestic
market, the Government could take action to either ban
part or all of the imports or levy an import tax.

The future growth of the shrimp industry appears to
depend heavily upon imports.

Gulf States fishery

In the Gulf States fishery a limited entry or effort
policy probably would not, in any given year, result in
a large increase in domestic landings. The relatively
constant supply provided by the annual crop in itself
limits shrimpers' participation in the fishery. Even
though higher shrimp prices may attract additional invest-
ments, which would probably increase harvesting capacity
and further reduce the catch per unit of effort, the shrimp-
ersw acumen and level of accepted risk will probably deter-
mine the measure of the shrimper's success.

In the case of the Gulf States, limiting entry to a
specific number of shrimpers would be primarily an egali-
tarian action to guarantee a high level of economic bene-
fits without a guarantee that efficiency will dramatically
increase or that the price of shrimp to the consumer will
be lower or remain the same.

252

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

South Atlantic fishery

A comprehensive management plan proposal was completed
in May 1975 for the South Atlantic shrimp fishery. its
implementation should resolve some of the problems in this
geographical area.

253

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

TUNA

Tuna is the most international of all fisheries. Dis-
tribution of tunas occurs throughout the tropical and tem-
perate waters of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans.
The tuna family, apart from whales, is the only commercial
species to cross wide stretches of ocean in the course of
migrations.

The five main tuna species are skipjack, yellowfin, al-
bacore, bigeye, and bluefin. Worldwide in 1972, skipjack
tuna accounted for 35 percent of the total tuna catch;
yellowfin, 31 percent; albacore, 17 percent; bigeye, 9 per-
cent; and bluefin, 8 percent. According to the Inter-American
Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), the Pacific Ocean accounted
for approximately 68 percent of the 1970 total world tuna
catch, the Atlantic Ocean produced about 25 percent, and the
Indian Ocean about 9 percent. In 1975 tuna caught within
200 miles of U.S. shores--primarily albacore--accounted
for 11 percent of the total U.S. catch.

Although more than 40 nations capture tuna, the 5 major
producing countries accounted for 86 percent of the 1972
world catch of the 5 main species. Japan and the United
States account for over half of the world tuna catch, and in
1974 consumed about 75 percent of the world catch. Nearly
all the U.S. tuna consumption is in the form of canned tuna,
with albacore tuna, being the most expensive and preferred.

STATUS OF THE FISHERY

Current harvest

Tuna landings in the United States, including Puerto
Rico and American Samoa, in 1975 were a record 568.2 million
pounds worth $152.8 million. In 1974 yellowfin tuna accounted
for 61 percent of the total harvest; skipjack, 27 percent;
albacore, 9 percent; and bluefin tuna, 3 percent. The U.S.
tuna fleet caught 503.9 million pounds or 89 percent of the
total 1975 U.S. catch off foreign shores. In relation to
other U.S. fisheries, tuna ranked second in terms of pounds
landed and third in terms of dollar value in 1975.

As shown in table I, the commercial tuna landings in the
Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific regions have remained relatively
constant since 1970, whereas the total pounds landed in
Puerto Rico have more than doubled. Approximately one-
third of the landings made by the U.S. fleet in 1975 were in
Puerto Rico.

254

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Table I

Commercial Landings of Tuna, 1970-75 (note a)

Atlantic, Gulf Puerto
Year and Pacific States Rico Total
-000 omitted--
1970 393,494 b 84,852 478,346
1971 346,146 D128,770 474,916
1972 387,032 b147,668 534,700
1973 346,571 172,492 519,063
1974 386,185 165,008 551,193
1975 391,149 b177,100 568,249

a Expressed in oounds.
b Includes a small quantity of fish landed in American Samoa
by United States vessels.

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine
Fisheries Service, "Fisheries of the United
States, 1975."

Products and processing

During 1974, according to a report by the Tuna Research
Foundation, the U.S. tuna processing industry packed canned
tuna valued at $820 million at the processor level, $102
million of petfood, and $17.4 million of tuna fishmeal and
oil, for a total value of $939.4 million. Canned tuna is
the largest segment of the domestically produced canned fish
market, representing, in 1974, 69 percent of the market's
volume and about an equal amount of its value.

The two major U.S. tuna canning areas are in California
and Puerto Rico. The percent of total pack processed
(at 3-year intervals) was as follows:

Year California Puerto Rico Other

1965 49.8 26.9 23.3
1968 45.2 32.0 22.8
1971 43.8 34.9 21.3
1974 43.5 40.1 16.4

Source: Tuna Research Foundation

255

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

The U.S. tuna processing industry is made up of 29 plants:
the west coast has 20; Puerto Rico, 5; American Samoa, 2;
Maryland, 1; and Hawaii, 1. The U.S. tuna industry has de-
veloped plant capacity to process about 7.3 million pounds
of fish per day on a one-shift basis. Since 1965 Puerto
Rico has become the most rapidly developing U.S. tuna pro-
cessing center. One large new processing plant was con-
structed in Puerto Rico in 1971 at a cost of $10 million and
a total of $30 million has been invested in two new facili-
ties in San Diego, California, and American Samoa.

Markets

Tuna consumption has been increasing steadily since
World War II. The U.S. canned tuna per capita consumption
rate has risen 1.8 pounds between 1950 and 1975 while the
total canned fishery product per capita consumption rate has
decreased .7 pounds during the same period, an increase of
164 percent versus a decrease of 14 percent, respectively.

U.S. consumers continue to constitute the major world
market for tuna. Domestic production in 1975 filled about
51 percent of the Nation's total supply. Another 538.5
million pounds of foreign-caught tuna was imported. Table
II shows tuna imports from 1970 through 1975.

Table II

Tuna Imports, 1970-75

(note a)

Fresh frozen,
including cooked Canned
Year loins & discs In oil In brine Total

�----------------000 omitted-

1970 464,583 153 72,109 536,845
1971 506,602 1,050 58,792 566,444
1972 764,784 384 56,129 821,297
1973 816,739 244 38,382 855,365
1974 838,889 233 52,513 891,635
1975 486,795 199 51,472 538,466

a Expressed in pounds.

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine
Fisheries Service, "Fisheries of the United
States, 1975."

256

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

These imports increased 66 percent from 1970 to 1974
but decreased significantly in 1975 as canners cut back on
their use of imported tuna in order to reduce inventories.

A U.N. report states that a close relationship exists
between trends in tuna prices in the United States, Japan,
and Europe. Value differences among species are related
to market preference, fish size, the resulting yield during
processing, labor costs, and quality. Albacore has the
highest market preference in the United States because of
its white color and bland flavor. Because skipjack has the
lowest yield (number of cases per ton of raw fish) and is
the least popular it has the lowest value.

The U.N. report also noted that U.S. prices were weak
during the early 1960s, having been considerably higher in
1954 and 1955. Since 1964 prices have begun to rise, as
world supplies have begun leveling off. The trend in
pi-ices for raw materials was clearly upward in the mid-1960s
and sharply higher in the 1970s. According to NMFS, the pres-
sure of tuna's expanding demand relative to a fixed supply
will put increasing pressure on tuna prices.

Fishing fleet

The U.S. tuna fleet is based primarily in southern
California and operates from San Diego and San Pedro. We
were told the fleet is composed of three types of fishing
vessels; purse seiners, baitboats, and trollers. Purse
seiners generally locate tuna schools by visually locating
porpoises. The majority of the yellowfin tuna catch is
caught in association with porpoise, as the two species swim
together. Porpoise swim on the ocean's surface while yellow-
f in tuna swim at lower depths. When porpoise are observed,
the purse seiner' s captain encircles both the porpoise and
tuna with a large net with a circumference of up to three-
quarters of a mile. The bottom of the net is then closed,
or "pursed," forming a large bag or purse, trapping the
enclosed tuna. The net is then pulled aboard the vessel
and the tuna are placed in refrigerated holds. This method
of catching tuna is referred to as fishing ''on porpoise"
because it results in the incidental catch of porpoises.

The U.S. purse seine fleet consisted of 139 vessels
with an aggregate carrying capacity of 115,400 tons in 1975.
An NMFS official told us that larger purse seiners ranged
from 200 to 275 feet in length with carrying capacities up
to 2,675 tons, and when fully equipped cost from $3.5 to
$5 million each. The usual crew size is 10 or more men.
We were told the U.S. purse seine fleet is capable of fish-
ing in any of the world's oceans, with the majority of the

257

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

fishing concentrated in the eastern Pacific off Central and
South American coasts. The primary species caught are the
yellowfin and skipjack tunas. An NMFS official said that
purse seiners capture over three-quarters of the U.S. tuna
catch and are vastly superior in terms of catch per unit of
effort expended, compared to other methods of tuna fishing.

Baitboats catch tuna differently than purse seiners.
When a baitboat locates a tuna school, live bait is thrown
overboard in an effort to lure the tuna to the boat. When
the tuna begins to feed actively, they are fished with
poles, to which are attached baited hooks or lures. With
each strike, the crewmember pulls the tuna aboard the ves-
sel.

An NMFS report stated that the baitboat fleet had 53
vessels in 1975, with an aggregate carrying capacity of
5,253 tons. The baitboat's crew size ranges from 4 to 10
men. We were told baitboats capture primarily yellowfin,
skipjack, and albacore tuna, usually off Mexican and
Central American coastal waters.

An NMFS official told us that tuna trollers fish pri-
marily for albacore tuna. Since albacore do not school as
cohesively as yellowfin or skipjack, according to NMFS, the
troller depends upon attracting albacore with a variety of
hooks and lures, using possibly 10 to 14 lines. When an
albacore strikes a lure, the fisherman hauls it aboard,
places it in the hold, resets the line, and continues fish-
ing.

Trollers make up the bulk of the U.S. tuna fleet with
approximately 2,000 vessels. These vessels may be crewed
by one to three men. Trollers fish for albacore from
northern Washington to central Mexican waters.

The U.S. tuna fleet's capital financing came from
personal investment, tuna processors, and government finan-
cial assistance programs. Tuna processors assisted in
financing vessels to assure themselves of raw material
through contractual agreements with vessel owners. As of
1969, 115 vessels in the U.S. tuna fishery had received
$26.4 million from government financial assistance programs.

According to Living Marine Resources, Incorporated,
tuna vessels in 1974 represented over 30 percent of the re-
placement value of the entire U.S. fishing fleet. At 1974
construction costs, the replacement value of the tuna fleet
was just under $500 million.

258

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Employment

A tuna industry survey indicated that the tuna fleet
provided direct employment for about 6,800 people, with a
payroll of about $65 million during 1973. Tuna processing
plants employed a total of about 16,000 people in adminis-
trative and factory tasks in 1973. Total payroll was in
excess of $90 million.

Recreational fishing

In the Atlantic Ocean, the bluefin tuna is of interest
to both recreational and commercial fishermen. Because
major commercial fisheries are located far from the recrea-
tional fishing areas, direct conflicts on the fishing
grounds do not usually arise. However, both recreational
and commercial fishermen harvest from the same stocks. An
NMFS report showed the Atlantic recreational tuna catch to
be 10.5 million pounds in 1970.

In the Pacific Ocean, albacore and bluefin tuna are of
interest to recreational fishermen. A 1971 California Fish
and Game Department report stated that sport anglers consider
albacore to be one of the more desirable gamefishes for
recreational fishing. Most sportfishing is done in southern
and central California waters within 60 to 80 miles of shore.
The report also stated that sportsmen are keenly interested
in catching bluefin tuna in California and the partyboat
industry development has made bluefin more accessible to
sportfishermen. The NMFS report showed that 8 million
pounds of tuna were caught in the Pacific by recreational
fishermen in 1970.

Management controls

Internationally, four commissions study and/or manage
the tuna resource. The Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commi-
sion (IATTC), established in 1950, was composed of eight
member nations in 1976: Canada, Costa Rica, France, Japan,
Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, and the United States. The
IATTC's function is to (1) study tropical tunas and other
fish caught by tuna fishing vessels and (2) recommend joint
conservation measures to maintain the species around maximum
sustainable yield. The IATTC has implemented conservation
measures by establishing a harvesting quota which limits
the yellowfin tuna harvest in an area known as the commis-
sion's yellowfin regulatory area (CYRA). CYRA extends from
north of San Francisco, California, to northern Chile (see
figure 1), and encompasses approximately 5 million square
miles. According to an NMFS official, the IATTC has succeed-
ed in maintaining the yellowfin tuna resource.

259

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

ilaa� t~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~oo, o

EASTERN PACIFIC YELLOWFIN TUNA
REGULATORY AREA

UlqrroD STATES 0

�i -N s-I

MEXICO

aag

Cr ; ~,, r(OSA,

- ~ EECLADOC

A ~~~~~~~~PER,
EXPRIMNTA. AEAOPEN
TO YLLO~iNFISHING
iN 1973 AND 1974

30' S
C-_a~
SC5 5-CL 0. 51 1k(.B

� I 00, 6,

FIGURE 1

260

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

In 1969 the International Commission for the Conserva-
tion of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) was established with respon-
sibility for the scientific study and management of tuna
and bilifishes in the Atlantic Ocean. In 1976 members of
the ICCAT included Brazil, Canada, Cuba, France, Ghana,
Ivory Coast, Japan, Republic of Korea, Morocco, Portugal,
Senegal, South Africa, Spain, and the United States. The
ICCAT has taken steps towards establishing a conservation
program for bluefin tuna caught in the Atlantic Ocean.

The two remaining international commissions are the
Indian Ocean Fishery Commission and the Indo-Pacific Fish-
eries Council. They are concerned with all the fisheries
of the Indian and western Pacific Oceans and were established
within the framework of FAQ. Neither of these bodies has a
research staff or permanent secretariat and, as a result,
the work accomplished is from working groups of scientists
affiliated with other organizations. These commissions pro-
mote programs of fishery development and conservation and
encourage cooperation and coordination between member nations.

In addition to the international commissions, tuna fish-
ermen are also affected by the Marine Mammal Protection Act
of 1972, which placed a moratorium on the taking of marine
mammals by any individual or vessel subject to the juris-
diction of the United States. This act directly affected
the U.S. tuna fishing industry, as the harvesting method
primarily used by U.S. tuna fishermen--purse seining--in-
volved the incidental killing of porpoise.
The State of California has also imposed regulations on
minimum weights for tuna.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR GROWTH

Resource availability

A 1974 NMFS report stated the western Pacific and Indian
Oceans are the only areas in the world where large-scale
expansion of the tuna fisheries may be possible. Within the
Western Pacific, the catch of skipjack tuna could be expand-
ed. The NMFS report indicated that although the current
harvest was 200 million pounds, the annual skipjack harvest
could range up to 2 billion pounds. This resource lies in
an area of 11 million square miles, with U.S. flag or trust
islands strategically positioned throughout. NMFS reported
that with small exceptions the resource is not utilized by
U.S. interests. The current annual harvest is made primarily
by foreign vessels.

261

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

In the Indian Ocean considerably iless is known about
the abundance and distribution of the tuna resource than in
the western Pacific. According to an FAO report, the aggre-
gate potential of the fishery may run as high as 660 million
pounds a year.

Harvesting capability

An NMFS official informed us the U.S. tuna fleet has the
capability to harvest the available resource in the eastern
Pacific traditional fisheries. In the western Pacific, new
harvesting techniques are being developed to allow capture
of the skipjack. (See p. 263.)

Product development and processing

A representative of one of the major tuna processors
told us that processing capability exists to adequately
process and market all harvested tuna in a manner acceptable
to the consumer.

Marketing potential

Demand for tuna in the United States has been growing
more than 6 percent a year since 1965 and, according to a
1974 FAO report, is expected to continue upward in the
world's main markets.

OBSTACLES INHIBITING GROWTH
AND DEVELOPMENT

Resource availability

By 1971 NMFS officials considered the stocks of temperate
and tropical tuna species in the traditional grounds were
being exploited at nearly their potential maximum. An NMFS
official informed us that the increased 1970-75 domestic
tuna catch resulted, in part, from a greatly intensified
fishing effort by U.S. purse seiners. Future sustained
catch increases of yellowfin and albacore tuna are not
expected in the eastern Pacific traditional fishery.

In addition, U.S. fishermen are having difficulty in
using their traditional tuna fishing grounds in the eastern
Pacific because of the trend toward extended national juris-
diction over fishing resources.

Harvesting capability

Harvesting obstacles center around (1) overcoming problems
in harvesting skipjack tuna in the western Pacific, (2) the

262

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

overcapitalization of the purse-seine fleet, and (3) effects
of the Marine Mammal Protection Act on purse seining for
tuna.

The skipjack tuna, an underdeveloped resource in the
western Pacific, is caught by U.S. fishermen in the eastern
Pacific by two techniques, bait fishing or purse seining.
Bait fishing throughout the western Pacific is hindered by
the lack of adequate bait supplies. An NMFS report stated
that a large expansion of a U.S. or trust territory bait-
boat fishery in this region is predicated upon development
of a reliable supply of good bait.

The other technique, purse seining, is used effectively
to catch yellowfin and skipjack tunas in the eastern Pacific,
but it appears that harvesting methods used in other regions
are not transferable to the western Pacific. Pacific skip-
jack tuna exist in very clear water with complex currents.
Clear water increases the chances that the tuna may evade a
conventional net and complex currents hinder the net's sink-
ing rate. Additionally, the skipjack's movement patterns
are hard to predict, making it extremely difficult to
position a vessel to drop a net. These characteristics make
it difficult to purse seine skipjack tuna. NMFS officials
feel that skipjack catches will increase, and perhaps sub-
stantially so, if fishing techniques can be altered. A
joint industry-government program was established in 1974
to develop new techniques.

The buildup of more vessels than needed to harvest the
tuna resource in the eastern Pacific is an example of how
overcapitalization occurs in a fishery. The rise in tuna
prices during the 1960s resulted in excellent profits which
encouraged new vessel construction. This new construction,
primarily large purse seine vessels, expanded the U.S. fleet
from 41,400 tons of catch capacity to 124,300 tons over the
period from 1967 to 1975. A consultant reported that for-
eign interests also expanded their fleets. The additional
vessels resulted in the fleet capacity being substantially
larger than required for harvesting of the tuna stocks in
the eastern Pacific. This led to a drop in catch per ton
of U.S. fleet capacity from 5.03 tons in 1967 to 2.06 tons
in 1975, a 59-percent decline.

Fuel costs doubled between 1972 and 1975; considering
the great distances the tuna fleet travels (thousands of
miles to Central and South America, and even further to
eastern Africa), fuel costs greatly affect the fishery. NMFS
reported that a 1,200-ton capacity seiner will use around
$200,000 worth of fuel a year. In the past, yearly tuna

263

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

price increases had helped to Offset rising costs and de-
clining harvests. In 1975, however, the fleet's catch
brought lower prices and earnings suffered appreciably.
NMFS estimated that all but the largest vessels were in a
net loss financial position in 1975.

The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 established as
a goal that the incidental marine mammal kill rate approach
zero mortality; commercial fishermen were allowed 2 years
to reduce mortality without penalties. NMFS, which has the
responsibility for enforcing the act, permitted the tuna
industry in late 1974 to continue purse seining in order to
further develop new fishing gear. NMFS engaged in research
with industry in an attempt to design gear or techniques that
would reduce the incidental killing. New gear and techniques
were developed with resulting decreases in the incidental
killing from over 300,000 in 1972, to 179,000 in 1973, and
98,000 in 1974. However, when in 1975 the incidental kill-
ing increased to 134,000, several environmental groups filed
suits demanding purse seining be stopped. An official of
the Marine Mammal Commission reported they requested NMFS
set a maximum quota on the marine mammal kill for 1976 to
return to the 1974 level or better. NMFS refused, however,
to set a quota before the 1976 season. An NMFS official
said they intended to set a quota in early 1976 if the num-
ber was not reduced. But in May 1976 a U.S. Federal Dis-
trict Court judge ruled that purse seining "on porpoise"
for tuna violated the Marine Mammal Protection Act and
ordered the U.S. tuna fishing industry to stop purse sein-
ing for tuna. An NMFS official said that following an appeal
of the District Court's ruling to the Third Circuit Court
of Appeals, an indefinite stay was placed on the lower court's
ruling, pending the Circuit Court's review and decision con-
cerning the ruling. In the meantime, NMFS had placed a quota
of 78,000 on the allowed incidental porpoise killing.

We were told the effect of this court ruling is yet to
be felt, but if unaltered, it will lower the domestic yellow-
f in harvest. Both NMFS and tuna industry officials agreed
that the killing of porpoise is an unavoidable element in
the most efficient tuna catching technique currently employed
by U.S. fishermen.

According to NMFS, a bill (H.R. 13865) designed to over-
turn the District Court's ruling was introduced on May 18,
1976. This bill would allow the Department of Commerce
unrestricted authority, after December 31, 1976, to establish
regulations governing the killing of marine mammals. As of
July 1976 the bill was pending before the House Committee
for Merchant Marine and Fisheries.

264

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Product development
and processing

We were informed by an industry official that product
development and processing does not present an obstacle
inhibiting growth and development of the tuna fishery.

Market development

An industry official told us that no obstacles exist
in tuna market development. According to an industry con-
sultant, the slow growth rate of the tuna industry is a
result of limitations in the supply of tuna being harvested
rather than of marketing problems.

Management controls

An October 1975 internal NMFS report stated that fish-
ery management controls and regulations have reduced and
could eliminate the access of U.S. tuna fishermen to the
traditional tuna resource in the eastern Pacific. This
reported reduction and potential elimination, has resulted
from inequalities in control and management imposed upon
U.S. fishermen as compared to foreign tuna fleets in the
fishery.

NMFS and industry representatives gave the following
examples to show how this inequality affects U.S. tuna
fishermen. First, U.S. tuna fishermen are subject to reg-
ulations protecting marine mammals to which other nations
are not subject. According to NMFS, the porpoise-saving
requirements of the Marine Mammal Protection Act imposed
on domestic fishermen are not similarly enforced by foreign
governments on their fishermen. The United States is the
only country which imposes regulations on the killing of
porpoise. An industry representative told us the additional
gear and catch procedures, necessary to reduce the porpoise
killing, result in increased cost and time loss. This
reduces the U.S. tuna industry's competitive position in
the world tuna market.

Second,, international tuna fishing restrictions in the
eastern Pacific are only enforced upon U.S. tuna fishermen.
According to NMFS, U.S. fishermen fishing for yellowf in tuna
in the eastern Pacific are subjected to inequitable treat-
ment relative to foreign fishermen. While the U.S. Govern-
ment strictly enforces the IATTC recommendations, none of
the foreign governments whose fishermen participate in the
yellowf in tuna fishery within the CYRA has adequate regu-
lations or enforcement procedures to insure IATTC's conser-
vation program is honored. Most of the foreign governments

265

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

do not have the means to insure compliance from their large
vessels. NMFS reported that all countries with large capa-
city vessels have ignored the fact that their vessels fish
freely in the CYRA during the closed season despite offers
by the United States to utilize its monitoring system.
This inequity is important since, according to NMFS, the
quantity of yellowf in tuna taken during the closed season
is estimated by the IATTC and is considered in arriving at
the annual quota. The proportion of the yellowfin quota
available to the U.S. fleet in the CYRA each year is being
progressively reduced because the quantity of yellowf in
tuna taken by foreign fleets during the closed season is
increasing each year. NMFS believes if the foreign fleets
continue to grow rapidly and if nothing is done to correct
this, the U.S. fleet will soon be eliminated from the CYRA.

Third, the United States has not utilized available
sanctions to compel foreign tuna fleets to comply with
national and international regulations and restrictions.
According to NMFS, the United States, through provisions
of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 and the Fisher-
men's Protective Act of 1967, has the authority to attempt
to discourage foreign tuna fishermen from fishing "on
porpoise" and fishing not in accordance with IATTC conser-
vation recommendations. Provisions in both acts call for
importation prohibitions against foreign countries fishing
in opposition to the acts. Both NMFS and industry repre-
sentatives stated that the United States has never taken
any sanctions against foreign fishermen for repeated viola-
tions of national or international regulations. An NMFS
official stated that if the U.S. Government is going to
enforce economically detrimental regulations upon U.S. fish-
ermen, it should also bar imports from foreign fishermen.

EFFECTS OF A 200-MILE
LIMIT ON THE FISHERY

The Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976
established a 200 nautical mile fishery conservation zone
contiguous to the territorial waters of the United States.
The act excludes highly migratory species, such as tuna,
from exclusive management authority of the United States.
However, the act does encourage implementing and enforcing
international agreements for highly migratory species.

NMFS, IATTC, and the U.S. tuna industry representatives
anticipate this act will have a negative effect on the U.S.
tuna fishery. We were told the following problems could
result from implementing this act.

266

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

--Re-duced U.S. access to traditional fisheries:

An industry representative stated the enactment by
the United States of a 200-mile conservation zone will
sanction existing conservation zones and encourage
other coastal nations to establish zones. Industry,
IATTC and NMFS officials believe this will eventually
force the United States out of many traditional fish-
ing grounds and lessen the domestic tuna catch.

--increased operating costs and fishing restrictions:

An industry consultant reported that if foreign
nations license U.S. vessels to fish within their 200-
mile conservation zones, the fees could add $100 to
$200 thousand a year in operating costs for each purse
seiner, which could make licensing fees equal to fuel
costs.

In 1973 for example, Ecuador, which had an estab-
lished 200-mile fishing zone, assessed a licensing fee
of $55,000 per trip for a 1,100-ton purse seiner.
Costa Rica, another country with a 200-mile fishing zone,
proposed in 1975 to charge a similar size purse -seiner
$71,500 for an initial fishing permit, with a renewal fee
.of $66,000 for 60 additional days.

An industry representative informed us Mexico and
Costa Rica may require that their nationals be employed
as crew members by U.S. vessels fishing in their ter-
ritorial waters. Foreign crew requirements may approach
75 percent.

--Endangered international fishery control:

An IATTC official stated the IATTC is near collapse
due to the enactment of fishery conservation zones.
The coastal nations in the IATTC are setting up a new
commission designed to allow each nation to control
the resource within its own zone. According to the
IATTC and tuna industry representatives, national con-
trol of tuna will not be effective because of the
international migration patterns of the resource. They
claim tuna management must be internationally controlled.

The Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976,
however, specifically includes sanctions designed to mini-
mize the anticipated negative effects on the tuna fishery.
The following four provisions were designed to reduce the
negative effects.

267

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

(1) The Secretary of State is required to negotiate
with foreign countries to obtain equitable access
to foreign fisheries.

(2) The United States will not recognize foreign con-
servation zones if U.S. vessels are denied fishery
access, or if restrictions or conditions imposed
are unrelated to fishery conservation and manage-
ment.

(3) The United States will not recognize foreign con-
servation zones if the foreign nation fails to
agree that highly migratory species are to be
internationally managed.

(4) The Secretary of State will impose importation
prohibitions against some or all fishery products
from a foreign nation which fails to negotiate
fishery agreements, denies fishery access, dis-
regards international agreements, or seizes U.S.
vessels.

Tuna industry and IATTC officials do not believe the
sanctions provided in the act will minimize the act's nega-
tive effects upon the U.S. tuna industry. According to a
tuna industry representative, the United States has never
taken effective sanctions against foreign nations for
repeated violations of IAT*TC regulations, or for seizing
U.S. vessels, although international agreements allow for
sanctions against such violations. The industry represent-
ative stated there are no indications these new enforcement
provisions would be utilized more effectively than past
provisions. An industry consultant agreed the United States
does not have, nor has ever had, a believable sanction pro-
gram.

An NMFS report has concluded that import prohibitions
on tuna or other fish products from a foreign nation would
only impose an inconvenience until alternative markets were
developed. With the high world tuna demand and limited
resource supply, this inconvenience would be only temporary.

According to a tuna industry representative, even if
the U.S. tuna fleet is granted fishing access within foreign
conservation zones, it may still be eliminated from these
fishing grounds. Elimination could result from anticipated
decreases in annual catch quotas that may be imposed by
foreign nations.

An IATTC commissioner reported that the U.S. tuna fish-
ermen can, and probably will, be shut out of the major

268

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

traditional fishing grounds unless the United States can
negotiate access. He reported that the United States should
make its best effort to negotiate using whatever leverages
are available, even though there is little hope for success.

269

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

UNDERUTILIZED FISH RESOURCES

In addition to the utilized fish species supporting
major fisheries, many other species are located in the
U.S. coastal waters that are not used commercially or are
currently only partially used.

Following are examples of selected underutilized
species pointing out problems not only applicable to these
species but also applicable to some extent to all under-
utilized species.

MULLET

Mullet are found worldwide in tropical and subtropical
waters. In the Americas mullet are found from Maine to
Brazil in the Atlantic and from Monterey, California, to
Chile in the Pacific. The largest quantity, however, exists
in North Carolina to Texas waters, with the primary fish-
ery found along the gulf coast of Florida. Mullet are
considered an underused species because the catch is far
below the estimated potential yield.

STATUS OF FISHERY

Current harvest

The Florida mullet landings in 1972 account for about
89 percent by volume and 91 percent by value of the total
U.S. landings of mullet. The following table shows Gulf
States black mullet landings for 1972 by State.

State Volume Value
(pounds)

Texas 90,700 $ 4,495
Louisiana 15,700 821
Mississippi 221,000 12,555
Alabama 1,513,300 88,689
Florida 28,853,900 2,556,307

Total Gulf States 30,694,600 $2,662,867

Although mullet are the primary species for several
fleets in Florida, the fishery is declining. During the
late 1950s and early 1960s annual mullet landings consis-
tently exceeded 33 million pounds. This production figure
has dropped below 30 million pounds, with production in
1974 listed at 29.1 million pounds.

270

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Annual and monthly mullet prices are quite responsive.
to the amount of mullet landed. Since the 1950s the dock-
side price of mullet has consistently been less than 10 cents
a pound, even with continuing inflation and a secular in-
crease in the prices of other seafood products.

Products and markets

Mullet are currently processed and marketed in four
basic product forms. Mullet frozen in the round, that is
without heading or gutting, account for an estimated 63
percent of the mullet landed. About 25 percent of the
mullet landed is sold fresh throughout the year based on
availability. Smoked mullet, making up about 6 percent of
the landings, is a very popular item in Florida. Mullet
roe has recently become important in the export market, which
makes up about 6 percent of the landings. The principal
market for roe is in Japan where it is processed into a
dried and cured product called karasumi. Mullet are market-
ed in the southern part of the United States (65 percent)
and in the major northeastern cities (35 percent).

Fishing fleets

In the Gulf States, there-are no major fishing fleets
exclusively for harvesting mullet. Mullet are harvested
by several different fleets using a variety of gear which
catch numerous species. Most of the catch is made by
gillnet.

Employment

In the Gulf States, few fishermen are dedicated ex-
clusively to catching mullet. Fishermen harvesting mullet
also harvest a variety of other finfish species at certain
times of the year, and most of them are individually inde-
pendent.

Recreational fishing

Mullet are not in great demand as a sports fish. Hlow-
ever, silver mullet are valued as a sport-fishing bait and
are also considered an important food source for big game
fish.

Management controls

At the present time there is no overall management
scheme for mullet in the Gulf of Mexico. Total effort and
harvest are not restricted. None of the Gulf States, ex-
cept Florida, have any laws or regulations regarding mullet.

271

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Florida has established a minimum length for black mullet
and certain counties have laws regulating gear, fishing
areas, and size restrictions.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR GROWTH AND
DEVELOPMENT OF THE FISHERY

Resource availability

Mullet have been regarded over the years as an extremely
underused species. Although available in large quantities
from North Carolina to Texas, total U.S. landings have never
exceeded 45 million pounds in any one year. NMFS biologists
estimate the maximum sustainable yield to be between 150 to
200 million pounds annually.

Harvesting capability

Mullet are relatively easy and inexpensive to catch
because they school in the intercoastal waters and bays
in large concentrations. They can be taken by gillnets,
seines, cast nets, and trammel nets. Mullet fishing gener-
ally requires low capital investment and low operating
costs. These conditions allow easy entry.

Product development and processing

Marketed mullet product forms are: fresh, frozen,
smoked, and roe. other product forms that are possible for
increasing the use of mullet are canned, fillets, headed
and gutted, and minced products. The actual potential for
the products is not known.

Marketing potential

Alternatives for possible market expansion of mullet
include expanding of existing markets, expanding into new
geographical areas, expanding by using mullet in products
such as fish sticks and cakes which are not identified to
a particular fish but which are produced from other fish
species, and expanding through the development of new
products.

OBSTACLES INHIBITING GROWTH A14D
DEVELOPMENT OF THE FISHERY

Product development and processing

Black mullet have, traditionally, been sold fresh or
frozen in the round at retail seafood markets. Consumer
buying patterns have tended to shift toward food purchases

27 2

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

of processed convenience items at supermarkets and away
from unprocessed items at smaller independent markets,
a trend which hinders moving unprocessed fresh and frozen
seafood items. Since mullet are sold primarily in the round,
the consumer is not attracted.

Another factor hindering the development of mullet
products is the technological problem of rancidity. This
problem has limited the use of mullet as a processed item
and has therefore kept the mullet industry from adjusting
to changing-consumption trends and consumer-buying patterns.
Efforts to resolve this problem have been sporatic, of low
priority, and not very successful. Work in this area is
continuing under a Federal grant. Resolving this problem
will permit the development of new products and markets
which should result in increased demand and use of mullet.
The image problem is considered minor, compared to rancidity.

A lesser problem inhibiting the development of mullet
products is the fact that mullet have a low dress-out f act-
or--about 30 percent for boneless fillets and about 60 per-
cent headed and gutted. This low yield results in a higher
cost product. Mullet also develop off-flavors and odors
resulting from feeding habits or from pollution in some
localities.

Market development

Outside the coastal areas in which black mullet are
caught and mostly consumed, an image problem exists. This
problem is most prevalent in large metropolitan areas
among consumers who think of mullet as a cheap food for low-
income people. Also, because mullet are often sold in the
round and needs cleaning many consumers hesitate to buy them.

Canned mullet and fresh and frozen headed and gutted
mullet have been marketed on a test basis several times,
but the results were not encouraging. However, development
of a better product could provide a basis for successful
marketing at a future time.

EFFECTS OF A 200-MILE LIMIT ON THE FISHERY

The 200-mile-extended jurisdiction will have little
impact on the fishery because most mullet harvested by U.S.
fishing craft are caught within 12 miles off the coast.
There is no foreign activity within 200 miles of the U.S.
coast for this fish.

27 3

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

CROAKER

The industrial groundfish and foodfish fisheries for
Atlantic croaker in the northern Gulf of Mexico are rela-
tively recent fisheries which began in 1952 and 1967,
respectively. The fishing grounds that support the trawl
fisheries for croaker are along the coast from Galveston,
Texas, to Pensacola, Florida, and extend seaward from
shore to a water depth of about 50 fathoms. Although both
fisheries exploit the same stocks, basic differences exist.
The industrial groundfish are used principally for pet
food and to a lesser extent for bait and fishmeal, whereas
the foodfish requires croaker for fresh-fish markets. Fish-
ing vessels, gear, and tactics are similar but not identical
among the fisheries.

Although croaker is considered a major fishery for the
Gulf States, it is also considered an underused fish because
large quantities are harvested (along with other finfish)
incidentally as a bycatch during shrimp trawling and is re-
turned to the sea (discarded), mostly dead. These bycatches
are estimated to be as high as 18 to 20 pounds for every
pound of shrimp caught, or about 2 billion pounds annually,
of which the croaker is the major species.

STATUS OF FISHERY

Current harvest

The industrial groundfish catch in 1975 was 103.2
million pounds, valued at $2.7 million ex-vessel and $25
million processed. The croaker foodfish catch in 1975 was
9 million pounds, valued at 1.2 million dollars.

The following two tables show the trends in landings
and value for the fisheries.

Landings and Value of the Edible Croaker Fishery
1971-75

Year Pounds Dollars
(Millions) (Millions)

1971 8.4 1.0
1972 9.1 1.1
1973 13.2 1.7
1974 10.6 1.3
1975 9.0 1.2

274

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Annual Production by the Industrial Bottomfish Fishery
Northern Gulf of Mexico
1971-75

Thousands
Year Dollars of tons

1971 1.7 45.4
1972 1.7 41.3
1973 2.5 50.8
1.974 2.7 52.6
1975 2.7 51.6

The volume of fish discards--2 billion pounds--is
only a crude estimate, because no one keeps a detailed
record of discards. There is no established market value
for discards. Based on the industrial groundfish ex-vessel
price--about 2.6 cents a pound--the potential price range for
discards is narrow.

Products and markets

Industrial groundfish, most of which are croaker, are
used principally for pet food and to a lesser extent for
bait, animal food, and fish meal. The pet-food market has
shown gradual growth over the last 10 years to a peak in
1973. A slight decline in pet-food volume occurred in
1974 due to increasing use of animal byproducts to produce
"gourmet packs" and a decreased market for canned cat food.
Using industrial groundfish for fishmeal by a plant in Lou-
isiana, converted from menhaden, has offset the decline in
pet-food sales.

Croaker was very popular as a foodfish along the
southeast Atlantic coast about 25 years ago and was caught
in abundance. The catch peaked at 60 million pounds in
194~ but declined precipitously in succeeding years partly
due to overfishing but mainly to several abrupt climatic
chanoge that either killed the croaker or drove them out of
their traditional area of abundance. In 1967 large croaker
s:uddenly appeared in considerably large quantities, and a
lisher- was established in the gulf with ready markets along
the 0, '.j...eake Bay.

P'?-;-ElEnt yi 21 vessels operate fulltime in the industrial
..t...... :S f~_ishery. These vessels range in length frorn 60
to, ':' 7-t. with -arrying capacitie, f-rom 63 to 125 tons.

275

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

There is no movement of vessels into and out of this fishery
due to the special arrangements of the holds and close ties
among the vesseloperators and processors. About eight of
the vessels are owned by the processors.

At the start of the fishery in 1967, the foodfish
croaker fleet was made up of large shrimp vessels, but vessel
modifications were required as catches increased. These
modifications were primarily in handling larger, more effi-
cient trawls and in increasing the holding capacity.

The number of vessels engaged in the fishery include 26
full-time vessels and up to 40 additional part-time vessels.
The part-time vessels are shrimp trawlers which fish for
croaker during off-seasons for shrimp or when economic con-
ditions are more favorable in the croaker fishery. Transi-
tion from the shrimp fishery to the croaker foodfish fishery
is easily accomplished.

The following table shows the status of the fleets for
both trawl fisheries as of 1973.

Industrial fleet Foodfish fleet

Number of vessels 21 26

Typical vessel length (feet) 90 78

Horsepower 470 350

Capacity (tons) 131 80

Replacement value of fleet $4,675,000 $3,510,000

Employment

Employment statistics for these fisheries are not pub-
lished by NMFS. The average crew size is three men for each
vessel for both industrial and foodfish vessels.

Production employment levels are likewise not published,
but NMFS personnel estimated that an average four to five em-
ployees at each of six fresh foodfish plants spend more of
their time in activities relating to croaker. The combined
employment level of the industrial bottomfish processors was
estimated at 350.

Recreational fishinq

Croaker is heavily exploited by recreational fishermen.
In 1970 recreational fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico caught

276

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

an estimated 62.8 million pounds, compared to the commercial
foodfish catch of 5.7 million pounds and the industrial
groundfish catch of 102.2 million pounds.

Management controls

There is no overall management scheme for the Gulf of
Mexico croaker fisheries. There are no Federal or State
regulations specifically concerning croaker fisheries in the
Gulf.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR GROWTH AND
DEVELOPMENT OF THE FISHERY

Resource availability

Croaker has one of the highest potentials among gulf
fisheries for expansion and development and is currently
vastly underused in terms of potential yield. Estimates of
potential annual yield exceed 500 million pounds. Current
landings are being taken from grounds that comprise less
than 10 percent of the area over which the fish is distrib-
uted.

Harvesting capability

Harvesting capability in the Gulf of Mexico is more
than adequate to satisfy the current market demands. Indus-
trial groundfish fishermen are frequently assigned quotas by
processors to limit their catches to match production re-
quirements.

Additional opportunities for increasing the harvest ex-
ist if cost-effective methods are developed for sorting and
storing croakers and other discarded species caught inci-
dental to trawling for shrimp and foodfish croaker and for
separating and storing the larger croaker caught incident-
ally in the industrial groundfish fishery.

Product development and processing

Additional product development could provide expanded
markets for croaker foodfish. No technological breakthrough
is required to produce the new products. Minced croaker
flesh mixed with minced shrimp was once marketed in a frozen
breaded form. According to manufacturers, most minced fish
can be pressed into large fish blocks, which can be processed
into a variety of possible items.

27 7

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

Processing improvements in the development of an efficient
laborsaving machine to scale, head, and gut the fish could
improve the cost' price structure for minced products.

Marketing

Additional marketing opportunities exist for croaker
fisheries by utilizing both small and large fish for the ed-
ible market and by expanding fresh-fish markets into new lo-
calities.

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department has pursued
market development of croaker on a city-by-city basis,
starting with San Antonio. The name was enhanced to Golden
Croaker to improve marketability, and the fresh fish were
marketed at 28 grocery stores in San Antonio. During a
3-week period of heavy promotion, 31,000 pounds of croaker
were sold at 50 to 60 cents a pound.

Additional opportunities being investigated by NMFS
personnel include exporting a minced product called Surimi
to Japanese processors who are looking for new sources of
raw fish supply. Test samples of croaker indicate that a
good potential exists for exporting Surimi to Japanese proc-
essors who use Surimi as an intermediate product. An NMFS
marketing specialist estimated that within 3 years the ex-
port potential would be over 400,000 pounds a day.

OBSTACLES INHIBITING GROWTH AND
DEVELOPMENT OF THE FISHERY

Resource availability

Croakers are estuarine dependent, and loss of this en-
vironment through land fills or pollution would affect pop-
ulation levels and stability.

Harvesting capabilities

The common concept of harvesting only prime species cur-
rently in demand, such as shrimp, and discarding the rest is
a firmly established institutional pattern which hinders the
development and use of other species.

Product development and processing

A high-cost price structure may inhibit the development
of minced croaker products if hand labor is required to scale,
head, and gut fish. The development of an efficient

278

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

laborsaving machine for these tasks is a prerequisite to the
establishment of a viable minced-flesh industry for croaker.

Market development

Croaker has been regarded as a low-grade fish and does
not have the consumer appeal as that of other species. Re-
tail merchandising is a problem area. Food store personnel
do not have the handling technique and also give low status
to fish.

A university study for the western Gulf of Mexico which
covered the marketability of incidental catches concluded
that fish products derived from discards were affected by
competing products in the larger markets of which they were
a part. But many product markets will easily absorb products
processed from discard-type fish.

EFFECTS OF A 200-MILE LIMIT ON THE FISHERY

The 200-mile-extended jurisdiction will provide protec-
tion for a major part of the croaker fisheries because a
large portion of the Gulf of Mexico croaker fishing grounds
are in the 12- to 200-mile zone. There is no foreign fishing
within this zone.
HERRING-LIKE FISHES

There are many species of coastal pelagic fish found in
the Gulf of Mexico and southeast Atlantic. The use of these
pelagic stocks is minimal. Several of these species, the
clupeoid or herring-like fishes, are considered to have a
potential for industrial and foodfish utilization. The spe-
cies so considered include round herring, thread herring,
scaled sardines, spanish sardines, and one or more species
of anchovies.

STATUS OF GULF STATES HERRING-LIKE FISHERIES

In 1974 the only reported landings of the herring-like
fishes under consideration occurred in one Gulf State--
Florida. The species landed, thread herring and spanish
sardines, are used as bait in recreational fishing.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR GROWTH AND
DEVELOPMENT OF HERRING-LIKE FISHERIES

Resource availability

In 1968 a coastal pelagic latent resource potential of
8,337 million pounds was estimated for the Gulf of Mexico.
Herrings, sardines, and anchovies were considered to be the

27 9

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

species of greatest potential. Recent estimates of stock
size for several species in the eastern Gulf of Mexico are
shown below. Estimates of potential annual yield were ob-
tained from mean biomass estimates.

Estimated maximum
Mean biomass sustainable yield
estimate (note a) (million pounds)
Species (million pounds) M=0.50 M=0.75 M=1.00
-----(note b) ----

Thread herring 531 133 199 266

Scaled sardines 406 101 152 203

Round herring 836 209 313 .417

Aggregate potential
yield 443 664 .886

aBased on 2 or more years of data.

bYields are given for three possible levels of the natural
mortality coefficient (M).

No estimate was obtained for spanish sardine biomass,
but it is believed to be about 551 million pounds. If the
spanish sardine biomass is that amount, it could contribute
from 138 to 276 million pounds to the annual yield, raising
the total aggregate yield to a maximum of about 1,157 million
pounds.

Anchovy stocks in the Gulf were not estimated but are
believed to be probably as large as the herring and sardine
stocks.

Harvesting capability

NMFS researchers have proposed an automated fishing
system they believe will effectively harvest the herring-like
resources. This system would be unmanned from harvesting
through processing; the only manpower or vessel requirement
would be to service and maintain fishing platforms and to
off load the processed products.

The proposed system would be based on the unused oil rig
platforms as attractors of coastal pelagic fishes. The fish
that congregate around and under the platforms would be per-
iodically harvested with the aid of attraction lights and
electrical fields. An automatic processing vessel or barge,

280

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

with attraction and harvesting equipment installed on it,
would pump the fish from the electrical field into onboard
automatic processing machinery where the fish would be con-
verted into fishmeal and oil. An alternative to this ap-
proach would be to install electrical hardware and automatic
processing machinery on the platform itself. Fish would be
periodically pumped into automatic processors, and the re-
sulting fishmeal would be stored on the platform to await
collection by a shuttle boat.

Thread herring is harvested with purse seines. Research
indicates that herring-like fishes can be concentrated for
purse seining by using tent devices, submerged three-dimen-
sional structures. Schemes have been proposed to put a
string of tents in the water. After the last tent is set
out, the fishing vessel would return to the first tent and
harvest the schooled fish.

Product development and processing

Establishing herring-like fish fisheries is based
largely on the industrial use of these species for fishmeal
and oil products. The reduction technology used in the men-
haden fishery is sufficient to process the herring-like fish
into meals and oils. Although all the species are suitable
for such use, a thread herring fishery is seen as a direct
complement to the Gulf menhaden fishery. Thread herring
yield as much oil, of equivalent quality, as menhaden yield,
although at different times of the year. Therefore thread
herring harvesting can be phased so as to stabilize the out-
put of the fish oil industry.

The herring-like fish also make good foodfish specialty
products--smoked, cured, and pickled fish products and sar-
dine packs.

Marketing potential

Markets currently exist for industrial and edible
herring-like fish products. The United States imports large
amounts of edible herring-like fish products, including
canned anchovies and sardines, and canned, pickled, and
smoked herring.

OBSTACLES INHIBITING GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT

Resource availability

Stock estimates of herring-like fish in the eastern
Gulf of Mexico have been made, but studies have not been

281

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

conducted for the northern Gulf. Also good data on age
structure and mortality rates of the eastern Gulf herring-
like stocks needs to be obtained in future research.

Harvesting capability

Thread herring can be taken with purse seines; however,
the harvesting of other herring-like fishes have been unsuc-
cessful because their behavior makes capture with standard
purse seines ineffective. These fish also avoid midwater
and bottom trawls.

When herring are used for fishmeal or fish protein con-
centrate, they must be harvested inexpensively by capturing
large quantities in a relatively short time, close to a proc-
essing plant. Various techniques have been tested to locate
schools; the most successful has been the use ot aircraft
with spotter pilots. Although harvesting techniques and
gear are inefficient, dockside processing of the catch has
evolved to almost total automation. As a result, the cost
of acquiring the raw material is the dominant factor control-
ling the price of the end product.

Product development and processing

A status quo philosophy on the part of the sardine-pack
and menhaden industries has contributed to the nondevelopment
of herring-like fisheries. There is a feeling that less con-
servative fishermen are moving into the menhaden industry.
This is shown by the industry's recent interest in explora-
tory fishing for thread herring.

Market development

No obstacles to market development are foreseen as in-
dustrial and edible herring-like fish products now find ac-
ceptance. An industrial thread herring fishery operated on
the west coast of Florida in the 1960s. The thread herring
landed were reduced in Florida to fishmeal, oil, and solubles.
The industry closed down when Florida prohibited purse-
seining.

Management controls

The legal ban on purse seining, except for bait fishing,
within 3 leagues of the west Florida coast constrains the
redevelopment of herring-like fisheries. The purse seine ban
makes it impossible to harvest scaled sardines, and a large
part of the thread herring is also inaccessible. Round

282

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

herring and much of the spanish sardine resource are located
offshore but, as discussed above, may be unavailable to
standard purse seining techniques.

EFFECTS OF A 200-MILE LIMIT
ON CLUPEOID FISHERIES

This limit is not expected to have an effect on the
clupeoid fisheries. Foreign fleets may be allowed to harvest
these resources on a rental basis within established quotas.

283

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV
PROFILES OF THE FISHING INDUSTRY IN.

SELECTED FOREIGN NATIONS

CANADA

PRESENT SITUATION AND TRENDS
IN THE CANADIAN FISHING INDUSTRY
In 1973 Canada's harvest ranked 15th among the world's
fishing nations, but only third in value of fish product
exports. Almost 70 percent of Canada's fish products are
exported, primarily to the United States.

Although the fishing industry provides employment for
less than I percent of Canada's labor force, in certain sec-
tions of the country the ind.ustry is a primary employer.
The economy of many coastal communities totally depends on
the industry.

Throughout most of the 1960s the fishing industry stead-
ily increased its harvest, which reached a high point of over
3.3 billion pounds in 1968. Since 1968, however, the harvest
has consistently declined until 1974. Prior to 1974 demand
for fish products resulted in higher prices and compensated
for lower catches. Preliminary information indicates this
was not true in 1974 when the fishing industry suffered an
economic crisis with large sections of the industry near eco-
nomic collapse. As a result, the Government began to study
ways to solve problems confronting the industry. The prob-
lems were attributed to the following causes:

--Overexploitation of the stocks.

--overcapacity of vessels and processing facilities.

--Instability of the industry.

--Failings in the market place.

Overexploitation of the offshore stocks, fished by both
Canadian and foreign vessels, was held as the main contrib-
uting factor in declining catches. Competing Canadian fish-
ermen tried to maximize their catch and stocks became de-
pleted. In addition, international fishing off Canada's
*coasts, particularly in the Atlantic Ocean, has intensified
steadily since the late 1950s.

Because the supply of fish available to Canadian fish-
ermen has dwindled, both the fleet and fish processing f a-
cilities are overcapitalized. Moreover, many processing
facilities are not located in areas where they could be
optimally used and the facilities have not been adapted for

284

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

diverse fish processing purposes. The Canadian Government
has contributed to overcapitalization through assistance pro-
gramns for expanding the fishing industry while fish supplies
were declining.

The industry also suffers from instability in product
prices, material costs, and availability of fish resources.
These instabilities have caused steep, and usually unfore-
seen, fluctuations in earnings and profits. Industry reac-
tion has been to increase capacity to handle the peaks in
supply, thus i~ncreasing the industry's overcapitalization.

Finally, there is excessive dependence on a single
market, fragmented marketing effort, and inconsistent product
quality. Sixty percent of all Canadian fish exports and
nearly all groundfish exports go to the United States. This
great reliance on a single outlet increases the industry's
vulnerability to economic fluctuations. The lack of coordi-
nated market effort among Canadian exporters has aggravated
the problem. A relatively large number of Canadian companies
compete with each other and with companies of other nations
for the U.S. market.

Variation in the quality of Canadian fish products has
reduced their acceptability to consumers. Because port
markets seldom pay higher prices for better quality fish
products, fishermen are indifferent to the quality of their
harvests. Official dockside inspection of the harvest is
generally lacking.

The Canadian Government, through the Ministry of Fish-
eries, established a committee in 1974 to develop a fisher-
ies rehabilitation policy. The resultant policy was devel-
oped in 1975 and led to the planned introduction of 14
programs by 1978. The programs will deal with

--developing and controlling the fleet,

--providing resource information and conservation,

--restructuring the fish processing industry,

--improving product quality and use,

--consolidating marketing efforts, and

--providing income adjustments to economically troubled
fishermen.

These programs represent a fundamental redirection in
Government policy, including a more direct intervention in
the industry.
285

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

EFFECTS OF EXTENDED JURISDICTION

Canada has also acted to protect its fish stocks from
overfishing by foreign fleets. Recognizing that ratifica-
tions of agreements reached at the Law of the Sea Conference,
being conducted under U.N. auspices, may take several years,
the Minister of State for Fisheries declared Canada's intent
to extend its fisheries jurisdiction to 200 miles by Janu-
ary 1, 1977.

Extension of Canada's fisheries jurisdiction will not,
by itself, solve the fishing industry's problems. The
effect of the 200-mile extension on the Pacific coast will
be relatively small because only limited stocks are availa-
ble within the extended zone. On the Atlantic coast, how-
ever, the future zone is of critical importance, especially
to the groundfish industry. Even with more controlled fish-
ing, it will take an estimated 3 to 5 years to rebuild some
of the depleted stocks.

Although several stocks of major importance to Canada
migrate beyond the 200-mile zone, the Government feels that
the new zone will adequately protect Canadian fishing
interests. The Government believes the stock population
located beyond the zone is not sufficient to attract a great
deal of foreign fishing.

Canada and the United States currently have an Agree-
ment on Reciprocal Fishing Privileges, initially negotiated
in 1970 and renegotiated in 1973. The Agreement provides
that each country may commercially fish certain species in
the other country's waters. Discussions concerning reci-
procity, enforcement, and management, in light of expanded
fishing zones, are underway. For those stocks moving be-
tween the United States and Canada's 200-mile zones, joint
Canadian-American management will be necessary. Precedents
for this kind of management exist. For stocks which migrate
beyond the 200-mile limit, management problems will be simi-
lar to those already existing. Also, the United States and
Canada may disagree about the geographical area encompassed
by the 200-mile zones. There is more than one method for
measuring seaward boundaries and in the past the United
States and Canada have advocated opposing methods.

In respect to international fishing commissions, the
Canadian Minister for Fisheries announced that Canada re-
mains committed to multilateral cooperation, but views
international commissions as serving advisory rather than
regulatory roles. For example, Canada intends to accept
recommendations of the International Commission for North-
west Atlantic Fisheries for quota allocations of surplus

286

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

stocks within its 200-mile zone but is reserving the right
to make final decisions. The Commission would continue to
set fishing quotas beyond the 200-mile zone.

STRUCTURE OF THE FISHING FLEET

The Canadian fishing fleet totaled 35,528 vessels in
1973. About 81 percent of the vessels were on the Atlantic
coast and about 19 percent were on the Pacific coast. The
following table shows the number of Canadian vessels of
various sizes.

Gross registered tons Vessels

Under 10 29,640

10 to 24 4,255

25 to 99 1,236

100 and over 397

Tot-al 35 , 52 8

As the table illustrates, the fleet is made up prima-
rily'of small craft, with over 95 percent of the fleet being
less than 25 gross registered tons. These small vessels
generally stay within a day's voyage of home port. Canada
engages in little distant water fishing.

OWNERSHIP, EMPLOYMENT, AND WAGES

Most fishing vessels are owned and operated by fisher-
men. Principal exceptions are about 250 larger vessels,
generally at least 100-feet long, which are owned by inte-
grated enterprises that catch, process, and trade fish on
the Atlantic coast.

In 1973 there were almost 51,000 marine fishermen.
Although this total represented a slight increase over 1972,
it was down substantially from a 19-year high of over 64,000
fishermen in 1963. About 77 percent of the fishermen were
an the Atlantic coast and about 23 percent were on the Pa-
cific coast. In most cases, fishermen had other part-time
jobs. Along parts of the Atlantic, for example, it was
common for fishermen to also work as farmers and loggers.

The incomes of commercial fishermen tend to be low.
However, there are wide variations among regions. On the
average, Pacific fishermen receive an annual gross income of

287

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

about $12,800 and Atlantic fishermen receive about $5,100.
These figures reflect the presence of many part-time and
occasional fishermen, especially in the Atlantic region.

Wages are generally based on catch size. Therefore,
earnings depend largely on the ability and initiative of the
individual, market conditions, and the stocks available for
harvesting. Fishermen unions are highly organized on the
west coast but much less so on the east coast.

MAJOR FISHING GROUNDS

Except for a high seas tuna fleet, most Canadian marine
fishing takes place off the Pacific and Atlantic continental
shelves. Over the past 20 years, Atlantic fisheries consis-
tently accounted for the greater share of the harvest. In
terms of price per pound, however, the Pacific harvest is
more valuable. For example, in each of the 5 years from
1970 to 1974, the Atlantic fisheries accounted for at least
83 percent of the harvest but never for more than 69 percent
of total landed value. In 1974 the Atlantic harvest ac-
counted for 85 percent of the total and 63 percent of the
landed value.

In both quantity and value, groundfish, especially cod,
is the most important specie of fish harvested in the
Atlantic. In the Pacific, salmon is by far the most impor-
tant species in terms of quantity and value.

SIZE AND COMPOSITION OF THE HARVEST

In 1973 Canada's harvest of 2.5 billion pounds was
valued at about $300 million. Canada's harvest has been
declining since 1968, largely due to over exploitation of
the stocks. Preliminary 1974 figures indicate that, unlike
previous years, demand for fish products was not high
enough to permit price increases to compensat4e for the lower
catches.

The following tables show specie groupings which ac-
counted for 83 percent of the harvest and 78 percent of the
value in 1973.

288

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

Percent of
Specie grouping Quantity total harvest

(millions
of pounds)

Herring 620.6 24
Cod 553.4 22
Redfish 375.9 15
Flounder 314.6 12
Salmon 244.9 10

2,109.4 83

All others 429.4 17

Total 2,538.8 100

Percent of
Specie grouping Value total value

(millions)

Salmon $ 95.5 32
Cod 42.8 14
Lobster 40.6 14
Flounder 32.3 11
Herring 21.4 7

232.6 78

All others 67.4 22

Total $300.0 100

For each of the 5 years from 1969 through 1973, the
species listed accounted for at least 83 percent of total
weight and 76 percent of total value of the catch.

PROCESSING FACILITIES

In 1973 there were about 650 fisheries plants in
Canada. About one-half of the plants were processing fish
and the remainder were packing plants and facilities where
fish did not undergo a change of form (e.g., fresh to
canned). The processing industry employed about 21,000
people in 1973. Most of the processing plants were small;
70 percent employed less than 50 people and only 1 percent
employed more than 500 people.

289

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

The groundfish processing industry of the Atlantic
coast is the major employer for Atlantic Coast fisheries
but is quite fragmented resulting in inefficient operations.
Vessels based at 2,000 locations deliver groundfish to over
1,000 landing points which then send the fish to more than
300 plants. Many of these plants are merely collection
stations which partly process fish for delivery to larger
plants. Generally, the groundfish processing plants are
small, supply only frozen fish, and are subject to restricted
periods of operations. Some plants operate less than 5
months of a year. Because of this only about one-half of
the annual groundfish production capacity of 750 million
pounds is currently being used.

The groundfish processing plants are owned by about 120
private companies. Twelve of these companies own 50 process-
ing plants which account for about 80 percent of Canada's
fresh and frozen groundfish production and 45 percent of
the total fish production on the Atlantic coast.

Competition is keen among Canadian processing companies
exporting fish products to foreign markets. For example,
80 companies compete for the U.S. groundfish market and 30
companies compete for a very small part of the U.S. crabmeat
market. Moreover, efforts to develop export markets have
been sporadic and uncoordinated. For these reasons, by 1975
many companies faced imminent bankruptcy and appealed for
Government assistance.

DOMESTIC USE OF FISH-PRODUCTS

Preliminary 1974 figures indicate Canada used 87 per-
cent of its catch for human consumption and 13 percent
principally for oil and fishmeal. Most fish used for food
was processed in a frozen form as shown in the following
table.

Type of fish product Percent of total

Frozen 53

Fresh 21

Cured 16

Canned -10

Total 100

29 0

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

Between 70 and 80 percent of the catch generally was
used for human consumption during the years between 1955
and 1969. Beginning in 1970 the portion used for food
steadily increased to the 1974 level of 87 percent--largely
because the use of frozen fish increased. Annual per capita
consumption of fish products has remained at about 12 pounds
since at least the 1940s. Sales promotion and the intro-
duction of new products have shifted consumer preference for
different types of fish products but have not raised per
capita demand. Consumption is highest in shoreline and
urban areas, suggesting that proximity to water or a fish
shop influences the amount of fish consumed. The products
in greatest demand are tuna and groundfish fillets and
blocks.

The price of fish increased by 277 percent between
1957 and 1974. There were wide variations in the annual
rates of price change, ranging from a 3-percent decrease to
a 32-percent increase.

IMPORTS AND EXPORTS

Canadian fish products satisfy about 70 percent of the
domestic demand. The balance in demand is provided by im-
ports of species not found in great abundance in Canadian
waterjs, particularly shrimp and tuna.

Imports have been steadily increasing, reaching a value
of $109.2 million in 1973. This represents an increase of
183 percent from 1969. In 1973 the United States and Japan
supplied almost three-quarters of Canadian imports. Shrimp
from the United States and tuna from Japan were the primary
imports. Over 90 percent of the imports were fresh, frozen,
or canned.

Canada is one of the world's major fish product export-
ers, ranking third in value exported and fourth in quantity
exported in 1973. Nearly 70 percent of Canada's fish pro-
ducts are exported. The value of the exports reached a
high point of $490.7 million in 1973 but declined by 12 per-
cent in 1974 to $440.1 million.

In 1973 59 percent of Canada's exports went to the
United States. The major products exported to the United
States were groundfish and lobster. Japan and the United
Kingdom each accounted for 11 percent of Canada's exports.
The primary product exported to Japan was fish roe. Salmon
was the chief export to the United Kingdom.
The high reliance on the U.S. market for exports in-
creases the Canadian industry's vulnerability to price

291

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

fluctuations. For example, Canadian groundfish prices
declined in 1973 because of market conditions in the United
States. Between 1969 and 1974 the Canadian groundfish in-
dustry has-lost a large portion of the U.S. market. Sales
of groundfish blocks declined from 33 percent to 12 percent
of the U.S. market and sales of groundfish fillets declined
from 74 percent to 48 percent.

ECONOMIC ROLE OF THE FISHING INDUSTRY

The Canadian fishing industry provides job opportunities
in regions which offer little alternative employment and is
a valuable source of foreign exchange. It also provides a
source of protein to Canadian consumers.

The industry contributes less than I percent to
Canada's total employment but is extremely important in
certain communities. About 75 percent of the communities
in Atlantic coast provinces engage in commercial fishing
and, of these communities, some 20 percent have no other
economic base. To a lesser extent, many isolated communities
on the Pacific coast depend on fishing and fish-related in-
dustries.

Fish exports generally have increased faster than im-
ports since 1964 contributing to a growing balance of trade
surplus for fish products. In 1973 exports exceeded imports
by $381.5 million.

Canada, like the United States, relies mostly on non-
fish products for its protein supply. Seafood consumption
represents about 5 percent of the combined meat and poultry
consumption.

GOVERNMENT ROLE IN FISHERIES

Over the past few years, the Canadian Government has
taken a more active role in managing the fishing industry.
The Canadian Federal Government has legislative jurisdiction
over its fisheries. The Government has been and will con-
tinue to be involved in all aspects of industry operations,
such as controlling the harvest, restructuring the fleet
and processing plants, and planning for the management of
an extended fisheries zone under Canadian jurisdiction.

Policy aims

In 1975 the Minister of State for Fisheries presented
to the Government an overall plan for managing and developing
fisheries. The plan has now been adopted as Government
policy and has become a guide for rebuilding Canada's com-
mercial fisheries over the next 10 years.

292

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

The strategies in the plan have a common aim--the
creation of a climate of prosperity and security for all
who participate in commercial fishing. There are two major
shifts in policy. First, the guiding principle in fishery
management no longer will be the protection of fish, but
the best use of society's resources. "Best use" is defined
as the sum of net social benefits, such as personal income,
occupational opportunity, and consumer satisfaction. Second,
fundamental decisions about resource management and industry
and trade development will be reached jointly by industry
and Government.

Fisheries agency

The Fisheries and Marine Service, one of the two prin-
cipal components of the Department of the Environment, has
had total responsibility for fisheries management and re-
search since it was established in January 1973. The import-
ance of the Fisheries and Marine Service was evidenced by
the appointment of a Minister of State for Fisheries in 1974
to serve as its informal head and as a spokesman for the
fishing industry. The Minister for Fisheries is assisted
by a Senior Assistant Deputy Minister who serves as the
operational head of the Service with a staff of about 5,500.

The fiscal year 1976-77 budget of about $267 million1"
represents a 25-percent increase over the fiscal year 1975-
76 budget. Although the budget represents about one-half
of the Department of the Environment's budget it was less
than 1 percent of the total Government budget.

Support programs

The Canadian Government has provided subsidies for
fishing vessel construction since 1944. A 1970 Government
report stated that subsidies had led to a rapid expansion
in the number of vessels of 25 gross registered tons or
larger and to increased harvests and processing capabilities.
The report also said that the subsidies contributed to an
overinvestment in fishing and processing capabilities.

In 1970 and again in 1973 more selective subsidy poli-
cies were provided. In 1975 a short-term policy was intro-
duced making subsidies available primarily to vessels which
will replace existing vessels. Under the new policy, the
Government will pay 35 percent of the cost of any eligible

!/The Canadian fiscal year is from April 1 to March 31.

293

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

fishing vessel at least 35 feet in length. Provincial govern-
ments also provide subsidies and loans of varying amounts for
vessel construction. In fiscal year 1973-74, the Fisheries
and Marine Service paid about $9 million in subsidies for
about 456 vessels. Another $5 million was paid in fiscal
year 1974-75 for about 269 vessels.

The Fishing Vessel Insurance Plan provides coverage
for fishing vessels at below-market interest rates. In
fiscal year 1974-75, about 8,000 vessels were insured under
this plan. Revenues from premiums as of April 1976 exceeded
claims by about $4 million.

The Fish Chilling Assistance Program came into effect
in 1973. The objective of this program is to minimize fish
deterioration by providing assistance for additional ice-
making and ice-storage facilities at processing plants and
for refrigeration on fishing vessels. Assistance amounting
to 50 percent of cost, not to exceed $25,500 for any one
facility, is provided. The cost of approved installations
totaled about $2 million as of March 31, 1975.

The Fisheries Prices Support Board, under the Fisheries
and marine service, is designed to protect fishermen against
sharp declines in prices and consequent loss of income due
to causes beyond the control of the fishermen or the in-
dustry. The Board has a working capital fund of about $25
million to support prices of fishery products when there is
a decline. Several programs have provided assistance to
alleviate severely depressed market conditions.

In the fall of 1974, the Government spent about $15
million in an initial attempt to assist the fishing industry
by providing working capital loans and assistance for in-
ventory financing and product promotion. An additional $20
million was authorized in December 1974 to keep the ground-
fish industry in operation during the winter months by (1)
partially offsetting rapidly rising costs for fishermen and
(2) assisting processors in keeping plants operational.
This program terminated on April 30, 1975. On May 1, 1975,
a new $51 million subsidy program went into effect. Its
major components were as follows:

--Support to groundfish fishermen owning vessels and
landing high-quality fish ($29 million).

--Assistance to processing plants which maintain July
1, 1974, prices for fishermen ($12 million).

29 4

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

--Assistance to help solve marketing problems encounter-
ed by segments of the industry ($10 million).

In March 1976 the Minister for Fisheries announced that the
assistance program would continue in fiscal year 1976-77
with authorized funding of $44 million.

The Canadian Government does not rely on foreign assist-
ance to support its fisheries programs.

Research programs

According to a Fisheries and Marine Service official,
the nature of Government research has changed over the past
several years. The thrust has changed from descriptive
research, such as data gathering, to applied research which
can be put to practical use. Emphasis is placed on inter-
relationships among fish stocks.

Fishery research is conducted to obtain information
needed for effectively developing and managing fisheries
resources and for providing aquatic life forms with a
biologically suitable environment. Recent projects have
included investigations in groundfish rehabilitation, market
assessment of underutilized species such as capelin, and
the development of technology required for aquaculture
programs. Data obtained is provided to international commis-
sions which manage common property fisheries resources.

According to a Fisheries and Marine Service official,
there are four major laboratories conducting biological
research and two conducting marketing research. The Service
also operates a substantial fleet of about 660 vessels which
support fisheries research, protection, and survey programs.
Additionally, vessels from foreign countries are chartered
to do research on new fishing techniques. The cost of all
vessel operations is about $38 million annually.

Management programs

The Fisheries and Marine Service attempts to manage
fish stocks by controlling levels of fishing effort rather
than by establishing specific harvest limits. The Service
attempts to limit fleet size to keep it at a level commensu-
rate with fish stocks available. In the late 1960s, Canada
first introduced legislation to limit fishing licenses in
two specialized fisheries--the Atlantic coast lobster fishery
and the Pacific coast salmon fishery. The lobster limitation
program was introduced in two regions of the Maritime Prov-
inces in 1967 when a higher limit was placed on the number
of operators that could participate in each region. The

2 95

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

limitation on operators was extended to all parts of the
Maritime Provinces in 1968. In 1969 regulations were changed
to place the maximum limit on the number of vessels, not
operators., The change was intended to reduce the number of
participants in the lobster industry by eliminating vessels
which use less than a specified number of lobster traps.

The salmon limitation program was initiated in 1969
and called for salmon vessels to be grouped into two cate-
gories based on production levels for the 2 previous years.
Only the category of vessels having the higher production
can be replaced. Through attrition, therefore, vessels with
lower production will be eliminated from the salmon fishery.
Also, salmon vessel license fees were increased sharply. in
1970 a new restriction was imposed requiring that vessel
replacements be on a ton-for-ton basis instead of a boat-for-
boat basis.

Until 1968 the number of vessels equipped and licensed
for Pacific salmon fishing remained fairly constant (7,200
to 7,600 vessels). After the introduction of the license
control program, the number of licensed vessels dropped
steadily to 5,890 in 1972.

According to a Fisheries and Marine Service official,
limited entry programs are now in effect for all but the
underutilized fisheries. The programs are intended to lead
to greater catch per vessel and greater earning capacity
for the fleet.

Another feature of a limited entry program is the
possible use of revenues generated from issuance of licenses
to buy back vessels from fishermen, resulting in a reduction
in the number of fishermen. For example, a "buy-back"
program was begun in the British Columbia salmon fishery in
1971. Purchased vessels are auctioned with the provision
that they may not be used for fishing in British Columbia
waters.

Level of effort is also controlled by regulating gear,
fish size, catch limits, and length of seasons, but, accord-
ing to Government officials, these regulations are not relied
upon as much as eligibility requirements for fleet entry.

Government regulations do not permit Canada to enter
into joint ventures with foreign nations; but Canada partici-
pated in 11 international fisheries commissions and 10
bilateral agreements. Conservation efforts through these
international agreements, however, have not fully protected
Canadian offshore waters from overfishing by foreign fisher-
men.

296

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

In 1974 protection of Canada's fishery resource was
expanded with increased surveillance of Canadian and foreign
fishing activities. New fishing patrol vessel construction
was begun to provide additional specially designed and
equipped vessels for offshore patrol duties. Also, the
Canadian Navy's mission has been expanded to include offshore
surveillance of fishing vessels. The Navy has the authority
to board and inspect vessels. The Navy also provides some
aerial surveillance of foreign fishing activity to assess
its extent.

Additional protection of Canada's fisheries is provided
by the International Commission for Northwest Atlantic Fish-
eries. In 1974, through the Commission, there were over
200 boardings of foreign fishing vessels.

The government's Fisheries and Marine Service has the
statutory obligation to insure production of safe', good
quality, and properly identified fishing products. Standards
are set for safety, wholesomeness, grading, and labeling. in
1974 some 950 fish processing operations producing products
for interprovincial and international use were registered by
the Service. All registered plants are subjected to fre-
quent inspection and periodic in-depth examinations of par-
ticular aspects of processing. Imported fishery products are
inspected at entry ports but there is generally no dockside
inspection of domestic fish harvests.

Fishery trade policies

According to a government official, Canada does little
to restrict imports. Several programs are conducted by the
government to increase Canadian fish exports. These pro-
grams are for

--arranging trade fairs, conventions, and missions in
other countries;

--participating in the North Atlantic Seafood Associ-
ation;

--forecasting the market outlook for fish products,
particularly groundfish in select foreign countries;
and

--assessing the market for underutilized species, such
as capelin and mackerel.

297

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

DENMARK

PRESENT SITUATION AND TRENDS IN
THE DANISH FISHING INDUSTRY

Denmark experienced a 25-percent increase in total
landings in 1974, the bulk of the catch being used for indus-
trial purposes. After a decade of rapid expansion in harvest-
ing the Danish fishing industry is nearing a stage where
emphasis will be on consolidation rather than further expan-
sion.

Quota restrictions, particularly in the North Sea in-
volving industrial products, are having an effect on raw
material resources. other considerations such as higher
operating costs, higher fish prices, and the added emphasis
placed on conservation of fishery resources have resulted in
slowing down the expansion of the fishing industry.

EFFECTS OF EXTENDED JURISDICTION

The future of the Danish fishing industry will in part
be shaped by. the outcome of (1) European Economic Community
(EEC) fishing zones and (2) implementing a worldwide 200-mile
fishing zone.

Up to 50 percent of Denmark's catch is taken from areas
that could be lost to the jurisdiction of other EEC states
and Norway. There is optimism, however, that an acceptable
solution will be found within the context of an overall EEC
fishery zone.

Danish government officials have stated a preference for
a smaller territorial limit than 200 miles, say 50 to 100
miles. Denmark's primary concern is protection of her tra-
ditional fishing areas. Denmark should not be affected by a
U.S. 200-mile limit because effective January 1, 1976, Danish
fishing for salmon ceased off the U.S. coast when high oper-
ating costs made this effort nonprofitable.

STRUCTURE OF THE FISHING FLEET

The Danish fishing fleet is largely composed of small,
aged vessels. In number, the fleet has grown smaller by some
20 percent during the last decade. Its overall harvesting
capability, however, has increased by using larger more
modern vessels.

The trend is toward larger, motorized vessels used prin-
cipally in the fish reduction industry. Fish reduction is
the processing of fish to produce fish meal and oil.

298

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

Denmark's fishing
vessels with engines

Gross registered
tonnage Number
1973 1974

0-50 6,683 6,822

51-150 379 399

151-500 61 96

Total 7,123 7,317

Denmark also has a large number of small, motorless
coastal vessels. The number of boats in this fleet decreased
by about 200 between 1973 and 1974.

Generally, the larger vessels are the newer and more
modern ships. Twelve new vessels of the 151-500 tonnage
group were completed during 1974. The age of the smaller
boats extends up to 40 years.

OWNERSHIP, EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES

Two-thirds of the Danish fleet is owned and operated by
individual or family enterprises. These vessels constitute
the in-shore fishing fleet. Most of the larger vessels, es-
pecially those used for industrial purposes, are company owned.

The number of Danish fishermen has increased slightly
from 14,691 since 1972 to 15,200 in 1974. About 4,000 of
these are part-time fishermen. Although total fishermen are
increasing, fewer young people are entering the fishing in-
dustry. The average age of the Danish fishermen is 50 years.

The fishing industry is not unionized. Pressure to do
so has failed. Instead, the Government has two organizational
bodies on the east and west coasts who set fishing policy.
Wages paid to fishermen are usfially a share of the net pro-
ceeds derived from the catch.

MAJOR FISHING AREA

The North Sea is the most important fishing area for
Danish fishermen accounting for 78 percent of the 1974 fish
catch. The North Atlantic, including the waters off

299

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

Greenland, accounts for the other 22 percent. Danish fisher-
men no longer fish for salmon off the U.S. coast as high op-
erating costs have made this operation unprofitable.

SIZE AND COMPOSITION OF THE HARVEST

Since 1970 the Danish fish catch has increased from 2.6
billion pounds in 1970 to 4.0 billion pounds in 1974. The I/
value of the catch has more than doubled from $101 million-
in 1970 to $256 million in 1974. The expansion is primarily
attributable to the increased number of fish caught for in-
dustrial purposes, made possible by improvements in fishing
methods.

The 1974 Danish catch consisted of 293.2 million pounds
of cod, 77.2 million pounds of plaice, 70.5 million pounds of
mussels, 52.9 million pounds of herring, and 3.3 billion
pounds of miscellaneous species to be used for reduction
purposes.

In addition to the above, foreign fishermen landed ap-
proximately 348.3 million pounds of fish in Denmark, valued
at $41 million, which were caught off Denmark's coastal
waters.

PROCESSING FACILITIES

The Danish fishing industry adopted the common grading
system after EEC entry. This was facilitated by legislation
and by the surveillance of the Fisheries Inspectorate. The
introduction of special legislation with sanctions of fine
or imprisonment also aided the rapid adoption of the Common
Fisheries Policy in grading. The widespread Fisheries
Inspectorate made surveillance and. compliance a relatively
simple matter.

While there was little enthusiasm among processors for
the grading regulations, the Danish industry is used to
stringent quality controls. Throughout all their operations
regulations govern the construction of their plants, the
bleeding and boxing of fish, and the conditions and form of
the final product, particularly when they are destined for

!/For consistency, we selected the following conversion rates
and applied them throughout the Denmark profile.

1970 $1 = 7.50 Kroner 1973 $1 = 6.05 Kroner
1971 $1 = 6.98 Kroner 1974 $1 = 6.09 Kroner
1972 $1 = 6.85 Kroner

30 0

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

the export market. Quality controls, including licenses is-
sued to processors, are issued by the Fisheries Ministry.

Fish processing facilitie's in Denmark range from small
individually owned firms to large multimillion-dollar fac-
tories. The majority of the larger factories are used for
producing fishmeal and oil. A large percentage of these
facilities are foreign owned as the Danish Government main-
tains a liberal attitude toward foreign ownership of fish-
processing plants in Denmark.

Cooperatives are an important factor in the Danish fish-
processing plants. Membership in these organizations can
range from a couple of small private firms to several hundred.
One cooperative near Copenhagen has 40 processing firms each
employing from 3 to 30 people. It has been in operation for
10 years and leases its land from the Government for a 75-
year period. All members of this cooperative are engaged in
producing finished fish products (smoked fish, fish cakes,
herring, etc.). None are involved in catching fish. Several
unions are represented; for example, the fish packers belong
to one and transporters to another.

The cooperative processed-fish products were valued
about $56 million in 1974. Less than 10 percent of the pro-
cessed fish goes to exports. Most is sold to fish markets,
stores, and restaurants in the Copenhagen area. The Danish
Government inspects the cooperative at least once a year. It
checks and records such things as where the fish were caught,
their size, and sanitation conditions.

Within the cooperative the average salary is about $220
per week. The average fish cleaner (union member) earns
about $150 per week. An incentive system exists for most
processors. Several workers function as a team and receive
a bonus measured upon the number of fish they are able to
process. Team pressure improves performance.

DOMESTIC USE OF FISH PRODUCTS

Edible fish is consumed principally in fresh form, but
an increasing amount is being processed into frozen fillets,
canned, cured, and smoked products. More than 80 percent of
the Danish catch is used for nonfood purposes, principally
fish meal and oil of which about 61 percent is exported.

Domestic consumption is high, about 70.2 pounds-a year
per person in 1974, about 50 percent higher than the average
for Western Europe. Notable among the domestic food fish
consumed are shrimp, salmon, and cod. Danish-caught supplies

3 01

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

of fish are supplemented by substantial imports of fresh,
frozen, canned, and salted products. Present trends in the
pattern of domestic purchase--increased sales through super-
markets and growing sales of frozen fish--are likely to con-
tinue.

Fishermen prospered as prices paid for cod rose from an
annual average of 7.6 cents a pound in 1970 to 20.8 cents a
pound in 1974.

Most fish caught by Danish fishermen are sold to whole-
salers at public auctions. The fish auction markets work
within the EEC minimum price system. Thus, if a catch of cod,
haddock, or other included species fails to bring the minimum
price, it is withdrawn from human consumption and used for
meal and the fishermen member of the producer organization
receives the minimum price. Prices paid for fish used in the
reduction process are negotiated periodically between fisher-
men and processors.

The average monthly price for reduction fish has dropped
sharply from 4.8 cents a pound in February 1974 to 3 cents a
pound in March 1975. The 1.8 cent fall in prices for reduc-
tion fish and for fish meal resulted chiefly from the large
world production. World production of fish meal, which had
surpassed 11.0 billion pounds in both 1970 and 1971, de-
creased to 9.3 billion pounds in 1972 and to 8.2 billion
pounds in 1973, primarily as a result of the drastic decline
in the catch of Peruvian anchoveta. However, in early 1974,
fish meal production increased as the anchoveta returned, and the
prices for animal feed grains, including fish, declined.

IMPORTS AND EXPORTS

Denmark is a member of the EEC and abides by all import/
export policies within the community. Danish imports of
fishery products are valued at $140 million. Herring, shrimp,
and salmon were the most important species in terms of value.
About half the imports were direct landings of fish from
foreign fishing vessels. Herring accounted for 196.2 million
pounds out of the 348.3 million pounds landed by such vessels.

In 1974, the total fish supply including imports was
estimated at more than 4.6 billion pounds. Only 25 percent
was consumed within Denmark itself while 75 percent was ex-
ported. Denmark is the largest exporter of fish and fishery
products in the EEC.

302

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

Utilization and Composition of
Danish Fish Supply - 1974

Available for Percent of
Total domestic domestic
Catch Imports suppl Exports consumption consumption

-------------(million pounds)---------------

Available for
human consump-
tion 659 369 1,028 672 356 35

Animal feed and
other purposes 3,386 255 3,641 2,835 806 22

Total 4,045 624 4,669 3,507 1,162 25

Danish fishery exports in 1974 increased by 6 percent in
weiqht and 14 percent in value over 1973 figures. The 1974
data is shown below by commodity.l/

Denmark's Fish and Shellfish Exports - 1974

U.S.
Commodity Pounds dollars
(Thousands)

Fresh or frozen:
Cod, except fillets 42,216 $ 19,290,968
Cod, fillets and blocks 75,007 53,729,720
Codlike species, fillets
and blocks 14,513 7,684,729
Flatfish fillets 17,668 17,211,330
Eels 8,104 13,434,646
Herring, whole 50,840 10,286,371
Herring, fillets 97,961 27,839,737
Pond trout 25,529 25,131,198
Salmon 5,033 7,880,623

Total 336,871 182,489,322

Fish meal 546,512 115,514,610
Fish oil 163,456 36,642,528
Other products 328,186 115,230,040

Total 1,375,025 $449,876,500

l/World prices for most exports continued at high levels dur-
ing most of 1974. Prices received for fish oil were more
than twice those received during 1973. However, prices for
cod and fish for reduction to animal feed dropped sharply
in early 1975.

303

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

The principal destination for Danish fishery products in
1974 continued to be other EEC member states. Sweden, the
United States, and Switzerland were important markets al-
though the-percentage imported by the first two nations de-
clined from that of the previous year.

Denmark's Exports by Major Markets - 1974

Quantity Value
Market area Pounds Percent U.S. dollars Percent

EEC 826,460 60 $259,059,770 57
Sweden 156,630 11 48,269,280 11
Switzerland 48,298 4 24,880,620 6
United States 45,962 3 30,925,451 7
Other countries 297,675 22 86,741,379 -19

Total 1,375,025 100 $449,876,500 100

ECONOMIC ROLE OF THE FISHING INDUSTRY

According to Danish government officials the fishing
industry accounted for about 2 percent of the total Danish
gross national product for 1975. It makes a valuable con-
tribution to domestic supplies of food and plays an important
role in the nation's international trade.

During recent years 4 to 5 percent of Denmark's total
merchandise exports have consisted of fish and fish products
which in 1974 were valued at $486 million. This represented
a threefold increase over 1970. Spinoff industries have
benefited, such as the engine and pump manufacturers and the
fishing gear and equipment industries. For example, a new
hydraulic winch arrangement for side and stern trawlings was
developed.

Fisheries make a major contribution to the local econo-
mies in some coastal and sparsely populated areas where few
employment possibilities other than agriculture or fishing
are available.

GOVERNMENT ROLE IN FISHERIES AND FISH CONSERVATION

The Danish government does not normally interfere di-
rectly in the fishing industry. It encourages fishing in
general and has helped to create an environment in which the
modernization of the fishing fleet, especially by the intro-
duction of larger and better equipped vessels, has been able
to take place. The Governmient also has always shown great
interest in securing as far as possible free access to

304

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

foreign markets for the country's fishery products and in co-
operating in international efforts to secure the conservation
and management of important resources to the Danish fishing
industry.

Denmark participates in fishery commissions such as the
Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) and the Inter-
national Commission for Northwest Atlantic Fisheries which ap-
prove total allowable catch quotas for fish stocks and fishing
areas. The Danish government abides by the commissions' recom-
mendations.

The Ministry of Fishing is small compared to other gov-
ernment ministries and has an annual budget of about $6.8
million. It employs between 200 and 300 people. About 60 of
these are located in Copenhagen handling policy and adminis-
trative functions and about 110 are involved with such tasks
as fishery inspections, quota handling, and fish distribution.

A considerable amount of scientific and technical re-
search is carried out under the auspices of the Ministry of
Fisheries. Marine biological investigations are concentrated
principally on waters exploited by Danish fishermen (the
North Sea and the Baltic). Investigations on the state of
the stocks, the growth, as well as the hydrographical and
physiological conditions are undertaken regularly. Two re-
search vessels are permanently engaged in such pursuits and
there is a land-based research laboratory. Research is also
directed towards the technology of processing fish for human
and animal consumption, and costs and earnings investigations
are regularly undertaken in all sectors of the fishing fleet.

Government assistance

The Danes are not eligible to benefit from EEC industrial
project grants under the existing forms of EEC structural aid.

indirect Danish subsidies do exist in the form of
government-supported bank loans. Bonds are sold on the open
market to create funds to be loaned by banks to certain sec-
tors of the fishing industry at better than normal rates.

During the financial year 1973-74, the Royal Danish
Fishery Bank granted loans totaling about $16 million chiefly
for construction of new fishing vessels. These loans are not
paid in cash but in State guaranteed bonds. The 1974 rate of
exchange of these bonds was 9 percent and the repayment per-
iod is from 10 to 15 years. Fifteen percent of the en-d-use
costs are to be covered by the borrower.

305

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

While most of the loans go toward construction of new
craft or the modernization of existing vessels, there are
loans to modernize and expand the processing industry as well.
The money can be used to cover 65 percent of building costs
or up to 50 percent of machinery costs. The repayment neriod
is 15 years for buildings and 10 years for machinery.

The economic difficulties in the fishing industry which
began in late 1974 brought numerous requests for Government
assistance from the usually independent Danish fishermen and
processors. Among the measures requested were fuel and gear
subsidies, the extension of loans and delay in loan payments,
interest assistance, and minimum prices for fish. Under an
EEC decision permitting member states to pay fuel subsidies
the Danish parliament approved about $1.15 million for fuel
subsidies for the quarter April 1 through June 30, 1975.

In March 1975 the Government was instrumental in secur-
ing EEC approval of a temporary subsidy for the exportation
of cod and saithe.

The Danish government also contributed to the financing
of a marketing scheme to promote the U.S. consumption of
North Atlantic groundfish (cod, haddock, pollock, hake, and
ocean perch). The other participants in this scheme were
Canada, Iceland, and Norway, which together with Denmark ac-
count for nearly all North Atlantic groundfish products im-
ported by the United States.

Conservation of fish stocks

Denmark has been regarded as a stumbling block to con-
servation measures proposed by the NEAFC. One example of
this was the Danish harvest of immature herring for indus-
trial purposes in the North Sea. NEAFC attempted to limit
the total catch of herring from the North Sea. The Danes
opposed the proposal insisting on a larger individual share
of any total quota. It was not until July 1, 1974, that a
quota agreement was reached. This agreement allowed an in-
ternational catch of 1.1 billion pounds, with Denmark getting
the biggest quota of 463.0 million pounds. Norway was second
with 220.5 million pounds. The agreement was scheduled to
last until July 1975.

In August 1975 the Danes filed objections with NEAFC
on the issues of herring quotas and minimum mesh sizes. They
found their quota of herring unacceptable at 152.1 million
pounds. By November 1975 it was recommended that the direct

3 06

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

fishing of North Sea herring be banned in 1976. D(enmark re-
sponded and banned herring fishing in the North Sea. It ap-
pears that the Danish government although not particularly
concerned with conservation programs is slowly abiding by the
recommendations of the fishery commission.

3 07

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

JAPAN

PRESENT SITUATION AND TRENDS IN THE
JAPANESE FISHING INDUSTRY

Japan's 1974 fish catch of 23.8 billion pounds, a 16
percent increase over 1970, was the largest in its history.
The value of the catch increased 81 percent from $3.2
billion in 1970 to $5.8 billion in 1974, but, because of
spiraling costs, increased foreign competition, slackened
demand, and other factors, the profitability of Japan's
fishing industries has plummeted. The net profit of small
fishing companies on sales decreased from an average of 8.4
percent in 1973 to 2.6 percent in 1974. The medium and
large size companies lost money in 1974, with the large
companies having average losses of $5 million.

Japan's heavy reliance on offshore and distant water
fishing is shown by the following table.

1974 production
Percent of
Type of fishery Quantity (note a) total

Coastal fisheries 4,122.6 17.3

Offshore fisheries 9,221.8 38.7

Distant water fisheries 8,148.2 34.2

Inland water fisheries
and cultures 394.6 1.7

Marine cultures 1,940.0 8.1

Total 23,827.2 100.0

aExpressed in millions of pounds.

Japan categorizes its marine fisheries by vessel size
and trip duration. Coastal fisheries include (1) firms
without boats and (2) firms using vessels of less than 10
gross registered tons which leave and return to port within
24 hours. Offshore fisheries include firms using vessels
from 10 to 1,000 gross tons, except those vessels making
trips of 7 days or more, which are categorized as distant
water fisheries (generally 20 gross tons or more). The

308

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

numiber of Japanese marine fishing firms (about 230,000) has
remained fairly stable over the last 5 years, with the ma-
jority being the small coastal and inland water fisheries.

Greatly increased fishing costs and impending sanctions
of international economic zones have forced both industry
and Government to take steps to stabilize its fishing oper-
ations.

Officials of. two major fishing firms told us that they
have undergone *drastic reorganizations, were reducing certain
fleet operations, closing processing plants and were taking
other measures to overcome the increased costs and impending
sanctions. Increased costs have made the operation of
factoryships, ships which process the catch at sea, uneco-
nomical in some areas and, as a result, most fish is brought
to Japan in frozen form. The large distant water fishing
companies realize that their international fishing operations
may be confined to a smaller scale in the near future (see
p. 312), and are diversifying into other sectors of fishing
activities. One company has made advances in the area of
aquaculture to help overcome its supply problems and another
is placing more emphasis on imports and reprocessing ac-
tivities.

As of March 31, 1975, the Japan Fisheries Agency re-
ported 169 joint ventures in 50 countries, with a total
investment value of $78 million ($27 million in North
America). Japanese investment, in the form of capital,
technical assistance (manpower) and in-kind contributions
of vessels, machinery, and gear, is made primarily to secure
a source of fish and fish byproducts in some ventures for
the companies involved. An Agency official said that
recently, the trend has been to strengthen existing joint
ventures, rather than to establish new ones. This may be
attributed to the weakened financial condition of Japan's
fishing industries.

Joint ventures involving actual fishing operations
require clearance from the Government. The Agency and the
Department of the Treasury screen all such ventures to in-
sure that they are in accordance with foreign policy. The
Overseas Fishery Cooperation Foundation, funded by the
Agency, provides low interest loans to Japanese companies
establishing joint ventures in developing countries.

The Japanese Government has recently instituted-a
number of programs to help its fishing industries. Sub-
sidized long-term, low-interest loan programs have been es-
tablished to liquidate fishing companies' debt burdens,
reduce the size of the tuna fleet, to relieve overcapacity,

309

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

and to help companies cope with high fuel costs. A similar
loan program, aimed at stabilizing domestic fish prices will
be started in October 1976. Another assistance program,
approved in April 1976, provides for the maintenance and
development of Japan's coastal fishing grounds. The program,
to be carried out over the next 7 years, will cost an es-
timated $667 million.

EFFECT OF EXTENDED JURISDICTION

The establishment of global 200-mile economic zones is
a highly sensitive issue in Japan. Next to Iceland, Japan
has the highest annual per capita consumption of fish and
shellfish in the world--80.2 pounds, or over 50 percent of
its total animal protein intake. With coastal and inland
fisheries and cultures contributing less than 30 percent of
its total fishing catch, international fishing grounds are
vital to the welfare of its fishing industry. About 9.9
billion pounds, or over 40 percent of its 1974 fishing catch,
with a value of $1.7 billion, came from waters within 200
miles of foreign countries.

The Japanese are resigned to the establishment of
worldwide 200-mile economic zones, by the United Nations'
Law of the Sea Conference. They are, however, strongly
opposed to countries taking unilateral actions establishing
200-mile economic or fishing zones, as the U.S. and Canada
have done. They are also opposed to the idea of coastal
countries being granted the right to exclusive control over
resources in areas exceeding 200 miles from the coast (conti-
nental shelf resources).

The Japanese Government has publicly stated that the
primary objective of its fishing industry is to maintain,
and if possible, increase its total fishery catch. Although
it is not yet clear how Japan will deal with the problems
imposed by the creation of worldwide fishing zones our
observations are that:

--Japan's 7-year coastal fisheries development program
plans to increase coastal fishery production by about
660 million pounds or 10 percent of recent production.

-Research programs are being conducted to locate new
fishing grounds, develop uses for underutilized
species including Antarctic krill and deep sea fish,
and to promote the more effective utilization of
currently used species. An approach under consider-
ation is to grant development assistance and other
concessions to lesser developed countries in return

310

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

for use of their fishing grounds. Japan's main
approach, however, will probably be through bi-
lateral negotiations for rights to fish off of for-
eign countries' waters, striving for large quotas
based on past level of catches.

The recent U.S. legislation which established a 200-
mile fishery conservation zone, beginning March 1, 1977,
has gravely upset the Japanese Government. They perceived
the U.S. position as favoring the multilateral approach at
the Law of the Sea Conference. They considered the action
as excessively severe, asserting that the restrictions
imposed could seriously affect the country's food policy
and the relations between the United States and Japan.

Japan catches about 3,307 million pounds of fish, or
one-seventh of its total catch in waters off the United
States, almost all coming from the Bering Sea and Northeast
Pacific Ocean. Alaskan pollock and bottomfish account for
2,866 million pounds of their catch, with tanner crab,
rockfish, blackcod and squid making up the rest.

One possible method to reduce Japan's supply problems
was shown by a recent commercial joint venture proposal,
whereby U.S. fishermen would catch Alaskan pollock for
delivery to Japanese processing vessels. NMFS analyzed the
proposal finding no legal objection to the plan. NMFS also
believed that such a venture could benefit the development
of a U.S. bottomfish industry.

Depending heavily on the sea for a source of food,
Japan advocates international cooperation for the conserva-
tion of marine resources. Japan participates in 13 regional
fisheries commissions for this purpose. In recent years,
Japan has joined the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Convention
(1970), the Atlantic Tuna Convention (1969), the Northwest
Atlantic Fisheries Convention (1970), and the International
Convention for the Southeast Atlantic Fisheries (1971).

STRUCTURE OF THE FISHING FLEET

Japan's marine fishing fleet of more than 372,000
vessels consists of about 2.7 million gross registered tons.
Although powered and nonpowered boats of less than 5 gross
tons make up over 90 percent of the fleet, they account for
only 20 percent of its gross weight. Larger vessels of 100
tons and up, less than I percent of the fleet, account for
over half of its gross weight. Recent changes in the fleet
mainly involved the replacement of nonpowered vessels with
powered ones in the less than 5 gross tons cate(~ory.

311

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

Japan's fleet has overcapacity problems. Government
and industry plans call for a 20 percent reduction of Japan's
pelagic tuna fleet over the next 3 years. An official of
one of Japan's major distant water fishing companies said
it has reduced the size of its fleets in certain areas and
that some vessels are sitting in harbors, owing to their
uneconomic operation.

There is no generally accepted indicator to measure the
productivity of fishing fleets. However, one indicator used
by NMFS is the ratio between harvest and vessel tonnage.
Using this indicator, NMFS showed that of the five nations
having the largest fishing fleets, the Japanese fleet ranks
third in productivity as shown in the following table.

Harvest
(pounds harvested per
Country gross ton of vessel)

Norway 32,628
United States 16,645
Japan 15,609
Spain 6,900
Soviet Union 2,910

Japan's productivity level is largely attributable to
the fact that nearly all vessels in the fleet are engaged
in harvesting fish, rather than in supporting other vessels.
Japan's support vessels comprise about 20 percent of the
fleets' tonnage. In comparison, Soviet support vessels
make up nearly 50 percent of the fleets' tonnage.

OWNERSHIP, EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES

Japan's approximately 230,000 marine fishing firms are
privately owned. Small family-run coastal fisheries account
for more than 90 percent of the total number. But, in 1969,
the latest year for which information was available, four
enterprises controlled the majority of distant water fish-
eries.

A network of more than 3,000 local, prefectural and
national level fishery cooperative associations provide sup-
port to the Japanese fishing industry. Additionally, spe-
cialized associations exist for large companies and specific
types of fisheries, such as salmon, tuna, trawler, and set-net

312

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

fisheries. Depending on the level and type of cooperative,
the associations provide the following kinds of services
to fisheries:

--Procure and supply fuel oil, fishing gear and
other provisions domestically, abroad and at sea.

--Provide for transshipment, storage, processing
and marketing of members' catch.

--Insure fisheries against accidents and other
losses.

--Provide education and guidance in fishing business
management, and other relevant matters.

--Extend credit, arrange financing, and channel gov-
ernment loan funds to fishing companies.

--Lobby for the fisheries in domestic matters, and
participate in international negotiations on their
part.

The cooperative associations operate through funds
received from membership dues and commissions on services
provided. In addition to being indispensible organizations
for fishermen, they play an important role in implementing
Government development policies.

Employment in the fishing industry has steadily declined
from 700,000 in 1955 to less than 500,000 in 1974. In
spite of this decrease, the remaining fishery workers are
relatively young. Men between 15 and 39 years old make up
31 percent of the labor force, men 60 years old and over,
14 percent, and women 17 percent of the labor force. Japan
Fisheries Agency officials attribute the decline in fishery
workers to increased productivity levels, migration of
younger workers to industrial sector jobs, and to the general
economic difficulties of the fishing industry.

Japan's coastal fisheries, generally small and family-
operated enterprises, are not represented by labor unions.
Employees of offshore and distant water fisheries, however,
belong to branches of the powerful National Seamen's Union,
or to large company unions having strong associations with
the national union. Employees involved in fish processing
belong to a national union for food processors. Industry
officials told us that fishing companies must negotiate
several times annually with unions, separately determining
wages and employees' bonuses. Unions have also gained other
advances for employees. In the cases of distant water
31 3

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

fisheries, the companies have to return the crews to Japan
every 10 months,, leaving the vessels at foreign ports for
inspection and repairs, while flying entire crews to and
from Japan. Formerly, crews remained at sea for 14 months
or longer.

According to statistics developed by the Japan Fish-
eries Agency, annual family incomes of coastal fishery
workers have lost ground to their agricultural and city
worker counterparts, as shown below.

Family income
Percent
1972 1974 increase

Fisheries worker $7,333 $ 9,500 29.5
Agricultural worker 7,000 11,333 61.9
City worker 5,833 8,333 42.9

MAJOR FISHING GROUNDS

Although Japan's fishing presence is worldwide, 19.6
billion pounds, or over 80 percent, of its 1973 catch was
harvested in the Northwest Pacific area. Another 2,116.4
million pounds came from the Northeast Pacific. Japan's
harvest from all other areas totaled about 1,763 million
pounds.

Production of Japan's coastal fisheries remained about
the same from 1964 to 1974, whereas production of its other
fisheries have increased greatly as shown below.

Fishery type Production
1964 1974
(billions of pounds)

Coastal 4.2 4.1
Inland and marine cultures 1.1 2.3
offshore 5.5 9.2
Distant water 3.7 8.1

In recent years, the Japanese Government has placed
emphasis on abating marine pollution, developing its coastal
fishing grounds and increasing aquaculture and mariculture
production. They have also made great strides in the arti-
ficial hatching and release in coastal waters of such species
as abalone, chum salmon, eel, and sea bream.

31 4

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

SIZE AND COMPOSITION OF THE HARVEST

The composition of Japan's 1974 total fisheries catch
by major species follows.

Billions of pounds Percent of
Species harvested total catch

Cod, pollock 6.5 27.3
Mackerel 2.9 12.2
Sardines, herring 1.0 4.2
Skipjack, frigate
mackerel .8 3.4
Flounder, halibut .8 3.4
Tunas .8 3.4
Sand lance .7 2.9
Anchovy .6 2.5
Mollusks (squid,
octopus, shell-
fish) 1.9 8.0
Crustaceans (crab,
lobster, shrimp) .4 1.6
Other species (in-
cluding cultures) 7.4 31.1

Total 23.8 100.0

Marine culture species, including yellow tails, oysters,
seaweeds and others, accounted for 1,940 million pounds or
8 percent of the total 1974 catch and represented 13 per-
cent of its value.

Japan's 1974 catch was valued at about $5.8 billion.
The following table shows the major species in rank of
value.
Percent of
Species Value total value
(in millions)

Mollusks $ 771 13.3
Tunas 673 11.6
Cod, pollock 372 6.4
Crustaceans 301 5.2
Salmon, trout 261 4.5
Skipjack, frigate mackerel 247 4.3
Mackerel 213 3.7
Flounder, halibut 191 3.3
Other species (including cultures) 2,771 47.7

Total $5,800 100.0

315

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

As shown above, although cod, pollock and mackerel made
up about 40 percent of Japan's total 1974 catch, they repre-
sented only 10 percent of its value. on the other hand,
mollusks and tunas, making up only 11 percent of the catch,
accounted for 25 percent of its value.

Trends in catch quantity from 1970 to 1974 showed sub-
stantial increases in the harvest of Alaskan pollock (1122.1
million pounds), sardines and herring (740.7 million pounds),
skipjack and frigate mackerel (313.1 million pounds), flounder
and halibut (134.5 million pounds), tunas (127.9 million
pounds), and marine cultures including yellowtail, oyster and
seaweed (729.7 million pounds). Significant decreases were
shown in the harvests of anchovy (171.9 million pounds) and
mollusks (176.4 million pounds), primarily common squid and
octopus.

According to Japan Fisheries Agency officials, prelimi-
nary statistics indicate that Japan's total 1975 catch de-
creased about 7 percent from the 1974 level, due mainly to
declines in cultures and distant water fishing.

PROCESSING FACILITIES

Japan operated 14,400 fish processing plants in 1971, a
reduction of 18 percent since 1961.1 Older plants were
closed because they did not meet pollution control require-
ments and the remaining plants were enlarged and improved.
The most notable processing improvement in recent years has
been a greatly expanded capacity for storing fish, both on
land and at sea.

Fish processing plant workers are unionized. The
workers' salaries are based on the negotiations between their
unions and the processing plants.

DOMESTIC USE OF FISH PRODUCTS

In 1974 Japan processed 14,812.7 million pounds of fish
or 62 percent of the total catch. Eighty-three percent of
the processed fish was used for food, 12,279.6 million pounds,
and the remai~ning 17 percent was used for nonfood products,
2,533.1 million pounds.

The principal fishfood consisted of frozen, 53 percent,
fish sausage and cake, 21 percent, and canned, 7 percent. The
nonfood fish products were processed into fertilizer, 84 per-
cent, and fish oils and fats, 16 percent.

1/These were plants located on land. The fishing fleet also
processes fish at sea.
316

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

Even though Japan's fisheries have produced record
catches in recent years, they cannot satisfy the country's
demand for fish, particularly of the luxury-type species.
Japanese consumption of meat and poultry has increased over
the past several years; however, their dependence on fish as
a source of nourishment is still very high.

In the course of Japan's distribution and marketing pro-
cesses, the fish product passes through numerous intermedia-
ries before reaching the consumer. with the exception of the
large fishing companies' catches, fish landed at coastal
fishing ports are first auctioned to wholesalers at producing-
center markets. The wholesalers separate the catches for
local consumption, shipment to large cities, and for proces-
sing and freezing. Fish transported by cold storage trucks
and trains to large cities are again auctioned to consumer-
market wholesalers, who distribute the fish products to
Japan's more than 50,000 retailers. The price differential
between the wholesaler and retailer varies from 25 to 180
percent.

Recently, most fish arriving at large city wholesale
markets is in frozen form. This trend has aided in the pre-
servation of quality and the stabilization of supply. Also,
the marketing of prepackaged frozen fishery foods is increas-
i~ng.

The trend in Japanese consumer prices for fishery pro-
ducts shows a definite increase in comparison with the gen-
eral consumer price index. In 1965 the general consumer
price index of 100 increased to 144.6 in 1972. During that
same period the price index for fresh fish and shellfish in-
creased to 218.8. This trend is expected to continue, but at
a slower rate. Future increases in consumer prices will
probably be necessary to restore the financial health of the
country's fishing industries.

IMPORTS AND EXPORTS

Since 1971 Japan has been a net importer of fish pro-
ducts, with the value of fish imports increasing 244 percent
between 1969 and 1974. According to an importer's associa-
tion official, the Japanese Government is not concerned about
this trade imbalance, because fisheries' products represent
only 2.5 percent of total imports.

31 7

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

Fresh and frozen shrimp accounted for 36 percent, $1.1
billion, of Japan's fish imports in 1974. Other high-value
import items included fresh and frozen skipjack tunas and
other fish, 35 percent, salted dried and smoked fish, 12 per-
cent, prepared fish, 6 percent, and live fish, 6 percent. The
main sources of imports were as follows.

Percent of total Major species
Country import value imported

South Korea 19 Fresh, frozen and
prepared fish
Taiwan 9 Live fish, fresh, and
frozen fish
China 9 Shrimp and salted,
dried and smoked fish
Indonesia 8 Shrimp
Spain 6 Fresh and frozen fish
India 5 Shrimp

In 1973, Japan, the world's leading exporter of fish
products, accounted for 12.3 percent of world fish exports by
value. The overall trend in 1974, though, was one of stag-
nation.

From 1969 to 1974 the value of fish products exported
increased 62 percent, although imported fish products in-
creased 244L percent. Following are Japan's major fish pro-
duct exports:

Percent of total
Major exported 1974
product export value

Canned mackerel 17 .6
Canned tunas 14 .4
Canned salmon 6.4
Frozen tunas, marlins, and
skipjack 12.0
Other frozen fish 21.1

318

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

As shown below, the United States is, by far, the
largest import market for Japanese fish products.

Percent of
total 1974
Nation export yalue Major export products

United States 30.8 Canned tunas and mackerel,
frozen tunas and other
fish
Netherlands 7.1 Canned salmon, whale oil
and fat
United Kingdom 5.4 Canned salmon and tunas
Australia 4.2 Canned salmon, frozen fish
Philippines 4.1 Canned mackerel
West Germany 4.1 Canned tunas, pearls

Japan's 1975 fishery exports were seriously hurt by U.S.
canners' reduction of tuna imports. The U.S. canners' build-
up of large inventories of raw and canned tuna practically
closed the U.S. market for Japanese tuna exports in early
1975. A national tuna fisheries association official said
that about two-thirds of Japan's tuna industries are cur-
rently incurring financial losses.

ECONOMIC ROLE OF THE INDUSTRY

The fishing industry makes an important contribution to
the Japanese economy, but its importance has diminished in
recent years because other industrial sectors have grown more
rapidly. In 1973 the gross value of fisheries output was
about 1 percent of Japan's gross domestic product.

In 1973 the productivity in the fishing industry was
diminishing, compared with the productivity in other in-
dustrial sectors. The United Nations' Organization for Eco-
nomic Cooperation and Development reported that the slowing
of the productivity growth rate in the fishing industry is a
major obstacle to the industry's future growth. This organi-
zation also indicated that economic difficulties in the fish-
ing industry were compounded by rising costs, especially for
fuel.

The fishing industry makes a major contribution to the
economy by providing a food supply. Fish products accounted
for about one-half of the Japanese animal protein consump-
tion in 1973. in contrast, fish products provide only about
5 percent of the animal protein consumed in many Western
countries. Although fish products continue to be a staple in
the Japanese diet, they are relying less on fish and more on
meat products for their animal protein needs.
31 9

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

The net effect of fish products on Japan's foreign trade
has not been favorable in recent years. In 1971, Japan, for
the first time, became a net importer of fish products when
imports exceeded exports by about $50 million.

GOVERNMENT ROLE IN FISHERIES

The Japanese Government, through its Fisheries Agency,
takes an active role in supporting its fishing industry. The
recently developing financial problems of Japan's fisheries
have caused the Government to institute a number of loan
assistance programs, mainly to help its small- and medium-
sized fisheries. Traditionally, the Japanese Government has
supported the industry through the development of fishing
ports, other coastal facilities, and fishery research, edu-
cation, and propagation programs.

Policy aims

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations, Japan's fisheries policy is aimed at

--insuring an adequate fish supply to meet national
animal protein requirements,

--providing fishermen with incomes comparable to other
sectors of the economy,

--protecting marine resources against overfishing, and

--cooperating with international efforts to better con-
serve and utilize fish catches.

Fisheries Agency

The Agency, under the Ministry of Agriculture and
Forestry, has direct control over its fisheries. With a
fiscal year 1976 operating budget of $472 million the Agency
receives slightly more than 6 percent of the Ministry of
Agriculture and Forestry's total general budget of $7.4 bil-
lion. However, separate funds for insurance programs, loans,
and investments provide the Agency with an additional $637
million for fiscal year 1976.

The Agency's approved fiscal year 1976 operating budget
funds for seven major program areas follow.

32 0

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

1. Port facilities--$284 million--subsidizes local and
prefectural government projects for the construction
and rehabilitation of fishing ports and other coastal
facilities.

2. Coastal fisheries promotion--$41.6 million--provides
funding for the Agency's coastal fishery industry
modernization program, mariculture development pro-
gram, salmon hatchery program, and fisheries exten-
sion services. Also included is preliminary funding
for the recently approved coastal fishing grounds
development program.

3. International affairs--$26.2 million--includes funds
transferred to the Overseas Fishery Cooperation
Foundation and to the Japan Marine Resource Research
Center.

4. Vessel loss and disaster insurance--$25.2 million--
provides subsidies to insurance cooperatives for com-
pensation of vessel losses and disaster damages.

5. Price stabilization--$25.l million--provides assis-
tance in the form of subsidized loans and other
support to national level cooperatives in their ef-
forts to stabilize domestic fish prices. The cooper-
atives purchase and store fish when market prices
fall below floor levels and resell them when prices
rise.

6. Fisheries management stabilization--$5.4 million--
funds the cost of subsidized loans made to fishing
companies for the liquidation of accumulated debts,
and assistance with increased fuel costs. It also
provides for low-interest, long-term loans to tuna
industry cooperatives for the repurchase of existing
licenses in connection with the Government and in-
dustry program to reduce the size of the tuna fleet.

7. Other--$24.7 million--includes funding of agency pro-
grams for fisheries modernization, abatement of water
pollution, fisheries enforcement, and research vessel
construction.

The loan and investment budget, $539 million, provides
capital funding for the Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
Finance Corporation, with the National credit institution
funneling Government funds to cooperative associations and
fisheries. It also provides capital for the National Fisher-
ies Modernization Fund and Japan Development Bank.

321

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

Research programs

Nine national fisheries research laboratories and a net-
work of 80 prefectural experimental and branch research sta-
tions conduct extensive research programs on fishing, marine
biology and other oceanography areas.

The Japan Marine Resource Research Center, established
in 1971, has conducted research for the purpose of developing
and exploiting underutilized and dormant fishery resources.
Aided by the Center's research efforts, one major fishing
company recently began commercial production of Antarctic
krill for use in fish sausage and frozen fish products.

In 1975 a new research organization, the Marine Ecology
Research Institute was established to study the biological
effects of heat produced by electric generating plants on the
coastal marine environment.

Additionally, Japan has 17 universities which have
fisheries curriculum and over 50 high schools specializing
in fisheries education.

Management programs

Japan's fishing industry is governed by a complex system
of national and prefectural (state) fishing rights and
licenses. Coastal fisheries are governed by prefectures, in
accordance with national fishing laws. The prefectures regu-
late fishing seasons, zones, size of specie catch, method
of fishing, and quotas on catch for certain species. The
national Government regulates offshore and distant water
fisheries, although offshore fishing licenses are granted by
the prefectures.

Japan controls and coordinates its fisheries as a unit.
Fishing effort is controlled through increasing or decreasing
the number of licenses made available. Every 5 years the
Central Fisheries Coordination Committee, an advisory body
of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, determines the
number of vessels that are to be licensed by size, fishing
area, and periods of operation. This determination is based
on factors such as resource availability, number of vessels
already engaged in each fishery, and financial and managerial
considerations. When reductions are decided upon, the Govern-
ment works with the network of fishermen's cooperative asso-
ciations to accomplish the desired results.

322

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

Propagation programs

Japan has a long history of propagation efforts (hat-
chery and stocking activities) to maintain and increase
fishery resources. In recent years these efforts have been
intensified. Government-supported salmon hatcheries spawn
and release over 700 million salmon fries annually. Japan
also artificially hatches large numbers of sea bream fries,
trout, french oysters and abalone for release in coastal and
inland waters.

Sanitation regulations

The Japanese Government is substantially involved in
fish inspection programs to insure that fish products are
safe and of high quality. The Japanese Food Sanitation Law
governs food in general and there are other national laws
applying to shellfish sanitation. Laws are enforced through
stringent government inspection programs.

Japan is a member nation of the National Shellfish Sani-
tation Program--a voluntary sanitation program concerned with
clams, oysters, and mussels and administered by the United
States Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare. The Ministry of Health and Welfare
carrie-s out the program in Japan. In 1974 Food and Drug
Administration officials reviewed and evaluated Japan's
sanitary controls over its oyster fishery and found the con-
trols to be very stringent. According to Agency officials,
the fishing industry is, in large part, self-regulating.
There is a strong incentive for the industry to maintain a
high quality breed of fish. At market, the fish are individ-
ually auctioned, price being determined by quality because
Japanese consumers are discriminating in their selection of
fish since they eat much of it raw.

3 23

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV
MEXI CO

PRESENT SITUATION AND TRENDS
IN THE MEXICAN FISHING INDUSTRY

Mexico, although not a major fishing nation, is an tici-
pating continued growth of its expanding fishing industry.
Between 1969 and 1973 Mexico's fish harvest increased
rapidly along with domestic and international demands for
Mexican fish products. During the same period, the price
of fish products increased by 39 percent and remained pro-
hibitively high for many Mexican citizens.

Since 1970 the government has played an important role
in developing the fishing industry. A subsecretary for
fisheries was appointed in the Ministry of Industry and
Commerce and a goal was established to increase Mexico's
annual fishery harvest from about 560 million pounds in
1970 to over I billion pounds in 1976. Government actions
to improve fisheries included:

--Approximately $240 million was invested in the
fishing industry. The funds were used primarily
to modernize the fleet and to improve seaports and
product marketing.

--Thirty technical fishery schools were established.

--The Federal Law for the Development of Fisheries
was enacted to (1) strengthen fishery cooperatives
which are under tight government control, (2) in-
vestigate fishery resources and fish cultivation,
and (3) regulate fishery marketing practices.

--A quasi-government corporation was formed to improve
management of the fishing industry and fishery
resources and to provide consumers with high quality,
reasonably priced seafoods.

Future growth and stability of Mexico' s fishing indus-
try appears likely. Between 1969 and 1973 exports of fish
products have increased and imports have declined. Impor-
tant export markets have been established in the United
States and Japan.

Mexico expects that domestic consumption of fishery
products will continue to grow as unexploited coastal
waters provide new harvesting opportunities. The Organiza-
tion for Economic Cooperation and Development, a major
international organization promoting stable economic growth,
estimates that these coastal waters contain thriving stocks
of anchovy, sardine, and mackerel. Increased harvests are
also likely because Mexico has claimed exclusive fishing
rights in a 200-mile economic zone off its coasts. Through

324

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

this action Mexico asserted fishing rights over rich shrimp
beds in the Gulf of Mexico and over tuna fishing areas in the
Pacific Ocean. To take advantage of these opportunities,
harvesting capacity of the Mexican fishing fleet is being
increased.

EFFECT OF EXTENDED JURISDICTION

Having declared a 200-mile exclusive economic zone,
Mexico is ready to negotiate fishing arrangemnents with
nations which have established or may establ ish similar
zones. Because Mexico primarily fishes in its own coastal
waters, economic zones established by most other nations
will not affect Mexico's harvest.

Mexico will permit foreign fishing in its waters only
to the extent that Mexican vessels harvest their full
capacity and remaining stocks are not overfished. Fishing
licenses will be granted to vessels from nations which have
historically fished in Mexican waters, including the
United States, Cuba, and Japan. However, as Mexico's
harvesting capability increases, fewer licenses will be
issued. Nations not expected to be granted fishing licenses
include France, Poland, the Soviet Union, and Spain.

Fishing rights in Mexico's extended economic zone will
be enforced by the Mexican navy which is expected to have
100 vessels ready for this purpose by the end of 1976.
Because Mexico' s most important fishing areas are either
in coastal waters or in clearly defined fishing areas, it
believes effective enforcement operations will not be diffi-
cult to carry out.

Mexico's extended economic zone overlaps the zone
established by the United States. The two nations differ
on policy regarding exclusive fishing rights over highly
migratory species, such as tuna. Whereas the United States
regards these species as common international property,
Mexico has declared fishing rights over the species located
in its waters.

STRUCTURE OF THE FISHING FLEET

Mexico's fishing vessels increased from about 15,000
in 1969 to approximately 22,000 in 1973, an increase of
nearly 47 percent. only about 2,300 of these vessels

325

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX TV

operate on the high seas. The high seas fleet, by fish-
ery, follows:

Fishery Number

Shrimp 1,955
Finfish 261
Sardine 68
Tuna 21
Cod 2

Total 2,307

Few of the vessels are of the large type used by
major fishing nations such as Japan and the Soviet Union.
Japanese and Soviet vessels of over 100 gross registered
tons can remain at sea for extended periods to conduct mas-
sive harvesting operations. Shrimp boats, weighing about
30 gross registered tons, constitute about 85 percent of
Mexico's high seas fleet. These boats can remain at sea
for only a few weeks and have a limited storage capacity.

The Mexican fleet has become more modern with the
rapid increase in the number of fishing vessels. However,
the fleet still lacks needed equipment, such as refrigerated
hulls for preserving fish. One of Mexico's principal goals
is to modernize the fleet.

OWNERSHIP, EMPLOYMENT, AN~D WAGES

The Mexican fleet is owned by three sectors: cooper-
atives which are assisted and heavily controlled by the
government, individual private enterprises, and the govern-
ment.

The government reserves certain valuable fisheries for
the approximately 300 cooperatives. Reserved species include
abalone, clams, lobsters, oysters, rock bass, and shrimp. In-
dividual private enterprises harvest fisheries not reserved
for cooperatives, while the government harvests only selected
fisheries, such as cod. The following table illustrates the
approximate percent of the total 1973 harvest and dollar value
which is attributed to each sector of the Mexican fishing
fleet.

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations, the fishing industry employed 65,514
people during 1974, a 47-percent increase over the 1969
employment level. Mexicans employed in fisheries other

326

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

Sector Harvest Dollar value
(percent) (percent)

Cooperatives 34 66
Private business 66 34
Government (a) (a)

Total 100 100

aLess than 1 percent.

than shrimp and tuna earn little more than subsistence in-
comes. Earnings of shrimp and tuna fishermen are based on
harvest size and the earnings are high in comparison to
those of the average Mexican worker. For example, a crew-
man on a tuna boat landing a reasonably good harvest of
600 tons after a 60- to 90-day fishing trip, earns about
$4,000. A tuna boat captain earns about $18,500 annually.

MYAJOR FISHING GROUNDS

Nearly all fishing operations are conducted in Mexico's
coastal waters. The Pacific Ocean provides 70 percent of
Mexico's harvest and the Gulf of Mexico provides the remain-
ing 3Q percent. With increased government emphasis on
developing the fishing industry, there have been efforts
to identify and develop new fishing grounds. The best
prospects are in the Pacific Ocean off Mexico's northwest
coast and in the coastal waters of Baja, California. The
Food and Agricultural Organization estimates that these
areas contain thousands of tons of anchovies, sardines,
mackerel, squid, sauries, oceanic red crabs, and rock lob-
sters., In addition, numerous lagoons and estuaries, on
both of Mexico's coasts, can be developed for fish cultiva-
tion.

SIZE AND COMPOSITION OF THE HARVEST

Mexico produced less than I percent of the world's fish
harvest in 1973; however, in the past several years the
harvest has grown considerably in quantity and value. Mex-
ico's 1973 harvest consisted of about 979 million pounds
of fish and shellfish valued at approximately $142 million.

Between 1969 and 1973, herring, oysters, redfish,
shrimp, and tuna were the principal species harvested in
terms of value and quantity. The following table shows
the quantity harvested in 1973.

3 27

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

Percent of
Species Quantity total harvest
(million pounds)

Shrimp (includes prawn) 160.9 16
Herring (includes sardine,
pilchard, and anchovy) 149.9 15
Redfish (includes snook,
grouper, snapper, and
mojarras) 94.8 10
Oyster 68.3 7
Tuna (includes wahoo,
sierra king, mackeral,
and skipjack) 66.1 7

Subtotal 540.0 55

All other 438.8 45

Total 978.8 100

The harvest of herring increased most notably (94 per-
cent) between 1969 and 1973. While tuna and redfish har-
vests increased by over 50 percent and shrimp by over 20
percent, the oyster harvest declined by 45 percent. The
total harvest increased by nearly 40 percent and the har-
vest of the principal species increased by 25 percent.

The following table shows the value of the principal
species harvested in 1973.

Percent of
Species Value total value
(millions)

Shrimp (includes prawn) $ 71.2 50
Redfish (includes snook,
grouper, snapper, and
morjarras) 16.7 12
Tuna (includes wahoo, sierra
king, mackerel, and skipjack) 10.9 8
Herring (includes sardine,
pilchard, and anchovy) 10.7 8
Oysters 3.2 2

Subtotal 112.7 80

All other 29.0 20

Total $141.7 100

328

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

The value of each major species, except oysters,
increased substantially between 1969 and 1973. Herring
increased by over 350 percent, tuna by over 100 percent,
redfish by over 90 percent, and shrimp by over 70 percent.
The value of oysters declined by 39 percent. Value of the
total harvest increased by 94 percent and value of the
principal species increased by 79 percent.

PROCESS ING FACILITIES

In 1971 a quasi-government corporation was formed to
improve the fishing industry by coordinating the operations
of processing plants and fishing companies. Recently
there have also been several improvements in processing
facilities. The success of these efforts is reflected in
a strong trend toward domestic production of fish meal.

In 1973 the Port of Alvarado--a major processing port--
was being modernized resulting in an increase in fishing
vessels--13 in 1970 to 57 in 1973--supplying this port's
processing facilities. other examples of improvements in
processing since 1970 follow:

--The private sector of the fishing industry con-
structed a modern canning plant costing over $4
million.

--New processing techniques have made it possible to
process fish meal on vessels at sea.

--Thirty technical fishery schools with processing
laboratories were established to provide a trained
labor force for the fishing industry.

DOMESTIC USE OF FISH PRODUCTS

in 1973 two-thirds of Mexico's fish products were used
for food and the remainder was primarily used for fish
meal. Per capita fish consumption increased by 29 percent
between 1969 and 1973; however, fish continues to be a
small part of the Mexican diet. in 1973 per capita consump-
tion was 9.9 pounds. As the following table shows, fresh
fish was the primary type of seafood consumed.

Fish products Percent of total

Fresh 56
Frozen 20
Canned 18
Cured 6
100
329

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

The types of seafood consumed remained fairly constant
between 1969 and 1973, one exception being that fresh fish
declined by 7percent and canned fish increased by 7 per-
cent. During the same period the portion of the domestic
supply used for industrial purposes fluctuated, ranging
from 34 percent to 40 percent of the total harvest.

A NMFS official told us that there is a high Mexican
demand for lobster, red snapper, and shrimp. The government
has attempted to make these species available to Mexican
citizens by limiting the prices of the fish products, which
are negotiated at the point of sale. The price in 1973
was prohibitively high for many Mexican citizens.

IMPORTS AND EXPORTS

Between 1969 and 1973 Mexican fishery imports have
greatly decreased and exports have greatly increased. The
Pr-Ie per ton of both has increased, but the price of
imports increased by a much greater margin.

Imports

In 1973 Mexico imported about 38 million pounds of
fish products--76 percent less than was imported in 1969.
During the same period the value of imports declined by
32 percent to a 1973 level of $8.6 million. The reduced
imports were almost entirely due to greater domestic pro-
duction of fish meal, the only fish product Mexico imported
in large quantities between 1969 and 1973. Although fish
meal imports declined by 80 percent during that period,
they remained Mexico's major fishery import, representing
79 percent of total fishery imports in 1973. Nearly all of
the fish meal was imported from Peru.

The quantity and value of imports from 1969 to 1973
is shown below.

Year Quantity Value
(million pounds) (millions)

1969 161.0 $12.6
1970 185.0 21.3
1971 237.0 22.4
1972 194.0 18.3
1973 38.0 8.6

As illustrated, in 1971 imports were highest in both
quantity and value. The quantity imported in 1973 was only
16 percent and the value imported was only 38 percent of the
1971 level. However, the price per ton of fishery imports

330

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

increased dramatically, from about $172 per ton in 1962 to
approximately $503 per ton in 1973--a 192-percent increase.

Exports

While Mexican imports have been decreasing, exports
have been increasing. In 1973 fishery exports totaled 95
million pounds valued at $97.8 million. In 1974 fishery
exports accounted for about 3 percent of total Mexican
exports, and shrimp, representing 85 percent of the value
of fishery exports, was Mexico's fifth largest export
commodity.

The quantity and value of Mexico's fishery exports
from 1969 to 1973 is shown in the following table.

Year Quantity Value
(million pounds) (millions)

1969 74 $60.3
19 70 83 71.5
1971 9 3 7 9. 0
19 72 102 88.6
19 73 95 97.8

The price per ton of fishery exports remained fairly
stable from 1969 to 1972, increasing by 6 percent. How-
ever, in 1973 the price of exports increased 26 percent
above the 1969 level. The United States imported about
80 percent of Mexico's 1973 shrimp exports; Japan was the
only other notable foreign market.

ECONOMIC ROLE OF THE FISHING INDUSTRY

In 1974 the Mexican fishing industry accounted for 0.7
percent of its gross national product. Between 1969 and
1973 the industry became more important to the nation'ss
food supply, shipbuilding industry, and foreign trade.

Per capita fish consumption increased from 7.7 pounds
to 9.9 pounds, a 29-percent increase. With expected in-
creases in the harvest, the Mexican Government anticipates
that fisheries will become increasingly important as a food
source.

Because of government efforts to modernize the fishing
fleet, by 1975 150 shrimp trawlers had been constructed and
238 vessels were under construction. As a result, the ship-
building industry has been strengthened and shipyards are
building vessels for foreign nations. This has provided
employment for Mexicans and contributed to Mexico's foreign
trade.
331

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

Between 1969 and 1973 foreign exchange for fishery
products has resulted in surpluses for Mexico, as illustrated
below.

Net fishery product
Year trade surplus Rate of growth
(millions) (1969 = 100)

1969 $47.8 100
1970 50.1 105
1971 56.7 119
1972 70.2 147
1973 89.2 187

GOVERNMENT ROLE IN FISHERIES

The government's fishery policies since the early 1970s
have been designed to substantially increase Mexico's pro-
duction. In 1970 production was about 560 million pounds
and a goal of 1.1 billion pounds by 1976 was established.

In 1970 a subsecretary for fisheries was appointed to
serve in the Ministry of Industry and Commerce to develop
national policies for fisheries. This action emphasized
the importance of the fishing industry by promoting the
fisheries' decisions to the cabinet level. Under the sub-
secretary, five directorates were created to manage fishery
activities; previously there had been one directorate respon-
sible for all fishery activities.

In 1971 a quasi-government corporation--51-percent
government-owned and wholly government-operated--was created
to improve fishery management. The corporation gained con-
trol over 20 fishery and related enterprises, including
shrimp packing plants, sardine and tuna operations, fish
meal plants, and a shipyard. In addition, the corporation
gained control over processing most of the shrimp produced
on Mexico's Pacific coast.

The next major step in strengthening the fishing
industry occurred in 1972 when a fishing vessel construction
program was established. The program called for the comple-
tion of 400 shrimp boats, 80 finfish vessels, and 20 tuna
boats by 1976. The shrimp industry was already overcapital-
ized, having more vessels than needed to harvest a limited
supply of shrimp; however, the premise of the new construc-
tion program aimed to replace every 14 obsolete boats with
10 modern shrimp boats.

332

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

Another indication of Mexico's growing interest in
fisheries was the enactment in 1972 of the Federal Law for
the Development of Fisheries. This law was the first major
revision of Mexico's fishery laws in 22 years. Among other
things the law was designed to

--strengthen fishery cooperatives,

--authorize the use of factory ships for processing
fish products,

--increase a trust fund for fishery development by
50 percent,

--increase penalties for violating Mexico's fishing
laws,

--investigate fishery resources and fish cultivation,
and

--regulate fishery marketing practices.

The law also established that only government-licensed
vessels may harvest fish and shellfish and licenses may be
revoked for failure to comply with fishing regulations.
Fishery cooperatives which have exclusive fishing rights over
the more valuable species may pay as much as 10 percent of
their total investment in fisheries for a license. Licenses
issued to other fishing enterprises may cost as much as $400
and foreign vessels may pay as much as $8,000 for their
licenses.

Under the fisheries law, the government can prevent
overfishing by limiting the number of fishing vessels; re-
stricting the type of fishing gear and equipment used;
establishing seasons during which species may not be fished;
restricting fishing for certain species; establishing a mini-
mum size for species fished; and imposing quotas on the
quantities of fish and shellfish harvested.

In February 1976 the Mexican Government declared an ex-
clusive economic zone extending 200 miles off the Mexican
coasts. This action allowed for the development of a
variety of fisheries and emphasized the government's inter-
est in the fishing industry.

Between 1970 and 1975 the Mexican Government has~ been
involved in several fishery support programs. For example,
investments were made to improve marketing of fish products
($25 million); to-improve seaports ($12 million); and to
train citizens for employment in the industry ($5 million).

333

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

In addition, price supports were offered to the shrimp
industry and subsidies were offered to fishermen coopera-
tives to purchase necessary fuel and oil.

The government is also involved in technical and
scientific research concerning economically important species.
This research is supported by 11 fishery investigation
stations located on the Pacific and Gulf coasts. To develop
new fisheries, the Mexican Government has entered into
joint research programs with foreign fishing interests. In
March 1974 government and two private Mexican companies
agreed with a Peruvian consortium to conduct exploratory
fishing operations in Mexican waters and in November 1974,
West German vessels were permitted to use a Mexican port to
conduct exploratory fishing operations.

In recent years, Mexico has established the basic
framework for strengthening its fishing industry. Advances
in fishing technology and in marketing and processing tech-
niques will be required to meet the primary goals of the
fishing industry. A major goal is to increase the supply
of food fish at prices acceptable to consumers. This will
require expanded resource investigations, increased invest-
ments in fishing vessels and in fish product distribution
networks, and fish product promotion campaigns. other
objectives are:

--To diversify Mexican fisheries.

--To introduce and enforce a management scheme for
improving economic stability of the shrimp industry.

--To increase domestic production of fish
meal.

--To train personnel for all sectors of the fishing
industry.

The Mexican Government has played an active role in
these areas during the past several years. Because of the
strong support of and control over the fishing industry,
the government will probably continue to provide the impetus
for the industry's growth.

334

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

SOVIET UNION

PRESENT SITUATION AND TRENDS IN
THE SOVIET FISHING INDUSTRY

During the past two decades the Soviet Union has become
one of the world's most modern fishing nations. In 1973 the
Soviet Union owned the world's largest fishing fleet and
harvest quantity was second only to that of Japan.

The Soviet harvest represented 14 percent of the world's
in 1973 and its harvest has been increasing at a much faster
rate. Between 1950 and 1973 the Soviet harvest increased at
an average annual rate of 17.9 percent while the world
harvest increased at an average annual rate of 6.7 percent.

Per capita fish consumption in the Soviet Union in 1973
was about three times higher than in the U.S. To meet the
Nation's nutritional requirements, the Soviet Government has
set a per capita fish consumption goal which is to be met by
1978.

NMFS observed that while the Soviet government stresses
conservation of the world's fish resources in policy
speeches, trends indicate that the Soviet Union does i~ot
plan to cut back on its total catch as environmental con-
siderations may demand. Continued emphasis on expanding the
fishing industry is shown in the Soviet Union's 5-year plan
for 1976 through 1980. While output of all sectors of the
food industry is to be increased by 23 to 25 percent, the
output of commercial fish produce is to be increased by 30
to 32 percent, indicating a much greater reliance on fish to
meet protein needs. other fishery goals set forth in the
plan are:

--Expansion of fish meal production for livestock.

--Better methods of fishing and processing seafoods
with emphasis on increased automation.

--Development of new fishing grounds and new fish
species to be harvested. This goal includes increas-
ing stocks of "valuable" fish species in inland waters
and increasing the production of fish farms by 70
percent.

--A 16- to 18-percent increase in labor productivity.
This increase is comparable to that expected in the
meat and dairy industry (17 to 19 percent).

33 5

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

--An increase in the preparation of high-quality marine
fish produce and better packaging of fishery products.

--Development of a wide scale network of shore based
processing enterprises and trade and retail outlets.
This should lessen the effects of a disproportionate
investment in the fishing fleet over previous years
and possibly correct the problem of poor distribution
of processed fishery products.

This 5-year plan indicates that the Soviet Union wants
to increase the efficiency of the fleet and better utilize
the harvest. An awareness of increasing international quotas
and expanding territorial limits is indicated by the Soviet
goal to locate and develop new fishing grounds. The ability
to do so could have a considerable influence on the growth
of the Soviet fishing industry over the next 5 years.

EFFECTS OF EXTENDED JURISDICTION

The Soviet Union has not formally commented on the uni-
lateral action of the United States extending its economic
zone to 200 miles. Informally, the Soviet Union has indicated
a willingness to abide by U.S. quotas for fish harvested.
The most recent Soviet position at the Law of the Sea Con-
ference was in support of a worldwide 200-mile economic zone
in which coastal nations have sovereign rights to all re-
sources within their respective zones. However, an additional
qualification by the Soviet Union is that all nations should
be allowed to harvest surplus fish and shellfish in these
waters and that developing nations should receive compen-
sation for allowing foreign nations to harvest in their
waters.

Because the Soviet Union harvests about one-half of its
total fishery harvest in coastal waters of foreign nations,
the Soviet government is concerned about future prohibitions
to fish in these waters. on the basis of the Soviet position
at the Law of the Sea Conference, the Library of Congress'
Congressional Research Service concluded that there is a
unified Soviet policy which covers the whole spectrum of
Soviet ocean interests. The Congressional Research Service
believes that this unified policy, which governs the Soviet
position on the rights of navy, maritime, and fishing
vessels, should help the Soviet Union in ocean-related
negotiations. One of the basic positions of the Soviet Union
is that all vessels should be afforded unhindered navigation
through international straits.

33 6

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

STRUCTURE OF THE FISHING FLEET

In terms of gross registered tons, the Soviet fishing
fleet is the world's largest. In 1975 there were over 80,000
vessels in the fleet; however, only about 18,000 were motor
powered, with over 4,000 equipped for high seas distant
water operations. Most vessels were small coastal craft or
inland-water boats.

The following table shows detailed tonnage data for the
Soviet high seas fleet in 1974.

Gross registered Number of Total gross
Type of vessel tons vessels registered tons

Fishing vessels 100 to 499 2,025 434,294
500 to 999 781 494,518
Over 1,000 710 1,876,130
3,516 2,804,942

Fishing support
vessels (a) 527 2,805,072
Total 4,043 5,610,014

aInformation not available.

The trend in Soviet vessel construction during the past
20 years shows a steady increase in the number of vessels
capable of operating on the high seas. According to NMFS,
the number of trawlers, large seiners, and whaling vessels
has almost doubled since 1955 and the number of support
vessels has more than quadrupled.

The trend toward larger vessels and a greater number of
support vessels is attributable to the Soviet Union's em-
phasis on fishing in distant waters. Successful distant water
fishing requires that vessels remain at sea for a long time.
Large vessels, such as stern factory trawlers, can remain at
sea for up to a year, provided there is periodic crew rota-
tion and supplies and fuel are made available to the vessels.

The stern trawlers are escorted to sea by nonfishing
support vessels which provide general logistics to the fish-
ing vessels such as fuel, water, salt, gear, and medical and
recreational facilities. once the fish are harvested,.the
stern trawlers can immediately process and transfer the
catch to support vessels which transport the catch to Soviet
or another nation'.s seaports.

3 37

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX TV

Type of food Percent of total value

Meat and dairy products 84.8

Fish products 8.3

Other 6.9

Total 100.0

NMFS found that Soviet fishing exports have become pro-
gressively more important to the economy as foreign funds
obtained through a foreign trade surplus have become more
difficult to obtain. in 1974 Soviet fish exports exceeded
imports by $23 million.

GOVERNMENT ROLE IN THE FISHING INDUSTRY

The Soviet government through 'its Fishery Ministry con-
trols the fishing industry and provi'des both policy guidance
and funding to the industry. Support programs for the in-
dustry are significant; $5.2 billion was invested in the in-
dustry from 1971 through 1975. The fishing fleet, rather
than processing facilities, receives most of these inv~est-
ments. There is a trend, however, toward providing a greater
portion of the investments to the processing sector.

The Soviet goverrnment has the world's largest fishing
training fleet. Costs of maintaining the fleet are partly
offset by earnings from the fleet's harvest.

The Soviet Union operates an extensive oceanographic re-
search program. Research areas include undersea research and
development, deep sea diving and underwater habitats, and
marine biology and aquaculture. In 1974 about 200 vessels
and 7,000 to 8,000 scientists were engaged in oceanographic
research.

Management programs of the government are concerned witl
conserving fish stocks. This is accomplished by requiring
licenses to fish and by controlling the size of fish harvest-
ed, the season when fishing may be conducted, and the equip-
ment and methods which may be used for fishing. Enforcement
efforts for these programs, however, have been largely in-
effective.

345

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

An NMFS official told us that, except for exports, all
food prices are set low by the government to encourage con-
sumption. The official added that domestic fish prices have
not changed'in about 10 years.

IMPORTS AND EXPORTS

Between 1969 and 1973 imported fish did not represent
more than I percent of the quantity used domestically. These
imports came primarily from Iceland and Iran.

Before 1959, according to NMFS, the Soviet Union had
imported a greater quantity of fish products than it export-
ed. In 1959 this situation was reversed and in recent years
the quantity of exports has been increasing. Between 1969
and 1973 seafood exports increased by 34 percent. This in-
crease was entirely due to exports of fresh, chilled, and
frozen fish.

Large quantities of seafood exports, mostly fresh or
frozen fish, are sold to African nations. The more valuable
seafoods such as crab, caviar, and other canned fish are sold
to European nations. NMFS expects that Soviet seafood exports
will be expanded after the Soviet per capita consumption
goal is reached.

Fish meal is the only significant nonfood fishery ex-
port; nearly all of this goes to Cuba.

ECONOMIC ROLE OF THE FISHING INDUSTRY

An NMFS official told us that the fishing industry makes
only a minor contribution to the Soviet Union's national
and local economy. The industry does, however, provide im-
portant contributions to the nation's food supply and bal-
ance of trade.

In April 1975 the Congressional Research Service re-
ported that the Soviet Union's need for protein foods has
prompted growth in the Soviet Union's fishing industry. The
Congressional Research Service estimated that fish products
account for about one-third of the Soviet animal protein diet
and about one-fifth of all protein consumption.

As shown in the following table fish products repre-
sented 8.3 percent of the value of all food produced in the
Soviet Union in 1975.

344

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

Soviet workers in fish processing plants are generally
paid an hourly wage and bonuses when production quotas are
exceeded. Current information is not available on either the
number of employees or the average wage paid to workers in
processing facilities.

DOMESTIC USE OF FOOD PRODUCTS

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization Year-
books, the Soviet Union had available 10.4 billion pounds of
processed fish in 1973. About 9.2 billion pounds processed
fishl, or 89 percent, was used for food and the remainder
was used for other purposes.

Most of the seafood was fresh, chilled, or frozen (64
percent). The remainder was either canned (19 percent), dried
salted, or smoked (17 percent). Fish products not used for
food were primarily used for fish meal.

From 1969 through 1973 demand for fish products in-
creased rapidly. Soviet production of seafood increased by
about 21 percent; production of nonfood fish products in-
creased by about 41 percent.

In 1973 per capita fish consumption was about 35 pounds
(about~ three times higher than U.S. per capita consumption).
The Soviet government had established a per capita con-
sumption goal of between 44 and 48 pounds to be reached by
1975. NMFS estimates this goal will be reached by 1977 or
1978.

Failure of the Soviet Union to meet its 1975 goal for
per capita fish consumption may have been caused in large
part by an inadequate distribution system for processed fish
products. The Soviet Ministry of Domestic Trade is respon-
sible for marketing finished fish products. According to NMFS
this ministry is unable to provide the high level of market-
ing technology required to sell frozen fish which represents
about 50 percent of sales. A Soviet fishing official con-
cluded that the Ministry of Domestic Trade whole sale centers
should do more than merely transfer processed fish from ship
to shore. He recommended establishing permanent areas for
marketing the products and establishing new and larger pro-
cessing enterprises under the various wholesale centers.

1Data was not available on the'production of herring or
miscellaneous fish products (fresh or chilled).

343

kPPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

Species grouping Pounds Percent of Total
(billions)

:od (includes pollock, hake,
and haddock) 7.8 41.0

ierring (includes sardines
and sprat) 2.5 13.1

Jacks (includes jack and
horse mackerel and
chinchards) 1.8 9.5

Redfish (includes grunt,
seabream, and ocean
perch) 1.5 7.9

4ackerel (includes Atlantic
and chub mackerel
and cutlass fish) 1.4 7.4

Total 15.0 78.9

11 others 4.0 21.1

Total 19.0 100.0

The five major specie groupings shown in the table have
Represented about 75 percent of the total Soviet catch from
L969 through 1973. During this period cod was consistently
the major specie harvested.

?ROCESSING FACILITIES

Large and self-sufficient fishing vessels permit the
3oviet Union to process many of its fish products at sea. New
trawler classes introduced in the 1970s will significantly
Lncrease the fleet's processing capability. Processing lines
3n newer ships are able to produce canned, frozen, salted
Eish, and nonfood fish products. These trawlers are more
automated and provide greater refrigeration and storage
space.

Available information concerning onshore processing
Eacilities is outdated. It does indicate a continuing trend
oward greater automation particularly for the canning and
salting operations.

342

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV~

NMFS feels the growth in the Soviet Union's Atlantic
catch has peaked because new quotas have been established by
the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic
Fisheries. During a September 1975 meeting, the Commission
reduced the 1976 catch quotas in U.S. waters by 1.4 billion
pounds, a 22-percent decrease. Quotas were established to
protect haddock, mackerel, herring, and flounder. Flounder
is the only one of these species not extensively fished by
the Soviet fleet.

The United States and Canada also have acted unilateral
ly to protect fishery resources from Soviet exploitation.
The United States limits Soviet access to major shipping
ports. Soviet fleets are allowed a maximum of four port call.
a month at four Atlantic coast ports and are permitted entry
to other ports only for humanitarian reasons. Canada has
initiated new fishing quotas calling for a 40-percent re-
duction in fish taken by the Soviet Union from its coastal
waters.

Furthermore, South American and African nations limit
foreign fishing activities off their coasts to protect fish
resources against extensive Soviet fishing.

SIZE AND COMPOSITION OF THE HARVEST

The Soviet Union is the world's second largest fish
harvester and is expected to become the largest harvester
sometime between 1977 and 1980. The Soviet harvest has been
increasing at a much faster rate than the worldwide harvest.
From 1950 to 1973 the Soviet harvest increased at an average
annual rate of 17.9 percent. During the same period the
world catch increased at an average annual rate of 6.7 per-
cent. The Soviet catch represented 14 percent of the world
catch in 1973. The following table shows the species group-
ings which represented the Soviet harvest for 1973.

341

PPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

Wages earned by Soviet fishermen are often two or three
imes higher than the average Soviet worker's salary. In
975 deck hands could earn up to $600 a month while the
verage Soviet worker earned less than $200 a month. Soviet
ishing vessel captains are paid over $1,000 monthly.

Productivity is a basic factor used in determining the
age paid to a member of the fishing industry. Other factors,
uch as location and duration at sea, are also considered.
here are more than 20 manuals and handbooks dealing with
age computation for fishermen. In 1972 a Soviet labor of-
icial said that the system for determining wage rates in the
ishing industry is more complicated than in any other Soviet
ndustry.

AJOR FISHING AREAS

Industrial pollution and overfishing within Soviet
oastal waters have necessitated fishing operations on the
igh seas which, according to NMFS estimates, accounted for
ver 90 percent of the Soviet Union's 1975 catch. In 1950
he Soviet fleet had to travel about 200 miles to reach good
ishing grounds. This distance increased to over 4,000 miles
n the late 1960s.

The major Soviet fishing grounds include the Atlantic,
ndian, and Pacific Oceans, the Azov and Black Seas, and
Dviet inland waters. The primary areas are in the Atlantic
nd Pacific where the harvest about doubled between 1964 and
973. The following table shows distribution of the harvest
V fishing areas in 1964 and 1973.

ishing area Billions of pounds Percent of total
1964 1973 1964 1973

tlantic Ocean 4.6 10.1 46.4 53.1
acific Ocean 3.2 6.3 32.2 33.2
ndian Ocean (a) 0.1 0.1 0.5
nland waters,
including the Caspian
3ea 1.6 1.9 16.2 10.0
zov and Black Seas 0.5 0.6 5.1 3.2
Totals 9.9 19.0 100 100

Less than 100 million pounds.

340

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

For example, more than one-half of the Soviet vessel tonnage
consists of support vessels. In contrast, the tonnage of
Japanese support vessels represents only about 20 percent of
its fleet.

NMFS attributes Spain's low productivity to its large
numbers of vessels in distant waters. Conversely, the high
productivity of Norway and the United States is attributed
to the fact that these nations fish from homeports and do
not require numerous support vessels.

OWNERSHIP, EMPLOYMENT, AND WAGES

The fishing industry is composed of state fisheries and
fishermen cooperatives. Both are owned by the Soviet govern-
ment and are subject to government policies. State fisheries
are the basic form of ownership in regions of the country
where a labor force was once unavailable and it was neces-
sary for the government to transport workers to the area.
Also, state fisheries are usually established when large
capital investments are required or when new fishing methods
and vessels are introduced.

Cooperatives once accounted for the greatest part of
the Soviet catch but have become increasingly less important
Current statistical data showing the catch of state fisherie
and cooperatives is not available. Data through 1968 is pro-
vided below.

Percent of harvest
Year state fisheries Cooperatives Total

1940 44 56 100

1950 47 53 100

1960 70 30 100

1965 77 23 100

1968 74 2 6 100

The number of fishermen has remained relatively stable
while the Soviet harvest has increased considerably. This is
because the Soviet fleet has been expanded and automated. in
1975 an estimated 750,000 people were employed in the fishin
industry representing less than 1 percent of the total Sovie
employment. The number of fishermen in 1974 was estimated to
be between 200,000 and 250,000 people--about the same number
as was estimated for 1913.

3 39

k\PPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

Soviet efforts to increase high seas fishing have been
successful. In 1950, 46 percent of the Soviet catch came
from the high seas and 91 percent in 1975.

Likewise, efforts to develop more efficient fishing
v'essels have been successful. The number of fishermen in
1974 was about the same as it was in 1913 yet the 1974 har-
v'est was about nine times greater than the 1913 harvest.
A'oreover, the fleet is becoming even more efficient and is
requiring less labor. For example, in 1974 the Soviet Union
introduced a trawling system which permits alternate oper-
ation of two trawls so that no time is lost in handling and
resetting fishing nets; as one net is hauled, the other is
3et. NMFS projects that through 1980 the Soviet Union will
::ontinue to modify and expand its fleet, emphasizing large
fishing and support fishing vessels.

An indicator used by NMFS to measure the productivity
Df fishing fleets is the ratio between the catch and the
gross registered tons of the vessels. Using this indicator,
Y9MFS shows that of the five nations having the largest fish-
ing fleets in 1973, the Soviet Union's fleet ranks last in
productivity. The following table illustrates this.

Country Catch
(pounds harvested
per gross ton
of vessel)

Norway 32,628

United'States 16,645

~~~~i ~~~~~~15,609

Spain 6,900

Soviet Union 2,910

Using the same productivity measure, the fishing fleets
Df all remaining fishing nations, as a group have a producti-
v'ity level about nine times greater than that of the Soviet
fleet.

Regardless of the merit of the productivity measure
used by NNFS, the Soviet Union's low catch per gross vessel
ton highlights a weakness in its fishing method. Remaining
at sea for extended periods increases the number of non-
fishing support vessels required to service the fishing fleet.

338

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

Pounds ~United States dollar
Pounds ~equivalent (note a)

(millions)
Whitefish (cod,
haddock, saithe,
plaice) 1,412.1 $292,535,000

Herring 329.0 31,551,000

other fatty fish
(sprats, mackerel) 256.2 10,025,000

Shellfish 140.6 27,025,000

Total all fish 2,137.9 $361,136,000

~.Because it was our desire to present monetary data in terms
of dollars, and for consistency, we selected a conversion
rate of I pound to $2.35 (average rate 1974) and applied it
throughout the United Kingdom profile.

Cod, herring, haddock, sprats, and saithe, the five most
important species, constitute approximately 70 percent of
the United Kingdom's total fish catch.

PROCESSING FACILITIES

There are about 800 to 1,000 wholesale merchants buying
fish at the numerous ports located throughout the United
Kingdom. The ports are staffed by two or three to several
hundred people. The nature of the work varies from filleting
and packing to the production of frozen, smoked, or canned
products.

Most of the smaller firms are family businesses or
partnerships. They usually have stands on or close to the
market floor where their purchases are filleted and packed in
ice in nonreturnable containers for distribution to inland
wholesalers and retailers.

Medium-sized firms primarily cut and package chilled
fillets, or smoke-cure the fish. In recent years many in-
dependent, medium-sized businesses have been taken over by
larger processing plants. Many of these plants are company-
run and often belong to a chain of factories. Precise figures
are not available but probably well over half the United
Kingdom's catch is processed by the five largest groups.

3 54

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

Frozen fish may be moved from the producer's own cold
storage to a public one at or near the port, and from there
to an inland cold storage, or it may be sold directly from
the port. Apart from some transport by rail, almost all fish
is distributed by truck.

DOMESTIC USE OF FISH PRODUCTS

Fish may reach the consumer by a variety of routes. The
port merchant may send the fish directly to a retailer or
caterer, he may send it to an inland wholesale market, or he
may have his own inland depot for local distribution.

The price of fish reflects the market condition more
than the fishermen's costs. The price per pound the customer
pays is on the average four times the price per pound the
fisherman receives. The processing and distribution phase ac-
count for the difference.

Nearly all fresh fish is sold at auctions normally con-
ducted by the trawler firms or by an agent employed by them.
Fish frozen at sea and chilled fish from vessels that have
signed an agreement with a processing firm to take some or
all of their catch are usually sold by contract.

Herrings are sold by auction after a sample of the
vessel's catch has been inspected. Some shellfish, notably
Norway lobsters, may be put up for auction but a large por-
tion of the catch bypasses the auction and is sold directly
by private bargain to the processor or distributor.

Most of the British catch is chilled, frozen, smoked, or
canned for human consumption. Consumption of fish in the
United Kingdom has steadily decreased. Before the Second
World War, per capita consumption was 26 pounds, but in the
1960s the figure was down to 20 pounds. Consumption was
under 18 pounds including 2 pounds of imported canned fish,
during the mid-1970s. Comparable figures for other protein
foods are: 117 pounds of meat, 15 pounds of poultry, 35
pounds of eggs, 55 pounds of milk, and 13-pounds of cheese.
A little more than 4 percent of the household food ex-
penditure is spent on fish. According to the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development Review of Fisheries,
the estimated use of the 1974 United Kingdom fish catch was:

355

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

Percent

Fresh, chilled 53.6
Frozen 27.5
Cured (salted, smoked) 4.1
Canned .5
Reduced to meal/oil 13.5
Miscellaneous purposes .8

Roughly 70 percent of the whitefish catch is chilled,
with the remainder frozen. About half the herring catch is
for kippers or kipper fillets, and only small amounts of
chilled herring are sold in the United Kingdom.

The shellfish catch is often sold to local hotels and
holiday resorts. Some of the more important species like the
Norway lobster are processed for exports as shelled frozen
meat.

The principal by-products made from fish are fishmeal
for animal feeding, and fish oils used mainly in manufactur-
ing margarine and cooking fat. During 1974 United Kingdom
and foreign vessels landed about 187.4 million pounds of
Norway pout and sandeels for industrial purposes. in addi-
tion, approximately 114.6 million pounds of unsold edible
fish were reduced for use in industrial products.

IMPORTS AND EXPORTS

The 1974 fish imports to the United Kingdom decreased
slightly from 1973. The most important import commodities
were chilled cod and plaice, frozen fillets of cod, frozen
and canned salmon, canned pilchards and sardines, and frozen
and canned shrimps and prawns. The United Kingdom also im-
ported large quantities of fishmeal.

Exports from the United Kingdom have tripled in the
past 10 years for all fish products except canned fish.
Shellfish exports in particular have risen rapidly in the
seventies. However, the total amount of fish exports is not
outstanding in terms of total fish caught--about 16 percent.

Edible fish exports also declined in 1974. Fresh,
chilled, and frozen fish accounted for approximately 64 per-
cent of the fishery exports, followed by semipreserved--21
percent, those in air-tight containers--8 percent, and shell-
fish--7 percent.

The Netherlands received the greatest amount of United
Kingdom exports--about 17 percent and the United States re-
ceived about 7 percent.
356

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

ECONOMIC ROLE OF THE FISHING INDUSTRY

Specific information regarding the importance of the
fishing industry to the national economy was not readily
available. Indications are, however, that the fishery in-
dustry is relatively small compared to other United Kingdom
industries. In terms of employment, there are only about
23,000 fishermen. In total, about 100,000 people are in-
volved in the United Kingdom fishing business, catching,
processing, marketing, and distributing fish products to 55
million potential customers.

GOVERNMENT ROLE IN FISHERIES

According to an official of the British Ministry of
Fishing, the general policy of the United Kingdom government
prior to 1970 was to supply food to the consumer at the low-
est possible price. The government was also intent on keeping
the fishing industry visible, thus supporting the industry
for both social and economic reasons.

This policy changed during the 1970s. The government
now feels that more consideration should be given to fish
conservation, an area which has received little attention in
the past. Also, more emphasis is being placed on improving
the fishing capability of the inshore domestic fleet.

The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food is
responsible for fisheries in the United Kingdom, including
England and Wales. Scottish fishery matters are the re-
sponsibility of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries
for Scotland. The fisheries branch of the Ministry of Agri-
culture manages fishery affairs in Northern Ireland. The
fishery departments are generally concerned with the formu-
lation of United Kingdom fisheries policy in national and
international affairs, the regulation and inspection of
marine and freshwater fisheries, financial and technical aid
to the industry, and the management of fisheries research.

Another fishing organization, The Herring Industry
Board, has powers to regulate the fishery for herring, to
sponsor research and development work aimed at improving the
herring industry, to develop markets and provide publicity
for the herring and its products, and to provide financial
assistance. The White Fish Authority has a similar role to
play for the whole of the sea fishing industry apart from
the herring fishery, and has its own industrial development
unit to provide a wide range of technical services. Both
have a number of common interests, and their administrations

3 57

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

share a headquarters in Edinburgh, Scotland. These two
organizations provide an important link between the Govern-
ment fishery departments and the industry they serve.

Support programs

According to the White Fish Authority, operational sub-
sidies were introduced in the beginning of 1975 to last for
a 6-month period. This was done to avoid a radical reduction
in the fishing fleet. Subsidies were in the form of flat
rate, daily payments apportioned according to vessel size;
the larger the vessel, the greater the flat rate. The total
subsidy was estimated at $14,688,000. From April 1974 to
April 1975 the government also approved 14,732 grants total-
ing $123,941,000, and 2,837 loans totaling $103,414,000.
These loans and grants could be used for purchase and initial
outfitting of new boats, purchase of second hand boats, im-
provements, reconditioning, and new motors.

Research programsI

The principal Government fisheries research stations
are the Fisheries Laboratory at Lowestoft, the Marine Labo-
ratory and the Terry Research Station both at Aberdeen. The
Fisheries Laboratory at Lowestoft is concerned with the
study of marine fish resources, their viability and con-
servation, and methods of catching fish. Branch laboratories
at Burnham on Crouch and at Conway are primarily concerned
with inshore and shellfish research. The Marine Laboratory
in Aberdeen provides similar research support for Scottish
fisheries. Terry Research Station, together with its branch
in Hull, the Humnber Laboratory, provides facilities for
studying problems related to the handling, processing, and
distribution of fish as food. Freshwater fishery research is
done by the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Laboratory in
London, who have a branch at Weymouth concerned principally
with fish diseases; the Scottish counterpart is the Fresh-
water Fisheries Laboratory at Pitlochry.

Management programs

Several officials we interviewed in the United Kingdom
mentioned the inadequacy of current conservation measures.
They affirmed that quota agreements which have been the basis
of international catch control are ineffective. Industry
spokesmen stated that, although the United Kingdom has abided
by the quotas and gear restrictions imposed by the Common
Fisheries Policy of the EEC, they feel other EEC members have

358

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

violated the agreements. This was attributed to the lack of
penalties and enforcement; violators were simply reported to
their respective countries.

Government officials, as well as industry officials,
indicated that there is a need for effective conservation.
The conservation measures should include:

--Prohibiting, in certain waters, fishing with the
intent to reduce the catch to fishmeal.

--Adopting an effective quota system to insure regular
harvests. This in turn, should lead to the develop-
ment of an exclusive economic zone and exclusive
waters for fishermen who have a direct interest in
conserving migratory stocks.

--Implementation of an effort limitation (expressed in
vessel days on the fishing grounds) in specific
geographic areas, coupled with random inspections
of mesh sizes. This should be tied to scientifically
assessed stock levels.

359

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

WEST GERMANY

PRESENT SITUATION AND TRENDS IN THE
WEST GERMAN FISHING INDUSTRY

In an effort to make the fishing industry more efficient
and competitive, West Germany implemented a fleet moderni-
zation program. However, with some coastal countries extend-
ing their territorial limits and international fishery
management commissions limiting the amount of fish that may
be caught, its modern long distance fleet is underutilized.
West Germany's deep-sea fleet in 1974 harvested only 180.8
million pounds of fish, although its 40 trawlers have the
capability of catching 220.5 million pounds per year. Like-
wise, the freezer trawlers produced only 167.5 million pounds
of frozen fillets in 1974, although they have the capability
to produce 264.6 million pounds per year. The four trawler
companies making up the deep-sea fleet all suffered losses
in 1974 and 1975.

The long distance trawler fleet is being forced to
shift from its traditional fishing grounds to new grounds as
a result of increasing restrictions by coastal states. Over
the past 5 years the shift in catching activities in the
North Atlantic has been away from the North American coast
and toward Norway. West Germany recognizes her dependence on
international developments and the need to protect her right
to traditional fishing grounds.

EFFECTS OF EXTENDED JURISDICTION

As coastal countries establish extended territorial
zones (200-mile limits) , West Germany will try to have the
limits of the zones and authorities of the coastal states
precisely defined in international law so that objective
enforcements can be made. Within this arrangement, West
Germany will try to negotiate joint ventures under which its
modern fleet can be utilized for the benefit of coastal
states which do not have such capabilities, in exchange for
the right to take some of the catch back to the West German
market. West Germany feels that such an arrangement could be
made with the United States, expecially in view of U.S.
difficulties in manning a modern deep-sea fleet and the
failure of a recent U.S. venture into deep-sea freezer trawl-
ing. West Germany also sees the possiblility of agreements
with the United States for the exploitation of fish not
harvested by the United States, such as hake off the Pacific
Coast.

3 60

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

In summary West Germany views the degree of exclusive-
ness of the extended economic zones as the key factor in
determining the future of its fishing industry. The Govern-
ment is committed to supporting the industry to the extent
necessary to maintain a domestic market share and the exist-
ence of the secondary sector of the industry which is an
important econcmic base in the coastal states.

STRUCTURE OF THE FISHING FLEET

The West Germany fishing fleet is based-primarily in
the four main ports of Bremerhaven, Cuxhaven, Hamburg, and
Kiel. The structure of the fleet in terms of vessel types
and numbers has been changing over the past few years. With
the assistance of Government programs, including interest
subsidies, loan guarantees, and scrapping premiums, many
older, smaller vessels have been withdrawn, and a few larger
more modern ones added. The composition of the fleet at the
end of 1974 totaled 2,563 vessels consisting of 74 deep
sea trawlers, 7 luggers, 794 fish and shrimp cutters, and
1,688 coastal fishing craft.

The deep-sea trawler fleet decreased from 110 in 1971
to 72 by the end of 1975. The lugger fleet decreased from
14 to 7 by the end of 1974, while the cutter fleet dropped
from 958 to 794 during the same period. The coastal fleet
also experienced a decrease in the number of fishing boats.

The average age of the deep sea trawlers is 10 years.
About 71 percent of the fish cutters are over 20 years old
compared to 34 percent of the shrimp cutters. The seven
luggers range from 15 to 19 years old.

Of the 74 deep sea trawlers, 32 vessels are classified
as full freezers and 42 as wet fish trawlers. All except 14
of the vessels are stern trawlers. Sixty-two vessels of the
trawler fleet have fishmeal plants on board.

361

APPENDIX TV APPENDIX IV

Age and Size Groups of the Deep-Sea Trawler Fleet
December 31, 1974

Gross Age in years
registered Num- Per- Under From 5 From 10 From 15
tons (GRT) ber cent 5 to 9 to 14 to 19

650 to 999 34 45.7 0 3 21 10

1,000 to 1,999 16 21.8 1 10 5 0

2,000 to 2,999 11 14.9 0 9 2 0

3,000 to 3,599 13 17.6 13 0 0 0

Total 74 100.0 14 22 28 10

Percent of vessels
in age groups: 18.9 29.7 37.8 13.5

OWNERSHIP, EMPLOYMENT, AND WAGES

The ownership of the entire deep-sea trawler fleet is
divided among four private companies, three of which are sub-
sidiaries of multinational firms. The four companies are
organized into an association and are encouraged and re-
gulated under German cartel law. The remainder of the fleet,
including cutters, luggers, and coastal fishing craft, are
mostly independently owned and operated. The owners of cutters
and luggers are members of cooperatives, some of the co-
operatives being the equivalent of producer organizations.

The number of crew members employed in the fleet totaled
5,758 as of September 30, 1974; it was 5,948 the previous
year. This number includes 1,221 owners and charterers, 891
hired officers, and 3,646 others, such as deck hands, cook-
ing and service personnel, machine operators, and fish pro-
cessing workers.

The wage rates of workers on the deep-sea trawlers are
negotiated between the employees' unions and the trawler com-
panieq and average about $3 per hour. The wage rates consist
of a base rate plus a certain bonus based on the fish catch.
In the remainder of the fleet the predominant basis of wage
determination is a percent of the catch proceeds as agreed to
by the vessel operator and the workers.

Closely related to employment aboard vessels is the
employment of workers to unload the fishing vessels. At Bre-
merhaven, the largest of the four major fishing ports, about

362

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

150 workers are employed by the port for this Purpose. These
workers are paid at a piece rate with a guaranteed minimum
equivalent to earnings of the prior year.

MAJOR FISHING AREAS

The North Sea continues to be the most'important fishing
area for the coastal fleet, accounting for 77 percent of that
fleet's catch in 1974. In distant waters the fishing area
around Iceland has been the most important, although its im-
portance is declining with a general shift to other distant
fishing areas. On the basis of total catch, Greenland, New
England, Nova Scotia, and Iceland are decreasing in im-
portance, while the Faroe Islands, Norway, and the Barents
Sea are becoming more important. In 1974 less than 4 percent
of the long distance fleet's effort was devoted to fishing
off New England.

SIZE AND COMPOSITION OF THE HARVEST

The total catch of the West German fishing fleet in 1974
was 1.1 billion pounds, valued at $206 million.k/ The 1974
catch represented an increase of 8.2 percent in tonnage
caught and 22.5 percent in value over the 1973 catch.

The most important species caught in 1973 and 1974 were
cod, salmon, herring, and Atlantic redfish (ocean perch).
These species made up 74 percent of the catch in 1973 and 70
percent in 1974.

The total 1974 landings were about 3.5 percent below the
average of the previous 5 years. Production of the deep-sea
trawler fishery increased by 10.9 percent, showing the effect
of the catching capacity of the new full freezers. Fresh fish
landings by the trawlers showed only small differences. In
the coastal and medium water fisheries the production in-
creased by only 4 percent.

PROCESSING FACILITIES

The fish processing industry in West Germany is located
mainly in the four major fishing ports. The processors

'For purposes of consistency we selected a conversion rate
of 2.53 DM to $1 (official rate April 1976) and applied it
throughout the West Germany profile.

363

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

operate to a large extent out of buildings leased from the
respective fishery port authorities. The fresh fish are
processed 'in facilities adjacent to the auction halls and
by early afternoon the first products are in route inland
by truck or rail.

Frozen fish from the factory ships are unloaded and put
into freezer storage at the port, to await final processing
and distribution. Information relative to the overall con-
dition of processing facilities was not available, but both
the Bremerhaven and Cuxh~aven fishery port authorities have
had recent additions to processing and freezer storage
facilities.

In 1974 over 10,000 persons were employed in the West
German processing industry. The largest single processing
plant employs about 1,000 persons. However, the size of most
individual plants is much smaller; 53 percent of the in-
dustry's individual plants have from 10 to 200 employees and
42 percent have from I to 9 employees. Approximately 80 per-
cent of the total employment is made up of production workers
paid primarily at piece rates. The production workers are
mostly foreigners. The average earning of a production
worker in 1974 was about $2.85 per hour.

DOMESTIC USE OF FISH PRODUCTS

Total output of the processing industry in 1974 was
dominated by marinades (28 percent), frozen products (24 per-
cent), and canned products (22 percent). The remaining 26
percent was made up of smoked products, oil preserves, semi-
preserves, shrimp products, fish salads, and other prepared
products. Less than 20 percent of the 1974 domestic catch
was made into industrial products, namely fishmeal, fish oil,
and fish liver oil.

Domestic landings were equivalent to 55 percent of the
total supply of fish in the West German market in 1974, com-
pared to 50 percent and 51 percent in the 2 previous years.
The remainder of the total supply was made up from imports.

The fish products distribution system in Germany is
characterized by a number of distribution schemes. For ex-
ample, the German cooperative, made up of independently owned
and operated fishing enterprises, has a group of 12,000 re-
tail outlets through which it sells a large part of its
catch. Another major share of the distribution sector is

364

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

controlled by subsidiaries of the same parent companies that
own the distant water trawler fleet. Despite this common
ownership the processing and distributing subsidiaries operate
independently, buying their unprocessed fish wherever the
price is best.

Although over 80 percent of the 1974 catch was des-
ignated for human consumption,1less than one-half of this
was actually consumed on the domestic market. Some 110.2
million pounds were used fog meal while over 330.7 million
pounds of fish and fish products were exported.

The average per capita consumption of edible fish in
West Germany was 25 pounds per year in 1970 and is expected
to be 30 pounds per year in 1980. The most popular products
on the West German domestic market in 1974 were marinades
and fillets. The West Germany demand for fishmeal and fish
oil is equivalent to six times the domestic producing capa-
bility, necessitating substantial imports, primarily from
Peru. in 1974 domestic production of fishmeal and oil was
165.0 million pounds, while imports were 1.0 billion pounds.

Minimum prices are set for both fresh and frozen fish.
The Association of German Deep Sea Fisheries (owners of the
long distance fleet) requires that all fish caught by member
companies be sold through the auctions. Cooperatives formed
by independent owner/operators have similar agreements. As a
result, 90 percent of the wet fish landed in West Germany is
sold through the auctions. If the minimum established price
cannot be obtained the fish goes to the fishmeal factory.
The price obtained from the fishmneal factory is only a small
fraction of the minimum auction price and the difference is
partially made up by a subsidy program.

The Association of German Deep Sea Fisheries also sets
minimum prices for frozen fish and can regulate the quantity
of the catch by laying off vessels. The organization's annual
plans and price determinations are subject to approval of the
West Germany cartel administration. Retail prices of major
fish products increased an average of 10 percent in 1974.

IMPORTS AND EXPORTS

In 1974 45 percent of the West Germany market's fish
supply came from imports, primarily fresh herring from Den-
mark, cured herring products from the Netherlands, and canned
tuna mainly from Japan.

365

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

As a consequence of its dependence on imports for about
50 percent of the supplies to the domestic market West Ger-
many' s import policy has been very liberal. As the second
largest importer of fishmeal in Europe West Germany normally
grants licenses to feedstuffs importers on application. Fur-
ther detail on import policies was not provided except that
herring imported in butterfly fillet form is subject to
lower import duties than full fillets.

The value of fish exports in 1974 was $111,864,030.
Ninety-two percent of these exports went to European coun-
tries. Exports to the United States represented only about
1.5 percent of total exports.

West Germany -1974
Value of Leading Exports

Percent
Product Value of total

(000 omitted)

Canned and preserved
fish $ 47,000 42

Iced. and frozen fish
(excluding herring) 39,295 35

Iced and frozen herring 7,671 7

Other 17,889 16

Total $1 1i7,855 100

West Germany's production of artificial smoked salmon
cannot be exported to the United States because the dye does
not meet Food and Drug Administration standards. West Ger-
many producers do not export canned herring to the United
States because the preferred preserving agent, soybean oil,
is subject to heavy duty and using other preservatives re-
sults in an inferior product which cannot compete on the U.S.
market.

ECONOMIC ROLE OF THE FISHING INDUSTRY

Less than I percent of West Germany's economically
active population is employed in the fishing and processing

366

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

industry. However, the industry plays a significant role in
social and economic balances of regional economies, partic-
ularly along the coast and in the four major port areas. For
example, the small-scale fisheries on the Baltic Coast are
indispensable factors in diversifying local employment and in
utilizing the inshore resources.

The following table shows West Germany's international
trade in fishery products in 1974.

West Germany - 1974
Trade in Fishery Products

Fishmeal, Edible
fish oil, and fish and
solubles fish products Total

(000 omitted)

Exports $ 46,740 $111,864 $158,604

Imports 207,550 309,169 516,719

Balance -$160,810 -$197,305 -$358,115

The fish processing industry contributed 742.8 million
pounds of finished product to the domestic food supply in
1974.

GOVERNMENT ROLE IN THE FISHING INDUSTRY

In recent years West Germany has pursued a policy of
modernizing arnd restructuring its fishing fleet with the
objective of being able to provide enough fish to (1) main-
tain the existing processing industry and therewith the
employment and (2) maintain a large enough share of the West
Germany market to avoid being subjected to the world market
fluctuations because of over reliance on imports.

The official policy aim now is to insure for the West
Germany consumer a sufficient supply of good quality fish at
reasonable prices. In view of increasing restrictions on
fishing in traditional grounds, West Germany is interested
in making agreements with other countries such as the United
States to continue fishing the other countries' waters.

367

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

In West Germany the government involvement in fisheries
occurs at both state and federal levels. The two federal
bodies involved in fisheries are the Department of Fishery
Policy within the Ministry of Food, Agriculture, and Forestry
in Bonn, and the Fishery Research Board in Hamburg. At the
state level the four coastal states each operate a fishery
port and are generally responsible for implementing fishery
policy and programs established at the federal level.

The Ministry of Food, Agriculture, and Forestry is con-
sidered to be a medium-sized agency, having 700 civil-servant
employees. The larger Ministries of Defense and Finance each
have 2,000 employees. The Ministry of Food, Agriculture, and
Forestry has a budget of about $3.2 billion, with the Depart-
ment of Fishery Policy receiving about $19 million. Even
though the fisheries budget is small relative to the total
budget there is considerable support for fisheries in the
parliament and from the general population, particularly
from the representatives of the coastal states.

The programs for fisheries include operation of a six-
vessel fishery protective service which provides weather
service, medical care, and technical assistance to the fleet,
operation of three research vessels and on-shore research,
capital assistance for fleet modernization, and a seamen's
social security program.

Financial subsidy program

The measures of assistance and support by the West
Germany Federal Government and the Laender (provinces) to im-
prove and strengthen the economic structure of sea fisheries
are limited to capital assistance because EEC rules prohibit
member countries from giving operating subsidies. To overcome
the substantial cost increases resulting from the energy
crisis, the Federal Government gave aid for structural and
consolidation measures to the extent of $5.9 million (a meas-
ure restricted to 1974 only). This special assistance
enabled the industry to continue its catching operations at
its previous level and prevented the collapse of individual
enterprises, in particular cutter fisheries.

Including the above assistance the Government made avail-
able in its 1974 fiscal year a total of $17.2 million, which
was used as follows:

368a

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

Loans for the small deep-sea and
coastal fisheries $1,313,597

interest reduction on money market
loans to promote the construction
of combined fishing factory vessels
and cutters and the modernization
of fishing vessels 2,424,901

Loans for new construction in the
large deep-sea fisheries 5,533,597

Structure and consolidation support:
Scrapping premiums for vessels 976,488
Grants for certain kinds of re-
construction of vessels (deep-
sea trawlers and deep-sea
herring fisheries) and for the
construction of new vessels
(cutters) 1,049,323

Total 11,297,906

Special structure and consolidation
support 5,928,854

Total $17,226,760

Under the EEC price stabilization program, subsidies
may be provided to producer organizations. For example, when
fish cannot be auctioned at the minimum price and are sent to
the fishmeal plant the producer receives an EEC subsidy which
partially recovers the difference between the very low fish-
meal plant price and the established minimum price.

Research programs

The Federal Research Board for Fisheries, in Hamburg
consists of the Institute for Sea Fishery, the Institute for
Coastal and Freshwater Fishery, the Institute for Fishing
Technique, and the Institute for Biochemistry and Technology.
The Board also has laboratories at Bremerhaven, Cuxhaven, and
Kiel. The Research Board has 146 permanent employees on its
staff and 9 scientists and 17 technical employees working
under special research contracts. A related organization, the
Biological Station at Helgoland, has a staff of 97 permanent
employees.

369

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

Three research vessels are in service. In addition, pri-
vately owned deep-sea trawlers have been chartered by the
government to carry out exploratory fishing in new fishing
grounds.

The research work of both the institute of Sea Fishery
and the Institute for Coastal and Freshwater Fishery studies
biological control of commercial fish populations, fluctua-
tions in stock size, seasonal movements and their influence
on the fishing yield, and the exploration of new fishing
grounds. The main task of the Institute for Fishing Tech-
nique is to improve existing fishing techniques and to
develop new ones. The Institute for Biochemistry and Tech-
nology works to improve the quality and storage life of fish
and fish products.

The West Germany Deep Sea Trawler Association works
closely in cooperation with the federal agencies in develop-
ing the working program of their research vessel Walter
Herwig, which is used in investigations of fishing tech-
niques, new grounds, and handling and processing the catch at
sea.

Management programs

The West Germany Federal Government favors fish con-
s ervation, citing its own past and ongoing research efforts
in fish stock management for the general benefit of all fish-
ing countries. Despite the threat to her own fishing inter-
ests, West Germany believes that establishment of 200-mile
limits by coastal states will result in better management and
conservation of fish stocks. West Germany officials feel that
fish stock protection measures taken by Fishery Commissions
have generally been too weak and too late.

West Germany' s own territorial waters are relatively
limited and actually fall within the jurisdiction of the
Baltic Sea Fisheries Commission and the Northeast Atlantic
Fisheries Commission. West Germany is a member of both of
the foregoing commissions and also of the International Com-
mission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries.

In addition to membership in the international com-
missions, West Germany has agreements with several other
countries. For example, in 1974 it made an agreement with
Poland which allows West Germany cutters to fish for salmon
in Polish waters outside a limit of 6 nautical miles. It has
also held talks with Norway, Mexico, Canada, and the United
States concerning future cooperation in fisheries.

37 0

APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV

Domestic fishery management policy is set forth in plans
and regulations by the Federal Government but the implementa-
tion and endorsement are left to the four coastal states.
These states also have their own policies concerning fisher-
ies. No institutional arrangement exists for coordination of
policies among the four coastal states, although regular
meetings are held. The responsibilities of the coastal states
include enforcement of processing regulations concerning
quality and sanitation, and auditing of fishery enterprises
which apply for Government assistance. At present, fishing
vessels are not required to be licensed but are required to
maintain precise log books recording their activities and
location. The Government anticipates that licensing may
become necessary in the future due to the increasing use of
quotas to control fish catch.

37 1

APPENDIX V APPENDIX V

TOTAL FISH CATCH BY COUNTRY, REGION,
AND YEAR OFF U.S. COASTLINE
(METRIC TONS)

ATLANTIC-NORTH ATLANTIC-SOUTH AND GULF PACIFIC ALL REGIONS
1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974

Bulgaria 7,338 44,892 39,775 107,291 29,548 -- -- 7,338 44,92 39,775 107,291 29,548
Canada 49,438 70,356 52,441 52,199 62,187 -- -- -- -- 2,800 2,600 4,600 7,600 6,251 52,238 72,956 57,041 59,799 68,438
Cuba -- 1,557 1,150 1,557 --
DDR (East Germany) 53,386 106,885 139,775 150,853 95,483 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 5,300 1,246 53,386 106,885 139,775 156,153 96,729
France -- -- 803 3,623 3,832 -- -- -- 1,200 -- .. -- -- -- -- -- 803 4,823 3,832
FRG (West Germany) 92,842 59,961 32,888 38,280 26,760 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 92,842 59,961 32,888 38,280 26,760
Italy -- -- 4,000 3,915 4,680 -- - - 1,000 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ,000 4,915 4,680
Japan 29,569 27,891 28,819 32,899 25,798 10,200 12,600 4,800 3,400 9,118 1,492,800 1,270,200 1,479,500 1,058,900 1,170,688 1,532,569 1,310,691 1,513,119 1,095,199 1,205,604
Poland 147,121 219,867 206,674 190,563 152,890 -- -- -- -- -- 23,500 34,500 52,100 50,900 90,951 170,621 254,367 258,774 241,463 243,841
Romania 2,720 8,714 5,344 7,142 9,890 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2,720 8,714 5,344 7,142 9,890
Spain 8,163 13,416 20,002 22,195 24,247 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 8,163 13,416 20,002 22,195 24,247
UK -- -- -- -- 666 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 666
USA 985,304 965,684 955,589 1,060,578 1,016,698 1,016,300 1,188,500 950,400 886,200 1,002,433 709,700 615,200 639,700 637,900 659,379 2,711,304 2,769,384 2,545,689 2,584,678 2,678,510
USSR 268,509 406,714 488,993 451,480 351,420 -- 11,200 73,800 8,900 25,600 767,800 657,900 882,100 517,900 723,500 1,036,309 1,075,814 1,444,893 978,280 1,100,520

TOTAL 1.644,390 1,925,530 1976,660 2,121,018 1,804,.099 1.026.500 1,212,300 1.029,000 900,700 1 ,037 ,151 2,996,600 2,580.400 3,058,000 2.278, 500 2.652,015 5.667.490 5,718.230 6.063.660 5.300218 5.493 5

Note: Exclusive of Portugal, Republic of China (Taiwan) and Republic of Korea (South Korea)
Source: FAO

372

Z-~LJ�z~ V

APPENDIX V

TOTAL FISH CATCHBY SPECIES OFF U.S. COASTLINE
(METRIC TONS�
ALL ALL ALL ALL ALL
AR~%S AREAS AREAS AREAS APEAS
ATLANTIC-NORTH ATLANTIC-SOUTH AND GULF PACIFIC TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL
TOTAL
SPECIES 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1970 ~971 ~,9,72 1973 ~ 1970 197]. 1972 1973 1974 1970 1971
1972 1973 1974

Salmon 2,375 3,505 19 11 ............ 186,200 151,000 105,500 96,900 86,821 188,575 154,505
105,519 96,911 88,821

Tuna 3,583 3,651 1,900 1,655 1,178 1,700 1,300 200 300 289 243,800 211,300 244,200 228,100 232,354 249,083 216,251 246,300
230,055 233,821

Capelin ...... 2 ............................ 2 --

Smelts 1,433 7,352 32,739 2,554 19,726 .......... 900 1,000 1,100 1,000 1,000 2,333 8,352 33,839 3,554
20,726

Herring 348,519 355,637 243,934 243,078 204,424 3,400 6,000 10,700 5,200 3,036 152,300 59,800 77,300 95,100 47,261 504,219 421,437 331,934 343.378 254,721

Spanish Sardine .......... 200 8,900 9,700 300 300 .......... 200 8,900 9,700
300 300

CaZif. Sard/ne .................... 200 100 200 100 6 200 100 200
100 6
223,426 240,751 329,773
Menhaden 60,864 257,378 610,400 774,900 540,600 525,500 648,722 .......... 833,826 1,015,651 879,373 586,364 906,100
N. Pac. Anchovy .................... 07,500 40,800 68,000 104,000 115,041 87,500 40,800 68,000 104,000
115,041

Halibut 245 141 110 89 76 ........... 33,000 27,900 33,500 12,300 21,598 33.245 28,041 33,610 12,389
21,674

Sole/Flounder 63,546 58,780 61,928 52,309 41,867 2,500 2,100 2,700 3,300 5,031 233,900 265,700 210,200 187,000 171,889 299,946 326,580 274,828
242,609 218,787

Cod 35,241 37,509 33,661 36,871 36,826 .......... 109,000 101,300 64,500 32,100 58,562 144,241 138,809 98,161 68,971
95,388

Hake 68,528 157,370 194,852 206,085 167,425 .......... 171,300 183,100 119,600 163,500 205,773 239,828 340,470 314,452
369,585 373,196

Haddock 12,852 12.168 6,670 5,892 5,121 .................... 12,852 12,168 6,670 5,892 5,121

Pollack 7,659 14,633 13,013 13,076 12,393 .................... 7,659 14,633 13,013 13,076
12,393

Alaska Pollock .................... 1,098,000 943,800 1,430,800 689,a00 1,155,955 1,098,000 943,800 1,430,800
689,800 1,155,955

Marine Catfish ..........* 200 100 300 100 92 .......... 200 100 300
100 92

Groupers 6,135 4,603 4,605 5,975 4,772 3,900 3,700 4,100 3,460 ~,585 .......... 10,0~5 8,303 8,705 9,375 8,357

Snappers .......... 5,100 6,100 5,200 5,000 4,777 100 100 -- 200 135 5,200 6,200 5,200 5,200 4,912

Grunts ...... 65 -- 300 1,700 53,700 8,200 24,100 94,000 3,100 65t800 146,400 19,711 94,300 4,800 119,500 154,665
43,811

Croakers 3,092 788 6,100 7,505 7,198 13,500 16,200 21,700 22,600 20,034 300 200 200 200 233 16,892 17,188 28,000 30,305 35,465

Atl. Redfish 15,958 20,034 19,102 17,383 10,611 .................... 15,958 20,034 19,102 17,383
10,611

Pac. Rockfish .................... 135,100 137,900 145,200 116,600 93,609 135,100 137,900 145,200 116,600 93,609

'~ackerel 204,978 349,544 387,737 381,238 294,962 8,500 7,300 7,100 7,200 7,102 33,300 43,800 34,000 20,900 29,124 346,778 399,644 428,837 409,338 331,188

Sablefish .................... 50,100 47,70b 59,400 43,300 37,124 50,100 .47,700 59,400 43,300
37,124

Mullets .... 111 93 279 14,100 13,900 14,900 15,100 15,690 .......... 14,100 13,900 15,011 15,193 15,969

Crabs --1_/ --1/ 40,005 33,516 37,362 29,700 29,700 28,600 30,900 30,776 62,S00 38,800 57t500 40,900 52,004 92,200 88,500 126,105 105,316
120,142

Lobster --1/ 15,498 11,393 10,511 11,330 4,600 3,900 5%400 5,100 5,739 100 100 200 100 91 4,700 19,498 16,993 15,711 17,160

Shrimp --1_/ 13,542 11,016 9,706 8,615 113,400 116,500 115,000 93,600 95,767 42,100 48,900 49,300 65,400 63,262 ~59,500 170,942 175,316 168,706 167,644

Oyster --1/ --~/ 183,277 196,274 199,808 135,900 143,300 122,300 105,100 92,243 32,100 32,600 33,700 26,100 14,683 168,000 175,900 339,277 327,474 306,234
Scallops 55,772 54,031 56,822 55,912 76,197 10,900 11,600 10,600 10,800 5,579 5,100 3,300 4,100 3,500 1,780 71,772 68,931 71,522 70,212 83,556

Clams --1/ --1/ 170,712 248,856 289,719 5,800 1,800 2,000 2,500 2,397 1,400 1,400 2,500 3,280 3,496 7,200 3,200 175,212 254,556 295,612

Squid -- 22,210 48,510 56,771 ~5,878 ........ 47 11,20--0 14,300 : 9,300 4f909 10;822 1~]200 36,%19 __ 57f810 61:671 -- 66,741

Subtotal 1,053,342 1,371,747 1,857,989 1,646,291 1,743,145 964,100 1,149,000 962,800 844,200 973,306 2,783,500 2,377,000 2,816,100 2,001,600 2,424,334 4,800,942 4,897,747 8,636,889 4,572,091 5,140,785

Other 2/ 591,048 553,78__3 _ 1!_8c671 474~72_/7 601954 62t400 63,300 66t200 56,500 213t100 203t400 241~900 196f909 227t681 866r54~ 820t483 _426f771 72~127 -- 352f480
~ 63,84.5
TOTAL 1,644,390 1,925,530 1,976,6~0 2,121,018 1~804y099 1,026,500 1,212,300 1,029,000 9~0,700 1,037,151 2,996,600 2,500,400 3,058,000 2,278,500 2,652,015 5,667,490 5,718,230 6,063,660 5,300,218
5,493,265

~/Catch classified as "other shellfish, etc." during 1970 and 1971.

2--/Refers to all species caught that were not included in the GAO list of fish ~p~cies.

Note: Exclusive of Portuqal, Republic of China (Taiwan) and Republic of Korea (South Korea)
source, FAO
373

APPENDIX V APPENDIX V

FISH CATCH BY BULGARIA.OFF U.S. COASTLINE
(METRIC TONS)

ATLANTIC-NORTH ATLANTIC SOUTH AND GULF PACIFIC TOTAL ALL REGIONS
Species 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974

Salmon .-- ---.. . . . .. .. . . . . . .
Tuna -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .........
Capelin . . . . .. .. .. ............
Smelts -- __ __...............
Herring 1,058 5,590 2,872 2,569 2,546 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1,058 5,590 2,872 2,569 2,546
Span. Sardine - -- -- . - ----- -- -- ---NO FISH CAUGHT IN THIS AREA -- -- -- -- --
Calif. Sardine -- -- -- - - -NO FISH CAUGHT IN THIS AREA------- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Menhaden -- -- 6 -- 90 -- -- -- -- -- -- 6 -- 90
N. Pacific Anchovy ---------- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Halibut -- -- 8 -. -- -- -- -. -- -- -- -- 8 -- --
Sole/Flounder -- 256 573 93 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 256 573 93 --
Cod -- 10 76 40 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 10 76 40 --
Hake -- 4,598 5,057 1,938 3,005 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 4,598 5,057 1,938 3,005
Haddock -- 3 -- 3 -- 1 --
Pollack -- -- -- __ __ _ -- -_ -- ----
Alaska Pollock -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- --
Marine Catfish -- -- -- -- _ _ __..........
Groupers -- -- -- -_ __ __ __ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _
Snappers -- -- -- -- -- __ __ __ __ __ __ __ --
Grunts -- -- __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __...
Croakers -- -- . .. . . .. .. . . .. .. .. . -. -..
Atlantic Redfish -- 15 15 33 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 15 15 33 --
Pacific Rockfish -- -- -- -- -.. - -- -- -- -- -- -- - - -- -- -- -- --
Mackerel -- 28,507 23,556 31,743 20,723 -- -- -- -- - - - -- 28,507 23,556 31,743 20,723
Sablefish -- -- -- -- -- -- -- . __ __ __ _ __ __ _ _
Mullets -_ _-------NO FISH CAUGHT IN THIS AREA------- -------NO FISH CAUGHT IN THIS AREA --. -- -- --
Crabs -- .. " .. . - -- -... . . .. . . . . -'
Lobster -- -- -- -- .. .. . . - - -... . . .
Shrimp -- .. . . . . - - .- - .. . - ... ... ...
Oyster -- -- -- -. ....... . . . .
Scallops -- -- -- -- -- -- _- __ __ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Clams -- -- -- .. .. . .. .. - .. . ........
Squid -- 90 499 410 592 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- _- -- 90 499 410 592

Subtotal 1,058 39,069 32,662 36,827 26,956 -- . .1,058 39,069 32,662 36,827 26,956
Other 1/ 6,280 5,823 7,113 70,464 2,592 -- - -- -- -- -- -- G,280 5,823 7,113 70,464 2,592
TOTAL 7. 338 44.892 39.775 107,291 29.548 are -- - - -- - - 2.

l/Refers to all species caught that were not included in the GAO list of fish species.

374

APPENDIX V APPENDIX V

FISH CATCHES BY CANADA OFF U.S. COASTLINE
(METRIC TONS)
ATLANTIC-NORTH ATLANTIC-SOUTH AND GULF PACIFIC TOTAL ALL REGIONS
SPECIES 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974

Salmon 174 -- --
Tuna 1,160 1,114 165 102 103 -- -- -- -- -- 2,500 2,400 4,500 7,300 '6,071 3,660 3,514 4,665 7,402 6,174
Capelin -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -

Herring 5,012 28,381 11,691 9,190 4,261 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 5,012 28,381 11,691 9,190 4,261
Spanish Sardine -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
California Sardine -- -- -- -- -- --------NO FISH CAUGHT IN THIS AREA --------
Menhaden -- . . -. -- . .
North Pacific Anchovy -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
Halibut 67 38 39 38 29 67 38 39 38 29
Sole/Flounder 257 254 52 74 61 257 254 52 74 61
Cod 3,422 4,138 3,366 3,869 2,009 3,422 4,138 3,366 3,869 2,009
Hake 46 100 40 117 233 46 100 40 117 233
Haddock 2,016 1,715 632 1,612 660 2,016 1,715 632 1,612 660
Pollack 853 1,636 1,366 1,727 3,539 --853 1,636 1,66 1,727 3,539
Alaska Pollock . . . - -- -- -- -- - - - .. -. -. ..
Marine Catfish -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .. .. -. ..
Groupers -- --
Snappers -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .. -. . . .
Grunts -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .. -- .
Croakers -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- . -- . .
Atlantic Redfish 338 269 124 35 59 -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- 338 269 124 35 59
Pacific Rockfish -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .. -- . . ..
Mackerel -- -- 1 53
Sablefish -- -- -- --------NO FISH CAUGHT IN THIS AREA --------
Mullets -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .- . .. . ..
Crabs -- -- -- I -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 --
L01 204 228 178
Lobster -- 101 204 228 178 -- -- 101 204 228 178
Shrimp -- -- 8 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 8 -- -
Oyster . . .. -- --
Scallops 34,006 32,434 34,670 35,055 50,934 34,006 32,434 34,670 35,055 50,934
Clams -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .. - .. . - .
-3 27
Squid -- 1 - 3 27 -- -- -- -- -- 27

Subtotal 47,177 70,181 52,3158 52,104 62,094 .. 2,500 2,400 4,500 7,300 6,071 49,677 72,581 56,858 59,404 68,165
Other1/ 21261 175 83 95 93 6.252...8.
Other_- / 2.261 _8175 _83 _95 93 __ 300 200 100 300 180 ___183 95 2,3
TOTAL 4 70,356 _.4,41 52,199 6 _- -3i9 2= 60 _____ 6 51 9 =______ 0 1___

-/Refers to all species caught that were not included in the GAO list of fish species.

375

APPENDIX V
APPENDIX V

FISH CATCHES BY EAST GERMANY
OFF U.S. COASTLINE
(METRIC TONS)

ATLANTIC NORTH ATLANTIC SOUTH AND GULF PACIFIC TOTAL ALL REGIONS
SPECIES 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
SPECIES 197 1 97 1 97 ---- -- -- -- --
Salmon .....
Tuna -- -- -- 51 42 -- -- -- -- -- 2 . -- -- -- 51 42
Capelin -- -- -- 2 -- -- - -- - -- -- 2
Smelts -- -- -- -- 6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 6
Herring 37,008 29,083 52,793 60,240 35,197 -- -- -- -- -- --- -- --- 37,008 29,083 52,793 60,240 35,197
Spanish
Sardine -- -- --
Calif.
Sardine . . . . . . . . .
Menhaden . . . . . . . . .
North
Pacific
Anchovy ..... . . . .
Halibut -- -- -- --- -... NO FISH CAUGHT IN THIS AREA-------------
Sole/
Flounder ....... -- .
Cod -- -- 138 75 67 ---- -- ---- - --- 138 75 67
Hake -- 97 265 194 38 --- -- -- 4,800 1,246 -- 97 265 4,994 1,284
Haddock -- -- 5 1 -- -- -- -- -- --

Pollock -- --
Marine
Catfish . . . .
Groupers . . . . . . . . .
Snappers .. . . . . . . .
Grunts .. . . . . . . .
Croakers .. . . . . . . .
Atlantic
Redfish -- 1 127 40 123 -- -- -- -- 1 127 40 123
Pacific
Rockfish -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - 500 - -- -- 500
Mackerel 4,999 69,973 80,539 76,758 59,977 -- -- -- -- 4,999 69,973 80,539 76,758 59,977
Sablefish -- -- -- -- --.. .
Mullets .. . . . . . . .
Crabs . -
Lobster . . . . . . . . .
Shrimp -- -- -- -- --�----NO FISH CAUGHT IN THIS AREA-------------
Oyster . . . . . . . . .
Scallops .. . . . . . . .
Clams -
Squid ____ _____ 313 -- --- -- - -- - - -- -- 313 --
Subtotal 42,007 106,003 138,669 138,622 95,452 -- -- -- -- -- -- 5,300 1,246 42,007 106,003 138,669 143,922 96,698
Other1 11, 379 882 1,106 12,231 31 -- -- -- 11,379 882 1,106 12,231 31
Total 53,386 106,885 139,775 150,853 95,483 ..... 5,300 1,246 53,386 106,885 139,775 156,153 96,729

1Refers to all species caught that were not included in the GAO list of fish species.

376

APPENDIX V

FISH CATCHES BY WEST GERMANY
OFF U.S. COASTLINE
(METRIC TONS)

ATLANTIC NORTH ATLANTIC SOUTH AND GULF PACIFIC TOTAL ALL REGIONS
SPECIES 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
Salmon -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Tuna -- 1 6 2 .. - .. 1 6 2 --
Capelin .. - .. . .. . ... . . . ... ..
Smelts -- -- -- ... ... ... .. . .. . .
Herring 88,577 56,467 30,746 32,685 26,153 .. - . . . ......88,577 56,467 30,746 32,685 26,153
Spanish
Sardine -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Calif.
Sardine .. _ . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. ..
Menhaden .. _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
North
Pacific
Anchovy .. _ .. . .. . ... . ....
Halibut --.--.--.--. - - NO FISH CAUGHT IN THIS AREA ------------ ----------.NO FISH CAUGHT IN THIS AREA ----.--.----.--
Sole/
Flounder .. . .. 1 .. - ... . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 --
Cod 14 4 17 5 11 .. _ . . . . . . . . . 14 4 17 5 11
Hake .. 357 30 49 .357 30 49
Haddock -- 4 -- 1 -- 4 1
Pollack 3,156 63 467 1,085 31 .. .. 3,156 63 467 1,085 31
Alaska
Pollocjc .. _ _
Marine
Catfish .. - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
Groupers .. - .. . .. . ... . . . ... ..
Snappers .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Grunts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Croakers .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Atlantic
Redfish 2 -- 2 3 -- 4
Pacific
Rockfish -- -- . -- . -- . --- - NO FISH CAUGHT IN THIS AREA ......................NO FISH CAUGHT IN THIS AREA ---- . --. ---- --
Mackerel 1,049 2,795 770 1,527 483 ... . ................ 1,049 2,795 770 1,527 483
Sablefish -- -- -- -- -- -- ... ... .. . .. .. . .. . . . .. . .
Mullets .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Crabs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Lobster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Shrimp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Oyster .. _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Scallops .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Clams .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
Squid -- -- 463 1,641 .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 463 1,641 --
Subtotal 92,798 59,334 32,829 36,977 26,731 92,798 59,334 32,829 36,977 26,731
Other1 44 627 59 1,303 29 .. .. 44 627 59 1,303 29
TOTAL 92,842 59,961 32,888 38,280 26,760 .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 92,842 59,961 32,888 38,280 26,760

1Refers to all species caught that were not included in the GAO list of fish species.

377

APPENDIX V APPENDIX V

FISH CATCHES BY JAPAN
OFF U.S. COASTLINE
(METRIC TONS)

ATLANTIC NORTH ATLANTIC SOUTH AND GULF PACIFIC1 TOTAL ALL REGIONS
SPECIES 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
Salmon -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --.... .

Tuna -- -- -- -- 1,700 1,200 200 300 289 65,800 54,600 66,200 65,300 52,199 67,500 55,800 66,400 65,600 52,488
Capelin -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --.... . . .
Smelts 369 5,398 97 90 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 369 5,398 97 90 --
Herring 1,421 2,466 1,161 1,722 2,442 -- -- -- -- -- 24,900 25,000 13,300 19,000 5,305 26,321 27,466 14,461 20,722 7,747
Spanish
Sardine -- -- -- -- --
Calif.
Sardine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Menhaden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
North
Pacific

Anchovy 2.. ... 2-0 1.. 40 2--...2..........
Halibut 18 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1,600 2,100 1,300 400 2,209 1,618 2,100 1,300 400 2,209
Sole/
Flounder 164 44 18 65 73 -- -- -- -- -- 105,000 120,000 148,600 163,800 120,089 105,164 120,044 148,618 163,865 120,162
Cod 16 20 100 3 -- -- -- -- -- -- 58,000 27,000 29,200 25,000 35,691 58,016 27,020 29,300 25,003 35,691
Hake 489 423 1,081 463 107 -- -- -- -- -- -- 1,600 400 2,800 960 489 2,023 1,481 3,263 1,067
Haddock 1 10 . . . . . . . ..-- -- -- -- -- I 10-- -
Pollack 1 5 4 14 -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 5 4 14 --
Alaska

Pollock -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1,073,300 884,700 1,039,600 625,600 793,908 1,073,300 884,700 1,039,600 625,600 793,908
Marine
Catfish-- --. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Groupers . .. . .. . . . . . .
Snappers ......
Grunts -- -- -- 65 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Croakers -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 11 -- -- -- 65 11
Atlantic

Redfish 19 4 15 30 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 19 4 15 30 1
Pacific
Rockfish -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 55,100 64,800 73,200 81,900 57,208 55,100 64,800 73,200 81,900 57,208
Mackerel 1,500 1,025 1,104 446 70 -- -- -- 6 -- 100 -- -- 33 1,500 1,125 1,104 446 109
Sablefish -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 40,600 40,300 50,700 38,300 31,324 40,600 40,300 50,700 38,300 31,324
Mullets . .. . .. .. ..

Crabs -- -- -- -- 4,800 1,600 1,600 400 -- 4,800 1,600 1,600 400 --
Lobster -- 27 11 7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 27 11 7
Shrimp . ..
Oyster . ..
Scallops -
Clams . . . ...

Squid -- 10,602 18,691 15,526 16,820 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 200 400 251 -- 10,602 18,891 15,926 17,071
Subtotal 3,998 20,024 22,282 18,431 19,513 1,700 1,200 200 300 295 1,429,100 1,221,800 1,424,300 1,022,900 1,099,188 1,434,798 1,243,024 1,446,782 1,041,631 1,118,996
2
Other 225,571 7,867 6,537 14,468 6,285 8,500 11,400 4,600 3,100 8,923 63,700 48,400 55,200 36,000 71,500 97,771 67,667 66,337 53,568 86,608
TOTAL 29,569 27,891 28,819 32,899 25,798 10,200 12,600 4,800 3,400 9,118 1,492,800 1,270,200 1,479,500 1,058,900 1,170,688 1,532,569 1,310,691 1,513,119 1,095,199 1,205,604

1Includes catch off Canadian coast, which could not be separately identified in source data.
2Refers to all species caught that were not included in the GAO list of fish species.

378

APPENDIX V
APPENDIX V

FISH CATCHES BY POLAND
OFF U.S. COASTLINE
(METRIC TONS)

ATLANTIC NORTH ATLANTIC SOUTH AND GULF PACIFIC TOTAL ALL REGIONS

SPECIES 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1970 1971 1972 1Y73 1974 1970 1?71 1972 1973 1974

Salmon -- -- -- -- -- -- . -
Tuna -- 2 7 74 3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2 7 74 3
Capelin . .
Smelts -- -- -- -- --
Herring 70,734 90,550 43,112 52,537 40,503 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 100 -- 70,734 90,550 43,112 52,637 40,503
Spanish Sardine -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Calif. Sardine -- . .
Menhaden -- -- -- -- -- -- - . .- -- --
North Pacific Anchovy -- -- -- -------------NO FISH CAUGHT IN THIS AREA -- -- -- -- 94 -- -- - 94
Halibut 1 -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- . 1

Sole/Flounder 8 2 2 -- - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 8 2 2 -- __
Cod 784 101 271 430 566 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 93 784 101, 271 430 659
Hake 15 148 -- 501 140 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1,900 44,354 15 148 -- 2,401 44,494
Haddock 15 1 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 15 1 1 -- --
Pollack -- 1 8 20 4 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 8 20 4
Alaska Pollock ..
Marine Catfish -- -- -- -- -- -. .. . __

Groupers -- _ _ __ _ _ _ _
Snappers -- __ __ __ __
Grunts- -- -- -- - -- -- - - --
Croakers -- -- --
Atlantic Redfish 30 84 5 28 2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 30 84 5 28 2
Pacific Rockfish -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 120 -- -- -- -- 120

Mackerel 68,140 112,294 142,359 117,254 96,103 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 117 68,140 112,294 142,359 117,254 96,220
Sablefish -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Mullets -- __ __ __
Crabs -- -- -- -- -- -----------NO FISH CAUGHT IN THIS AREA-----------
Lobster

Shrimp _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ . .
Oyster _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ __
Scallops _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Clams -- -- --
Squid -- -- 5,248 9,199 7,109 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 5,248 9,199 7,109
Subtotal 139,727 203,183 191,013 180,043 144,430 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2,000 44,778 139,727 203,183 191,013 182,043 189,208
1/ 46,173 30,894 51,184 67.761,4,5655
Other-/ 7,394 16,684 15,661 10,520 8,460 - 23,500 34.500 52,100 48,900 46,173 30,894 51,184 67,761 59,420 54,633
TOTAL 147,121 219,867 206,674 190,563 152,890 _ -- -- 23,500 34,500 52,10 50,900 90,951 170,621 254,367 258,774 241,463 243,841

k/Refers to all fish caught that were not included in the GAO list of fish species.

379

APPENDIX V
APPENDIX V

FISH CATCHES BY THE UNITED STATES
OFF U.S. COASTLINE
(METRIC TONS)
ATLANTIC NORTH ATLANTIC SOUTH AND GULF
SPECIES 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1970 9 17 7 91 AIC OL L EON
1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1970 9 17 7 94
Salmon 2,375 3,505 19 11 ......
Tuna 24 25 17 14 10 l 186,200 151,000 105,500 96,900 88,821 188,575 154,505 105,519 96,911 88,821
Capelin . . . . . . . . ............_ _ 175,500 154,300 173,500 155,500 174,084 177,923 156,934 175,222 156,926 175,114
Smelts 65 61 32 42 31 ..... ........
Herring 6,5 95 4,8 .3 900 1,000 1,100 1,000 1,000 965 1,061 1,132 1,042 1,031
45,174 3,400 6,000 10,700 5,200 3,036
Spanish Sardine ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~10,200 6,600 8,900 19,000 22,156 76,956 62,160 63,482 25 7,6
200 100 - -020
Calif~~~~~~~~~.. . . . . .... ____ _ _ -- - --- 200 100 --100 200
Menhaden 22345 2071 3977 6.6 00 100 200 100 6 200 100 200 100 6
257,288 610,400 774,900 548,600 525,500 4.2
N~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~. a.. .......-- _ _ __ _ _ _- - - - 833,826 1,015,651 878,367 586,364 906,010
Halibut 5 6 4 _ _ 87,500 40,800 68,000 104,000 114,947 87,500 4 0,800 68,000 104,000 114,947
Sole/Flounder 5,7 98 524 .2 15,600 12,800 11,600 10,900 8,289 15,652 12,881 11,663 10,951 8,335
40,901 2.500 2,100 2,700 3,300 5,031
Cod 2323 2,4 108 2.9 72220,800 19,700 24,000 21,700 21,700 81,179 71,630 76,984 73,924 67,632
Hake 2.1 27 13,7 1300 2,800 4,800 4,300 4,078 24,563 27,141 25,898 27,792 31,310
Haddock 98 ,5 4.79 329 308- -- -- ,100 4,800 1,900 1,100 713 32,512 27,506 15,675 28,303 21,227
Pollack 3,592 4,732 5,243 5,731 8,050 ___ __ _- -- -- ,7 .50 ,7 .........
Alaska Polock -- - __ __ ____ __ - . . . . . . . . ..- 3,592 4,732 5,243 5,731 8,050
Marine Catfish .. ....200 100 100 -- 4 7 200 100 100 -- 47
200 1043 300 100 92
Groupers 6,135 4,603 4,60 5, 0010975
4.605 5.975 4,772 3,900 3,700 3,700 3,400 .8
Snappers ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . . . . &- 10,035 8,303 8,305 9,375 8,357
5,100 6,100 5,200 5,000 ,7
Grunts .. ....100 100 -- 200 135 5,200 6,200 5,200 5,200 4,912
300 300 200 300 0
Croakers 3,092 788 6,100 7,05 0 0 0 0
7,505 7,198 13,500 16,200 21,700 22,600 2,)
Atl. Redfish 1.3 62 300 200 200 200 233 16,892 17,188 28,000 30,305 35,465
Pa.Rcfsh - -_ _ __ _- - -- -15,534 16,267 13,158 11,954 8,677 .....

Mackerel 40 24 20 11 19,400 16,500 1~,200 18,400 14,561 19,400 16,500 19,200 18,400 14,581
1,079 8,500 7,300 7,100 7,200 ,9
( ~~~~~Sablefish ...........22,000 27,300 23,200 8,000 10,074 34,549 37,006 32,317 16,610 18,249
Mullets . . . . 11 3 7 2,900 2,700 $,500 4,600 5,500 2,900 2,700 5,500 4,600 5,500
14,100 13,900 14,900 15,100 1,9
Crabs . . . . 4000 14,100 13,900 15,011 15,193 15 969
33.515 37.362 29.700 29,700 28.,600 30,900 3.7
Lobster -- 1.7 110 1.7 11250,500 51,300 55,900 40,500 52,004 80,200 81,000 124,505 104,915 120 142
4.600 3,900 5,400 5,100 5,739
Shrimip -- 1.4 108100 100 200 100 91 4,700 19,370 16,770 15,476 16 982
9,706 8.615 113.400 116,500 115,000 93,600 9,6
Oyster -- - 8....16,7 42,100 48,900 49,300 65,400 63,262 155,500 178,942 175,308 168,706 167 644
199.888 135.900 143.300 122,300 105,100 92,243
Scallops 2.6 15 2.5 08 32,100 32,600 33,700 26,100 14,683 168,000 175,900 339,277 327,474 306 734
25,263 10.900 11.600 10,600 10,800 5,579
Clams -- - 7....4886 28,1 5,100 3,300 4,100 3,500 1,780 37,766 36,497 36,852 35,157 32 622
5,800. 1,800 2,000 2,500 ,9 561
Squid -- l.LR2 1197 1635 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1,400 1,400 2w500 3,200 3,496 7,200 3,200 175,212 5.6
1, 9 f3 2,422 .....
11t0 14300 9f100 4 f500 10f571 11 2001,42029
Subtotal 465,291 482,356 936,176 757,397 9.3 6,0 1760 ,2 ,, , , , . 548
899,000 835,800 949,111
Other 1/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~689,700 592,700 602,500 589,200 612,251 2,117,391 ,1.5 4367 1839 5092
520,013 483,328 3.11 - L 39(1 9 5,40013,2 .,. L r -� ,- ,,, 567 1803 03,1~1 1.8
19 ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~41 00 50�400 5,2 20 000 22 500 37f200 48 700 4!,128 593 913 56,2100140211i58
TOTAL 98530 965 ~~~b~B .1.6495,89 1.016.00 ..578~~J~e~ VV L;S 10.70161.a 6398~e 1.9 5Il �)01 .69.38425569 1~10~

/Refers to all species caught that were not included in the GAO list of fish species.

38O

APPENDIX V
APPENDIX V

FISH CATCHES BY THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS
OFF U.S. COASTLINE
(METRIC TONS)

ATLANTIC NORTH ATLANTIC SOUTH AND GULF PACIFIC 197TOTAL A
SPECIES 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1970 1971 1972 1973

Salmon -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Tuna
Capelin -- -- -- -- --.. .
Smelts 999 1,893 32,610 2,422 19,688 . . . .-- -- -- -- -- 999 1,893 32,610 2,422 19,688
Herring 80,668 92,547 55,021 42,507 42,112 -- -- -- -- 117,200 28,200 55,100 57,000 19,800 197,6 120,747 110,121 99,507 61,912
Spanish Sardine -- -- -- -- -- -- 8,800 9,700 200 100 -- -- -- -- -- 8,800 9,700 200 100
Calif. Sardine ............... . ~-
Menhaden . .................
N. Pac. Anchovy .................
Halibut - --- --- -- -- -- -- 15,900 13,000 20.600 1,000 11,100 15,800 13,000 20,600 1,000 11,100
Sole/Flounder 4,550 7,895 10,807 3,152 794 108,100 126,000 37,600 1 0 30,100 112,650 133,995 48,407 4,652 30,894
Cod 364 1,270 1,889 2,977 476 49,700 71,500 30,500 2,800 18,700 50,064 72,770 32,389 5,777 19,176
Hake 39,390 128,601 173,218 175,585 142,753 167,200 176,700 117,300 152,900 158,500 206,590 305,301 290,518 328,485 301,253
Haddock 103 374 141 602 111 -- -- -- 103 37 141 602
Pollack 51 1,163 1,043 -- -- -- -- -- -- 103 374 141 602 111~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~10 37 14
Pollack 51 1,163 1043 2,752 -- -- -- -- -- - 51 1,163 1,043 2,752 47
Alaska Pollock - - -- -- -- -- -- - -- -24,500 59,000 391,100 64,200 362,000 24,500 59,000 391,100 64,200 362,000
Marine Catfish .... . . . . . . . .. ... .- -
Groupers -- -- -- -- -- - 00 ..00
Snappers -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -4
Grunts -- -- -- -- -- -- 1,400 53,500 7,900 23,800 94,000 3,100 65,800 146,400 19,700 94,000 4,500 119,300 154,300 43,500
Croakers -- -- -- -- 5..........3 --1
Atlantic Redfish -- 3,394 5,641 5,263 1,745 -- -- -- -- -- -- ..3,394 5,641 5,263 1,745
Pacific Rockfish -- -- -- -- -60,600 56,600 52,800 160,600 6 ,600 52,800 15,800 21,700 60,600
Mackerel 124,483 127,828 134,057 145,796 109,141 6060......... 1,80 1,0
Mackerel 124,483 127,828 134,057 145,796 109,141 11,300 15,400 10,000 12,900 18,900 135,783 143,22 144,857 158,696 128,041
Sablefish - --- -- -- -- -- -- 6,600 4,700 3,200 400 300 6,600 4,700 3,200 400 300
Mullets

Crabs 7-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -6 -- 7,200 5,900 -- 7,200 5,900
Lobster
Shrimp
Oyster
Scallops . -'
Clams -- -- -- --
Shrimp ..................................6-9 8-,
Squid -- 6,138 6,976 8,977 8,495 -- -3 - 9 7_ 1 4 9
~--L- 6.l,1386,9689 7 8 45.....
Subtotal 250,608 371,103 421,403 390,033 325,362 -10,200 63,600 8,100 23,900 662,200 560,100 784,800 454,900 660,800 912,808 941,403 1,269,803 853,033 1,010,062
Other 17,901 35,611 67,590 61,447 26,058 1,000 10,200 800 1,700 105,600 97,00 63,000 2,700 123,501 134411 175,090 12524 90458
TOTAL 268.509 406.714 488.993 4514 312 Ia2 z 1,444893 ,02l --.

Ylncludes catch off Canadian coast, which could not be separately identified in source data.
2/ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~3

?/Refers to all species caught that were not included in the GAO list of fish species.

381

APPENDIX V
APPENDIX V

FISH CATCHES BY OTHER COUNTRIES
OFF U.S. COASTLINE
(METRIC TONS)

ATLANTIC NORTH ATLANTIC SOUTH AND GULF PACIFIC TOTAL ALL REGIONS
1970 1971 1972 9j ...
A970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
CUBA

Sole/Flounder -- -- 118 ....
Cod . . ..
~~~~~~~~~~~2 ...
Hake -- 265 828 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -265 828 .. ..
Mackerel 145 9 145 9
Squid -- 14 -- 14
Other 740 586
- - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~7 40 586 ..
Total -- 1,150 1,557 --
1150 1,557
FRANCE

Herring -- . 500 2,784 3,765 -- 500 2,784 3,765
Cod -- -- -- -- 45 . .....-- -- 45
Pollack -- ... ... 9 .. - .. 45
Lobster 7 -- -- 9
Squid . . 296 820 ........ ........296 820 --
Other -- 19 13 1,200 --
1,219 13
Total - 803 3 , 6 2 3 3,832 -- -- -- 1,200 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 803 4,823 3,832

ITALY

Mackerel . . 800 375 420 ..800 3.75 420
Squid 3 .. 3,200 3,165 4,260 3. -, 2. 300 3,165 4,260
Other . . .. .. 375 --..... .
- ~ ~ ~~~~~~~- .... 13750

Total 4,000 3,915 4,680 ... . . . .. .. .. ............
- - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4,000 3,915 4,680
ROMANIA.....
-------- NO FISH CAUGHT IN THIS AREA -----------
Herring 685 993 2,156 536 2,271 . ... ... .
Halibut 107 22 -- -- -- . ... ....685 993 2,156 536 2,271
Sole/Flounder 688 499 74 107 22
Cod 129 6 -- .. 3 .. .. -- .. 68 49 9
Hake 113 432 212 49 529 3. - . . . .. ... .. . .. .. 129 6 .. .. 3
Haddock -- 225 14 .. - .. 113 432 212 49 529
Atlantic Redfish 35 -- 14 . -. 2251
35 --14 ..
Mackerel 758 4,521 2,519 5,876 6,966 -- -4 . . .. 2. .. 9. . 35 -- 14 . . ..
Squi d ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- ... 66 150 9-. .. --. .... 758 4,521 2,519 5,876 6,966
Squid -- -- 66 150 9 -- -- 66--
Other 205 2,016 289 531 112 .. - .. ... .. ... .. ... .. 66 150 9
- --- 205 2,016 289 531 112
Total 2,720 8,714 5,344 7,142 9,890 -- 87 5 1
_______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ -- -- -- -- -- -- 2~~~~~~,728,14 5,344 7,142 9,890
SPAIN

Halibut -- -- -- -- 1 .
Sole/Flounder -- -- -- -- 36 .. - . . . .. ... ... -- -- -- -- 36
Cod 7,249 7,619 6,704 5,980 6,374 . . . . -9 7 . . . . . ................ 36
Hake 63 -- 19 5 57 6-- 19.........
Hake 63 19 57 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~7,249 7,619 6,704 5,980 6,374
Haddock 845 -- ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~-- -_ -_ _ _ - ---- -6 - 955
Haddock 845 1,336 1,098 386 764 .. - . . .. . . . .845 1,336 1,098 386 764
Pollack 6 184 80 799 664 ..6 184 80 799 664
Mackerel -- 50 6 -- ....... . -- -- 50 6 -- --
Lobster -- _ _ -- -- .. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Squid -- 4,197 11,860 14,932 16,144 4,197 11,860 14,932 16,144
Other -- 30 234 93 207 .. - . . ,1 16 14
_ _ _ _ _ _----30 234 93 207
Total 8,163 13,416 20,002 22,195 24,247 --
8,163 13,416 20,002 22,195 24,247
UNITED KINGDOM

Sole/Flounder ..2.....
Cod -- -- -- . . 43 2
Haddock . . ...568 4
Pollack . . 47 56 -- .. 568
Other . . .. .. .. 6 .. - .. 47
6~~.......... 6
Total --
- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~66666

TOTAL 10,883 23,280 31,706 36,875 43,315 2... 10,883 23,280 31,706 39,07 43,315
~~~- - - . . . . . . . . . . . . = -

Note: The other category refers to all species caught that were not included in the GAO list of fish species.

382

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

THE EFFECT OF' EXTENDED FISHERY JURISDICTION BY THE UNITED STATES ON

INTERN~ATIONAL FISHERIES CONVENTIONS AND AGREEMENTS

Donald L. McKernan'

University of Washington
INSTITUTE FOR MARINE STUDIES
Seattle, Washington, U.S.A.

September 8, 1976

Prepared under contract to the
U.S. General Accounting Office
(P.C. 6112003)

GAO note: The statements and conclusions contained
herein do not necessarily represent the
views of GAO.

Much of the background material was gathered and prepared by Mary F. Fountain
who also, along with Professors William Burke and Edward Miles, reviewed an
early draft of the report. The views and conclusions are solely those of the
author.

38 3

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

TABLE OF CONTENTS

[See GAO note.] Page

SUMMARY. ..........................vi

INTRODUCTION ........................1

THE PROBLEM ..........................2

THE EFFECTS OF FOREIGN FISHERIES..............7
Overfishing...................... 7
Effects of Foreign Fisheries Other Than
Overfishing..................... 8

THE FISHERIES CONVENTIONS AND THEIR PURPOSE. ........19

THE EXECUTIVE BILATERAL AGREEMENTS. ............31

A REGION4AL ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF INTERNATIONAL
FISHERIES TREATIES AND EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS. .......31

Alaska and the Bering Sea ...............3)4
The Pacific Coast States. ...............3
The Atlantic Coast States. ..............37
The Gulf of Mexico. ..................38

DISTANT WATER OR WORLD-WIDE FISHERIES AND MARINE MAMMAL
TREATIES. ........................38

The United States-Brazil Shrimp Agreement. ......38
Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. .......39
International Convention for the Conservation of
Atlantic Tunas. .........I........39
International Whaling Commission .'...........40

BROAD EFFECTS OF A 200-MILE FISHERY ZONE. .........41

THE LAW OF THE SEA. ....................41

LOS AND THE FCMA. .....................42

The Enforcement Problem ................'43

FISHERIES TREATIES AND THE 200-MILE 'ONE. .........44

CONCLUSIONS .1........................48

BIBLIOGRAPHY .SO...........

38 4

APPENDIX VI APPEtNDIX VI

Page

APPENDIX A. ........................56

I. International Regulatory Fishery Agreements to
which the United States is Party. .......58

II. Bilateral Regulatory Fishery Agreements to
which the United States is Party. .......73

APPENDIX B. ........................81

I. Other Regional Fishery Associations. .......83

GAO note: Contents' page numbers refer to numbers at the
top of appendix VI pages.

385

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

LIST OF TABLES

Number Page

I World Fish Production................ 4

2 International Bodies Concerned with Fishery
Management of Which the United States is
a Member .......................20

3 Other Regional Fishery Bodies. ...........24

4- Bilateral Agreements Dealing with Fishery
Mattei's. ......................32

APPENDIX TABLE

I Catches of Yellowfin and Skipjack from CYRA
by Flag of Vessel, in Terms of Percent of the
Total Catch, 197'4. .................64

38 6

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

LIST OF FIGURES

Number Page

I Historic World and U.S. landings of fish and
shellfish ........................

2 U.S. landings, imports, and consumption of edible
fishery products....................

3 Estimated U.S. and foreign landings of Groundfish and
Herring off Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and
California........................ 6

4 Total catch of Pollock in the Bering Sea and Aleutian
Region combined in thousand metric tons round weight,
1958-74 .........................

5 Total catch of Pacific Halibut in the Gulf of
Alaska and off Pacific Northwest combined in
thousand metric tons round weight, 1962-74. ......10

6 Total catch of Pacific Halibut in the Bering Sea
and Aleutian Region combined in thousand metric
tons round weight, 1958-74. ..............11

7 Total Catch of Shrimp in the Bering Sea and Aleutian
Region combined in thousand metric tons pound
weight, 1958-74. ....................12

8 Total Catch of Pacific Ocean Perch in the Bering Sea
and Aleutian Region combined in thousand metric tons
round weight, 1958-74. .................13

9 Total Catch of Pacific Ocean Perch in the Gulf of
Alaska and off Pacific Northwest Combined in thousand
metric tons round weight, 1962-74. ...........14

10 Total Catch. Yellowf in Sole in Eastern Bering Sea
in thousand metric tons, 1954-74. ...........15

11 Total Catch of Flatfishes in the Bering Sea and
Aleutian Region combined in thousand metric tons
round weight, 1958-74. .................16

12 Total Catch of Herring in the Bering Sea and Aleutian
Region combined in thousand metric tons round weight,
1958-74.........................1i7

387

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

SUMMARY

1. The United States, with the fourth longest coastline and the
third largest continental shelf of any nation in the world, has unilat-
erally claimed exclusive jurisdiction over fisheries to a distance of
200 miles from its coastline. The legislation, Public Law 94-265, was
signed into law on April 13 and will become fully effective March 1,
1977.

2. At the present time there are about 4-00 fishing vessels from
some twenty foreign nations fishing within 200 miles of the United
States catching about 3 million tons of fish annually.

3. Major stocks of fish important to the U.S. fishing industry
have been overfished by foreign fishermen although by no means have
foreign fishermen been the sole cause of overfishing of stocks of fish
of economic importance to the United States. United States fishermen
have also contributed to the decline in catch of certain important
species.

4. In addition to directly reducing the supply of fishery resources
off the coast of the United States foreign fishermen have damaged fixed
fishing gear and have interfered with fishing operations of United
States fishermen.

S. While world production of fish has increased at a rate of about
5 percent per year, increasing in absolute quantity in recent years to
about 70 million metric tons, United States domestic production has
remained relatively unchanged at about 2 million metric tons annually
during the same period. Thus, during the period when the total consump-
tion of edible fish doubled in the United States, the domestic fishing
industry failed to capture any significant part of the increased market.

6. The United States is a member of 8 international fisheries and
marine mammal conventions designed to provide for the conservation of
living resources and for the orderly operation of fishing vessels of
various nations fishing common stocks of fish on common fishing grounds.
In addition the United States is a party to 10 executive agreements
which provide a basis for dealing with particular problems of a bilat-
eral nature.

7. The conventions and executive agreement were quite successful
during the years of their implementation, but in recent years the number
of foreign nations and the number of foreign flag vessels have increased
to the extent that the effectiveness of the conventions and agreements
has become increasingly less effective in conserving the resources and
protecting the rights of United States fishermen.

8. Public Law 94-265, in an attempt to correct this imbalance,
requires renegotiation by May 1, 1977, of the fisheries treaties and
executive agreements: in order to bring them into conformance with the

388

vii

new law. This appears to be an almost impossible task, since it is
unlikely that many foreign nations fishing off the United States coast
will agree with the United States unilateral extension of exclusive
jurisdiction to 200 miles or accede to its demands for the acceptance of
United States sovereignty over fishery resources within the zone.

9. In the Northeastern'Pacific Ocean, it is likely that the United
States and Canada can reach agreement quite easily on reciprocal fishing
rights within the 200-mile zones of each country although a different
division of the catch between the fishermen of the two nations, in favor
of United States fishermen, will probably result.

10. Problems with other nations, such as Japan and the Soviet
Union which have major and traditional fisheries off the coast of the
United States, will be complicated by the existence of the Japanese high
seas salmon fishery and because of the apparent depletion of such major
species as Alaskan black cod and Pacific hake. It can be anticipated
that prolonged negotiation will be necessary to resolve the jurisdic-
tional, conservation, and allocation problems between these nations and
the United States. Additional problems can be anticipated because of
the growing fisheries of South Korea, Taiwan and Poland in the Northeastern
Pacific Ocean.

11. On the Atlantic coast, the major international fisheries
treaties and executive agreements involved the large and mixed stocks of
fish occurring off the coast of the United States from Cape Hatteras in
the south to the Canadian border on the north. About 15 separate species
of fish are fished extensively and in common by fishermen of the United
States and about 15 foreign nations. During the past decade there has
been a decline of about 33 percent in the biomass of fish in the area
with severe economic consequences to the fisheries of the United States.

12. Recent action by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Commission
has partially ameliorated the problem. Nevertheless, strong concern on
the part of fishermen and the general public along the Atlantic coast
remains, and it is likely that any new agreements with foreign nations
regarding their continued fishing without mutual acceptance of United
States sovereignty over fisheries out to a limit of 200 miles will be
severely criticized by these groups. One can anticipate prolonged
negotiations and great difficulty in reaching agreements, especially in
view of the Public TLaw 94-265. The new Conservation and Management Act
of 1976 requires acceptance by foreign governments of United States
absolute sovereignty over the fisheries resources; this will be a bitter
pill to swallow.

13. In the Gulf of Mexico the situation is somewhat reversed.
About '400 United States shrimp fishermen fish off the coast of Mexico
and other Caribbean nations for shrimp and about 40 fishermen fish
finfish. Mexico has extended its jurisdiction over fisheries to 200
miles and it appears certain that many other Caribbean and northeast
coast South American countries who have not yet extended their juris-
diction will follow suit very soon. The United States government in

38 9

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

viii

this case will he required to attempt to negotiate for continued United
States shrimp and red snapper fishing off the coast of these countries.
Public Law 94-265 provides for the prohibition of the imports of fisheries
products from nations who refuse to conclude an agreeement permitting
United States fishing vessels continued access to fishery resources if
such United States vessels have traditionally fished in waters off the
coast of foreign nations. It seems likely that these important prohibi-
tions provided for in Section 285 in Public Law 9'4-265 will increase the
difficulty in resolving problems for United States fishermen in such
areas.

14. The United States is a member of two multinational fishery
commissions dealing with highly migratory species of fish such as tuna:
the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission and the International Con-
vention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. Because the majority of
the efficient United States tuna fleet fishes almost entirely off the
coast of foreign nations, it will undoubtedly be necessary to renegotiate
the provisions of these two Conventions. Coastal nations involved will
demand greater coastal state jurisdiction over tuna fishing vessels
fishing within their 200-mile limit. on the other hand, United States
law provides for international agreements regulating the conservation
and management of these highly migratory species. One can predict again
a prolonged period of negotiation and confrontation with coastal states
off whose coasts our fleets fish tuna.

.15. Two important marine conventions will be affected by the
extension of jurisdiction to 200 miles.

a. The International Whaling Convention (IWC) permits limited
whaling in almost all oceans. Whaling nations such as Japan
and the Soviet Union will he affected by extension of juris-
diction since they take significant numbers of whales within
the 200-mile limit of many coastal nations including the
offshore waters of the United States; thus, modifications to
the Convention will be necessary. In spite of these problems
for the whaling nation, it appears that the IWC should continue
in a modified form and will not require major modification in
its mandate.

b. The North Pacific Fur Seal Convention has been an effective
means of conserving and allocating the harvest of Pacific fur
seals. It may require some modification to take into account
the coastal migrations of fur seals within the 200-mile limit
of Asia and North America. However, it would appear most
likely that this convention will continue with relatively
little change in substance with respect to its charter.

16. The 10 executive agreements between the United States and
foreign fishing countries will for the most part not be continued much
beyond March 1, 1977. These were negotiated to resolve specific problems
and conflicts of a relatively transitory nature. During the transition

390

period until there is general acceptance of the United States 200-nile
fish jurisdiction, there may be the need for the continuation of certain
of these agreements. The shrimp agreement between the United States and
Brazil is one of the executive agreements that should be continued. It
is desirable where possible to incorporate the appropriate provisions of
the current bilaterals into new agreements with foreign nations.

17. As pointed out by the President in signing Public Law 94-265,
its provisions deviate significantly from the draft text of the Law of
the Sea Convention (LOS). The enforcement articles of the LOS di-aft
text provide for significantly different and considerably less stringent
provisions in our domestic law. Still other sections of our domestic
law, for example those dealing with import prohibitions (Section 205),
are contrary to both national policy in other areas of concern to the
United States and to certain international commitments of the United
States especially those provided for in GATT (General Agreement for
Trade and Tariff).

18. In spite of the difficulties that lie ahead in implementing
the extension of fishing jurisdiction of the U.S. to MO. miles, the
inevitable conclusion is that this action is timely and necessary to
provide the opportunity for improved conservation of fishery resources
lying off the coast of the United States and an improved opportunity for
United States fishermen to increase their share of the catch of fishery
resources in these rich waters.

391

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

THE EFFECT OF EXTENDED FISHERY JURISDICTION BY THE UNITED STATES ON
INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES CONVENTIONS AND AGREEMENTS

INTRODUCTION

On Monday, April 13, 1976, the President signed into law the Fishery
Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (Public Law PL 94-265). In the
statement made by the President at the time of signing,'he stated his
concern with regard to our ability to fulfill the tasks called for by
the legislation in the time and manner provided for in the Act. He
indicated that he was anxious that no action be taken which would
compromise our commitment to protect both the rights of navigation as
well as the welfare of distant water fisheries, and further that no one
in this country wanted to see the United States engaged in unnecessary
national disputes simply because of a lack of flexibility in applying
the provisions of the legislation.

Four issues were specifically raised in the President's statement.
First, in the absence of timely action, the bill might cause serious
impediments for the United States in meeting its obligations under
existing treaties and bilateral agreements. Second, the hill contem-
plates unilateral enforcement by the United States over foreign fishing
for salmon and other anadromous species of fish seaward of the 200-mile
zone. Enforcement of such a provision in the absence of bilateral or
multilateral agreements would be contrary to accepted international law.
Third, the enforcement provisions of PL 94-265 dealing with the seizure
of unauthorized fishing vessels, lack adequate assurances of reciprocity
in keeping with the tenets of international law; and fourth, the measure
purports to encroach upon the exclusive province of the executive with
respect to international negotiations. The President went on to say
that he was hopeful that these issues could be resolved by responsible
administrative action and, where necessary, curative legislation.

Congress, obviously anticipating passage of this bill and/or the
signature and ultimate ratification of the multilateral multi-national
Law of the Sea convention, has asked the General Accounting Office to
examine the international implications of the 200-mile fishery zone soon
to be implemented by the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976
(PL 94-265).

In this paper we will attempt to: (a) assess the effects of extended
fishery jurisdiction by the United States on international fisheries
commissions and conventions and on bilateral executive fishery agreements;
(b) look at the expected impact of the 200-mile zone on foreign fishing;
and (c) make an assessment of the status and-effectiveness of present
United States conventions and bilateral agreements. We will comment on
expected changes in these commissions and conventions as extended juris-
diction is implemented by the United States. The report will also
comment on international fisheries agreements now in effect in other
parts of the world with appropriate comments on the operative sections

39 2

of these conventions. The study is not intended to be a final-, def in-
itive analysis of the international implications of the 200-mile fishery
zone. Rather, its purpose is to add to information which will provide
an insight into the complexities of the problem of arriving at accommo-
dations between coastal nations and foreign nations fishing in coastal
waters. Our examination of this potentially difficult development
emphasizes the problems inhepent in the United States' unilateral exten-
sion of jurisdiction over fisheries to 200 miles off our coast. The
report will discuss the issues by geographic areas approximately equiv-
alent to those covered by the regional councils established under the
1976 Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

THE PROBLEM

The United States has great potential as a fish producing nation.
It has the fourth longest coastline of any nation in the world (13,112
nautical miles). In addition, it has a continental shelf area of
860,600 square nautical miles (the third largest in the world). The
waters lying off the North Atlantic coast, the Gulf of Mexico, and the
Pacific coast of the United States and Alaska (including the Bering
Sea), are among the richest and most productive regions of the world
oceans. However, the United States produces only approximately 2 million
metric tons of fish per year from the waters off its coast and the catch
has varied but little over the past thirty years. The question of why
this is so is a continuing problem.

Before 1950, there were virtually no foreign vessels fishing off
the coast of the United States except a handful of Canadian boats
fishing salmon, black cod and halibut off the coasts of Washington and
Alaska and an occasional Canadian groundfish and scallop vessel off the
coast of New England. Since that time foreign fishing off the coast of
the United States has increased a hundred-fold, and the number of foreign
flag fishing fleets has increased to over twenty.1 The world fish catch
during this period (1950-1975) has increased to about seventy millions
of tons by 1975, increasing since the end of World War II at a rate
slightly above 5 percent per year (Fig. 1, Table I). The world catch
dropped in the early 1970's, due primarily to a decline in the Peruvian
anchovy fishery coupled with a failure of world herring fisheries
elsewhere, both in the northwestern Pacific and northeastern Atlantic.

IDuring the past decade vessels from the following nations have
been observed by the United States Coast Guard and National Marine
Fisheries Service fishing within 200 miles off the United States coast:
Bulgaria, Canada, Cuba, Denmark, Federal Republic of Germany, France,
German Democratic Republic, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Mexico,
Norway, Poland, Republic of China (Taiwan), Republic of Korea, Romania,
Spain, United Kingdom, U.S.S.R., and Venezuela.

39 3

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

Figure 1. Historic World and U.S. landings of fish and shellfish.

200

15 /
o 5

World
o
0

ca~ ~landing /

U.S. landings

1949 1960 1~70
From: National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Department of Commerce. National
Plan for Marine Fisheries, "Final Draft." 'Washington, D.C.: Dept. of Commerce.
October 1976, n. r.
0 949 9 4
Frml ainlMrn0iheisSrie OA eatmn fCmec.Ntoa

Pln.u0aieFseis FnlDatyWsigoDC:Dp.o omre
a coe 96 .S

0)~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~9

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

But in the last two years (1974 and 1975), the Peruvian anchovy populations
have increased again and the world's fish catch is again on the upswing.2

During the entire post-World War II period, the United States catch-
has declined slightly from about 2.5 to about 2 million metric tons. In
the face of a steadily increasing world catch, why did the United States
catch remain at this low level, particularly in light of a rapidly
increasing domestic demand (Fig. 2)?

Table 1

World Fish Production

Catch in millions
Year of metric tons (mmt)

1850 1.5 - 2.25
1900 4.50
1930 10.00
1938 18.44
1950 18.43
1960 34.00
1970 70.00
1973 66.00

In 1972, the annual catch by foreign fishermen off the Pacific coast
States of California, Washington, Oregon and Alaska reached a level of over
three mit, with over 2-1/2 mmt coming from Alaska (Fig. 3). It has been
estimated that the potential yield from the United States coastal and
offshore waters is somewhere between 10 and 20 mmt.

On the other hand, the United States has an abundance of experienced
fishermen. The United States commercial fishing industry consists of
130,000 fishermen; approximately 2,000 processors; over 1,000 wholesalers;
and 2,000 importer-exporters plus frozen and canned food distributors;
etc.3 The problem is then, that in spite of the very large population
of fish of various species located off the United States coast, the very
high productivity of these waters, the large and sophisticated fish
catching and processing industry, the United States fishing industry has
failed to take advantage of its proximity to this large resource and its
catch remains at a relatively low level.

2Data from published statistical reports of FAO and personal
communications concerning the data for 1974 and 1975.

3National Marine Fisheries Service. National Plan for Marine
Fisheries. "Final Draft;" Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce,
October 1975.

395

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

Figure 2. U.S. lnndings, imports, and consumption of edible
fishery products.

5 Total
c - Consumption

o
4-
, I mports

2- U.S. Catch

195)0 lh60 1470
From: National l'lrine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Department of Commerce. National
Plan for Marine Fisheries, 'Final Draft." Vashington, D.C.: Department of
Commnerce, October 1975, p. 12.

396

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

Figure 3. Estimated U.S. and foreign landings of Groundfish and Herring
off Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and California.

Foreign
Catch

5 4-

a 3v
/

- -

1963 I 1l73

From: National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Department of Commerce. National Plan
for Marine Fisheries "Final Draft;" Washington, D.C. Dept. of Commerce, Oct. 1975, p.6.

397

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

THE EFFECTS OF FOREIGN FISHERIES

Overfishing

It has been assumed by many that the reason for the low catch by
United States fishermen and the depletion4 of fishery resources lying
off the United States coast has been primarily caused by foreign fisher-
men. This is only partially correct. The primary cause of the decline
of many fish stocks of importance to United States' fishermen has been a
lack of a rational fishery management and control by the United States.
It is true that foreign fishermen have contributed to overfishing5 of
some very important stocks of fish lying off the United States coast,
(e.g., the haddock of Georges Bank and Pacific Ocean perch off the coast
of the Pacific Northwest), but another serious cause of depletion has
been overfishing by fishermen of the United States. The Draft National
Fishery Plan6 lists species of fish they consider to be depleted as of
August, 1975. The following species were listed:7

Alaska pollock Pacific salmon
abalone Pacific sardine
Atlantic herring pendalic shrimps
Atlantic menhaden clams
Atlantic salmon river herring
Atlantic sea scallops rock fishes
flukes sea run trout
haddock striped bass
halibut yellowfin Eole
oysters yellowtail flounder

To this list we would add the sturgeons, bay scallops and Olympia oysters.8
Of these 23 depleted species, 15 have been fished exclusively, or almost
exclusively, by fishermen of the United States and have been under
almost exclusive United States control.

It is becoming quite clear, however, that Alaskan pollock has been
overfished primarily by Japanese and Soviet fisheries in the Bering Sea.
The catch by all foreign fishermen reached almost 2 mmt in 1972 and has

4Depletion is defined as the reduction of the size of the stock
below that which will, on the average, yield the maximum sustainable
yield.

50verfishing is used in the sense of fishing at a rate that will
produce or maintain depletion.

6The Draft National Fishery Plan is an unpublished report widely
circulated during the spring of 1976 by the National Marine Fisheries
Service, NOAA, U.S. Dept. of Commerce. It is in the process of publication.
7Ibid.

8Personal knowledge of the author and statistical reports of the NMFS.

398

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

been declining since (Figure 4). F(r 1975, preliminary reports indicate
that the catch probably did not even reach 1.5 mmt. The National Marine
Fisheries Commission's Northwest Center scientists report substantial
depletion of the stocks of Alaskan pollock and predict even lower catches
for the future.

Other species have alsb been depleted by foreign fishing fleets.
The incidental take of Pacific halibut, particularly by Japan, but also
by the Soviet Union, has contributed substantially to the reduced produc-
tivity of Pacific halibut. The catch of Pacific halibut in the North-
eastern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea has declined by more than 50 percent
in recent years (Figs. 5 and 6). The small Alaskan shrimp has been
fished heavily Ly Japan and the Soviet Union in the Gulf of Alaska and
particularly the Bering Sea. The particular stock fished by the Japanese
and Soviets in the Bering Sea has been drastically reduced (Fig. 7).
The Pacific ocean perch stocks located off the Oregon-Washington coast
and in the Gulf of Alaska have also been seriously reduced by Japanese
and Soviet vessels (Figs. 8-9). The same is true of the yellowfin sole,
other flounders, and herring (Figs. 10-12) of the Bering Sea. These
northern stocks of groundfish have been exclusively fished by foreign
fishermen; there is no significant United States fishery on them.

On the Atlantic coast, Atlantic herring stocks have been overfished
by the Soviet Union, Poland, and East and West Germany. Atlantic flounders,
haddock, yellowtail flounder and river herring also have been depleted
by foreign fishermen in the mid-Atlantic and New England fishing grounds.
The Atlantic mackerel stock, while not showing a decline in catch until
1974 and 1975, is also showing indications of stock reduction due to
foreign fishing. On the other hand, the Atlantic oyster, the Olympia
oyster of the Pacific coast, the Atlantic and Pacific salmons, the
Pacific sardine, and the Atlantic menhadden--species which are and have
been under the sole control of the United States--have also suffered a
reduction in productivity. The decline of these species has been brought
about by poor United States management of its inshore environment and
fisheries.

Effects of Foreign Fisheries Other than Overfishing

Foreign fisheries have had a number of adverse effects on United
States fisheries other than overfishing and competing for the catch. In
the case of Pacific ocean perch in the area off the coast of California,
Oregon and Washington, the incidental fishing for these limited stocks,
in contrast to directed fishing effort, by Soviet fishermen has kept the
stock at a low level of abundance and deprived American fishermen of
their traditional take of this species. In the Atlantic, the indiscrim-
inate fishing for mixed stocks of herring, flounders and fluke, haddock,
river herring, and yellowtail flounder by foreign fishermen has seriously
reduced the total biomass and thus threatened the economic viability of
coastal fisheries of the United States.9 That is, even though the total

9Published and unpublished reports of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries
Commission (ICNAF) and United States section of that Commission.

399

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

I igitre 4. i.I cat-lh of Pollock in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Regionk
combined in thousand metric tons round weight, 1958-74.
1900-

7800-

1600.-

1400-

[ 300-

1200-

1100-

..1000-
r

900-

ZOG-

1 00-.

0 ) A 5
a ~ ~~W!w o o.Sau7o :~rDmra LJelsucso h
N-tvltr aii 6rinfSn n
60(~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Arl 17,, 5

500-~~~~~~~~~~

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

Figure 5. Totnl catch of Pacific Halibut in the Gjulf of Alaska and off
Pacific Northwest combined in thousand metric tons round weight,
[962-74.

45-

40-

35-

30-

25-
o

'62 '63 '64 \65 '66 '67 '68 '69 '70 '71 '72 '73 '74 '75
c ~~~~ ~401
C

c 15-

'62 '63 '64 '65 '66 '67 '68 '69 '70 '71 '72 '73 '74 '75

Sollrce of statistics: Low, l.oh Lee. Status of_"ajor DemersalFishery~esources
of thc Nortlheastern "acifih :BeringSea and AleuLtian Islands. "Northwest Fisheries
Cenltei Processed Report;" Seattle, WA: Northwest Fisheries Center (NMtFS), April 1976,
r. 77.

401

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

11
Figure 6. Total catch of Pacific Halibut in the Bering Sea and Aleutian
Region combined in thousand metric tons round weight, 1958-74.

17-

16-

15-

14-

13-

12-

11-

7-
3-

'58 '59 '60 '61 '62 '63 '64 '65 '66 '67 '68 '69 '70 '71 '72 '73 '74 '75
Source of Statistics: Low, Loh Lee. Status of ?'ajor Demersal Fishery Resources
of the Northeastern Pacific: Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. "Northwest Fisheries
Center Processed Report," Seattle, WA: Northwest Fisheries Center (N'!FS) April 1976,
p.75.

402

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

12
Figure 7. Total Catch of Shrimp in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Region combined
in thousand metric tons pound weight, 1958-74.

30-

20-

-.I

15-
u

IcI

'58 '59 '60 '1 '62 '63 '64 '65 '66 '67 '6 '69 '70 '71 '72 '73 '74 '75

--No data
+ Small catch
Source of statistics: Low, Lob Lee. Status of Yajor Demersal Fishery Resources
of the Northeastern Pacific: Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. "Northwest Fisheries
Center Processed Report;" Seattle, WA: Northwest Fisheries Center (NYFS), April 1976,
p.75.

403

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

Figure 8. Total Catch of Pacific Ocean Perch in the Bering Sea and Aleutian
Region combined in thousand metric tons round weight, 1958-74.

130 -

120-

110 -

100 -

90 -

80-

0 70-

60 -

20 -
0
u

10-

+ +
0
'58 '59 '60 '61 '62 '63 '64 '65 '66 '67 '68 '69 '70 '71 '72 '73 '74 '75

+ 1958 and 1957, small catches
Source of statistics: Low, Loh Lee. Status of Major Demersal Fishery Resources
of the Northeastern Pacific: Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. "Northwest Fisheries
Center Processed Report;" Seattle, !,A: Northwest Fisheries Center (OFS), April 1976,
p. 75.

404

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

14
Figure 9. Total catch of Pacific Ocean Perch in the Gulf of Alaska and off
Pacific Northwest combined in thousand metric tons round weight,
1962-74.

400_.

350

300_

250_

200

150_

100

50.

l l I l I I , , l l
1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975

From: Alverson, Dayton L., Director, Northwest Fisheries Center, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Seattle, Washington. Irterview, June 3, 1976.

405

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

15
Figure 10. Total Catch. Yellowfin Sole in Eastern Bering Sea in thousand metric tons,
1954 - 74.

600-

500-

400-

-300 -

'200-

100 -

1 I I I [ I I I I I I I I I I I I i
'54 '55 '56 '57 '58 '59 '60 '61 '62 '63 '64 '65 '66 '67 '68 '69 '70 '71 '72 '73 '74
Source of statistics: Low, Loh Lee. Status of MaJor Demersal Fishery Resources of the
Northeastern Pacific: Bering. Sea and Aleutian Islands. "Northwest Fisheries Center
Processed Report,-' Seattle, WA: Northwest Fisheries Center (NMFS) April 1976, p. 83.

406

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

16
Figure 11. Total Catch of Flatfishes in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Region
combined in thousand metric tons round weight, 1958-74.

700-

650-

600-

550 -

500-

450-

400-

" 350-

300-

25o-

200-

150-

100-

50_

0 l l l l I , I I I , , I I l I , l I
'58 '59 '60 '61 '62 '63 '64 '65 '66 '67 '68 '69 '70 '71 '72 '73 '74 '75

Source of statistics: Low, Loh Lee. Status of Major Demersal Fishery Resources of
the Northeastern Pacific: Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. "Northwest Fisheries
Center Processed Report;; Seattle, TA: Northwest Fisheries Center (NrnFS), April 1976,
p. 75.

407

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

17
Figure 12. Total cat(ch of IlHrring in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Region
combined in thousand metric tons round weight, 1958-74.

120-

1 10-

100-

0 90-

30-
= 80-

L 60-

20-

I I 1 1 1 1 1 I1 X I I I I I I I I I
'58 '59 '60 '61 '62 '63 '64 '65 '66 '6 '6 '69 '70 '71 '72 '73 '7 '75

408

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

fishing effort by tht- Uniterd St.tr:f and foreign fishermen has nlt in all
cases been so great as to reduce the productivity of the s:tocks, still
the catch by foreign fisherm.i ha-s been cf such a magnitude so as to
significantly increase the cost of fishing to United S!ates-flag vessels
and thus decrease the net return to domestic fiishermen. That appears to
be the case in several of the Ntew England groundfish fisheries.

Also, fareion fishermen pr!J;ically interfere with Am!lerican fishermen
on fishing grounds off the Uninted States coast traditionally fished by
coastal fishermen. in the ealyv years of the expans ion 6f foreign
fisheries on Georges Park in flew England, foreign fleets, fishing virtu-
ally in formation, drnve the smaller United States coastal vessels off
the traditional f-ishing grounds. Picture a 3,000 ton factory trawler of
the Soviet Union--or mcrel often ten such vessels--trawling side by side
across the fishing grounds and bearing down on a single 200 ton rUnited
States flag vessel, one-tenth or less the size. Because of the physical
presence of large numbers of foreign fishing vessels, and resulting
concern over losing both fishing gear and fishing time, the American
coastal fishing fleet has suffered a significant reduction in effective-
ness. The same thing has occurred off the Pacific Northwest coast of
the United States where fleets of factory trawlers, 3,000 tons or more,
from the Soviet Union have physically interfered with the salmon trolling
and coastal groundfish fleet of the Pacific Northwest. 10

Foreign fleets have also caused severe damage to the stationary
fishing gear of the United States on the Atlantic Coast, especially to
lobster traps. The gear losses have caused a great deal of difficulty
and economic loss to the United States lobster fishermen. And, on the
Pacific Coast, particularly in the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea, destruc-
tion of king crab traps by Japanese and Soviet trawlers and the destruction
of set halibut fishing gear by the large foreign trawlers have caused
additional loss to American fishermen. This loss of gear became such a
problem that a claims settlement board has been established by the
United States and U.S.S.R. It must also be mentioned that the recent
development of the offshore lobster fishery by the United States using
fixed traps, interfered with the fishing by foreign fishermen on fishing
grounds they had fished for several years.

As a result of this intimidation by the large numbers of foreign
vessels fishing on common fishing grounds with United States fishermen,
the American fleet has avoided good fishing areas so as to prevent the
loss of valuable and expensive fishing gear. However, in recent years
bilateral agreements between the United States and a number of foreign
countries whose fishermen fish off the coast of the United States have
moderated the conflicts between United States and foreign fishermen.

10Evidence submitted by Coast Guard, NMFS, and substantiated
reports by fishermen to Department of State 6ver the period 1960 to
1974.

409

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

THE: FISHERIES CONVENTIONS AND THEIR PURPOSE

The United States is a member of eight international organizations
concerned with fishery or marine mammal management. These Commissions
have as their primary purpose the conservation of fishery resources
fished by two or more countries. Usually, a Commission is established
with membership from each member country. Statistical and scientific
committees coordinate the accumulation of technical data and assessment
of the status of stocks of concern to the particular Commission.
Table 2 gives a list of these conventions, their acronyms, date estab-
lished and auspices, membership, area of competence, resources covered,
and management responsibility. All are multilateral or bilateral
conventions that have management responsibilities. A number of these
(the International Pacific Halibut Commission, the International Pacific
Salmon Fisheries Commission, the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission
and the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas)
have independent scientific staffs with responsibilities for gathering
scientific information and making independent recommendations to their
respective Commissions for the management of stocks under their purview.

On the other hand, the International North Pacific Fisheries
Commission, the North Pacific Fur Seal Commission, the International
Whaling Commission, and the International Convention for Northwest
Atlantic Fisheries all depend upon the scientific and technical staffs
of member countries. Scientific and technical committees carry out
scientific investigations and then formulate recommendations for the
management of the stocks under the purview of the commission.

Still another type, sponsored by the Food and Agricultural Organ-
ization, includes such Commissions as the Indo-Pacific Fisheries Council,
the Indian Ocean Fisheries Commission, and the Fishery Committee for the
Eastern Central Atlantic. They promote programs of fishery development
and conservation and encourage cooperation between member nations. They
have no management functions per se. There are a number of other regional
fisheries conventions in various parts of the world ocean. They are
briefly described in Table 3.

The first category of convention, those with management responsi-
bilities, tend to have been established to manage the fisheries for
maximum sustainable yield of the resource and have little responsibility
for either the economic return from the fishery or for the allocation of
the catch among the members. There are some exceptions to this. For
example, the North Pacific Fur Seal Commission specifically allocates
the harvest among member nations. It provides that the harvest of fur
seals be carried out on the rookeries which happen to be islands under
the sovereignty of the Soviet Union and the United States. However,
beyond this, the convention calls for studies to ascertain the per-
missible catch of fur seals and allocates 15 percent to Japan and the
same to Canada. These nations in return have discontinued pelagic (high
seas) seal hunting.

41 0

Date Established
Commission Name Acronym and Auspices Membership

Inter-American Tropical IATTC 1949 Canada, Costa Rica, France,
Tuna Commission International Japan, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama,x
Convention United States of America

International Commission ICCAT 1966 Brazil, Canada, Cuba, France,
for the Conservation of Internatioijal Ghana, Ivory Coast, Japan,
Atlantic Tunas Convention Republic of Korea, Morocco,
Portugal, Senegal, South Africa,
Spain, United States of America

International Commission ICNAF 1949 Bulgaria, Canada, Denmark, France
for the Northwest Atlantic International German Democratic Republic, Federal
Fisheries Convention, as Republic of Germany, Iceland, Italy, ,
amended Japan, Norway, Poland, Portugal, C
Romania, Spain, U.S.S.R., United
Kingdom, United States of America

International North Pacific INPFC 1952 Canada, Japan, United States of
Fisheries Commission International America
Convention

International Pacific IPH-C 1953 Canada, United States of America
Halibut Commission International
Convention

International Pacific Salmon IPSFC 1930 Canada, United States of America
Fisheries Commission International
Convention, as amended

International Whaling IWC 1946 Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada.
Commission International Denmark, France, Iceland, Japan,
Convention, as Mauritius, Norway, Panama, South Africa I.
amended U.S.S.R., United Kingdom, United States X
of America

Are, ct Competence Resources Covered Management Responsibility

Este�: Pacific Ocean Yellowfin and Skiojack tuna, To carry out research on tuna by Z
fish used as bait for tuna own research staff; to recommend
and other fisn taken by tuna joint action for conservation.
vessels
C:

Atlantic Ocean, including Tuna and tuna-like Fishes and To carry out studies- to recommend
the ac(;acent seas other species exploited in conservation action.
tuna fishing

Northwest Atlantic, (eastern limit All, but with particular To carry out studies and research;
approximately 42 0W longitude, reference to cod group, to propose action for stock con-
southern limit approximately 39 N flatfish and rosefish servation through closed areas and
latitude), excluding territorial seasons, size limitation, gear control,
sea catch limits.

All waters of North Pacific and All, with particular reference To study fish stocks; to recommend
adjacent seas, excluding to halibut, herring and salmon joint conservation action; to
territi, ral waters administer abstention system.

Territorial sea and high sea off Halibut To study halibut stocks, to adopt con-
western coast of Canada and (Hippoglossus) servation measures such as catch regu-
United States lation,size control,open or closed sea
sons, ves.agd gear control,licensing.
Frazer river and its Sockeye and To carry out investigations; to adopt
tributaries, territorial sea Pink salmon conservation measures such as gear
tributaries, territorial sea Pink salmon cont rol, catch regulat ion, apportion-
and high seas off the estuary ment of catches.

All waters in which whaling is Whale stocks To promote or carry out studies and
prosecuted by factory ships, research; to adopt conservation
land stations and whale catchers measures such as open and closed z
seasons or areas, size limitation,
catch limits.

TABI31 2 (continued) Z

1X-te Established
e~,ni!,ii~�:j ~�n Nate ~ ec-co nAni acd Auspices Membership

~ocrit Pacific Fur �eals 1 PFSC i95' Canada, Japan, U.S.S.R.,
Ccn� rmsCfn International interim United Statcs of America
Convention as amended
(New Convention wording
agrepd or,December 3975.)

z
I-
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Area of Competence Resources Covexed Management Responsibility Z
tv
If_
North Pacific Ocean Fur Seals To formulate and coordinate research x
programs; to recommend conservation
measures in respect of size, sex and
age composition of the seasonal commer-
cial-kill from a herd; to make recom-
mendations regarding methods of sealing.

Z
United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization Department of Fisheries. Report on FAO, the FAO Committee 0
on Fisheries and International and Regional Fishery Bodies. "Doc. FID/C/331;" Rome: FAO, 1975. pp. 41-52.

TABLE 3
1 z
OTHER REGIONAL FISHERY BODIES
(1975 Membership) Date Established H
Commission Name Acronym and Auspices Membership

Regional Fisheries CARPAS 1961 Argentina, Brazil, H
Advisory Commission for the Resolution of FAO Uruguay
Southwest Atlantic Conference under Article VI-1
of FAO Constitution

Cameroon, People's Rep. of the Congo,
Fishery Committee for the CECAF 1967 Dahomey, France,jGabon, Gambia, Ghana,
Eastern Central Atlantic Resolution of FAD council Greece, Guinea, Italy, Ivory Coast,
Eastern Central Atlantic~Resolutiotn of FAO council Japan, Republic of Korea, Libe ria,
under Article VI-2 of FAO Mauritania, Morocco, Nigeria, Norway,
Constitution Poland, Romania, SenegaI, Sierre Leone,
Spain, Togo, United Kingdom, United
States of America. Zaire

4 General Fisheries Council GFCM 1949 Algeria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Arab Republic
H' for the Mediterranean International Agreement under of Egypt, France, Greece, Israel, Italy
U,
aegis of FAO (Article XIV of Lebanon, Libyan Arab Republic, Malta,
FAO Constitution). Monaco, Morocco, Romania, Spain, Tunisia
Turkey, Yugoslavia

Z
-V
Hea
0_

TABL.E3 3 (c�,~tinued)

Date Established 0
Commiss-ion N.ame Acronym and Auspices Membership X
X
Japaa-Republic of Korea JKFC 1965 Japan, Republic of Korea <
Joint Fisheries Commission International H
Agreement

Japan-Soviet Northwest JSFC 1956 Japan, U.S.S.R.
Pacific Fisheries Commission International
Treaty

Mixed Commission for MCBSF 1959 Bulgaria, Romania,
Black Sea Fisheries International U.S.S.R.
Convention

Nortuheast Atlantic 0isheries NEAFC 1959 Belgium, Denmark, France, German
Cormm.ission International Democratic Republic, Federal Republic
Convention of Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Nether-
lands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spair
Sweden, U.S.S.R., United Kingdom

Permanent Commission eo PCSP 1952 Chile, Ecuador, Peru
the CcInfeLelncc orn Ce Sse and International Agreement,
Con_:ercatioa of ch- Marine as Supplemented
Rte tr,:_sa of the Sc>cu t ___i___..

TABLE 3 (continued)
U
0

Ar+-a of t Ceoetn~_. Resources Covered Management Responsibility X

>('uotitfli, A,. ? t.lunrtic All To develop organized approach in
respect of rational exploitation of
resources, to encourage cooperative
investigations.

luastert' . -t8l.A ,t .l:-:Lit:L: All To promote rational utilization of
ht'wo~eu 'C~' S.,ar. .l:! resources; to encourage scientific
the C..rioz ht'Iv-i research and training; to collect
and disseminate information.

Md t-dJtrrrIan-:ar. S7 a'- All To formulate-various aspects of the
k-- !,:. ig.'.,'_,S . 'ted. problems of development and proper
utilization of resources;to encourage
research and development; to assemble
and disseminate information.

'ti

Area of Competence Resourcep CflVred Management Responsibility

Joint resources survey All To recommend scientific investigations
and regulation zones off and conservation measures, including
the coast of Korea provisional regulatory measures.

Northwest Pacific, All, with particular To coordinate joint scientific research
including Sea of Japan, reference to salmon, programs; to adopt joint conservation
Sea of Okhotsk and Bering trout and herring measures, including amount of total
Sea, and excluding catch.
territorial waters

Black Sea All To coordinate scientific research; to
develop industrial fishing techniques;
je4 to formulate conservation measures.
co

Northeast Atlantic and All To keep all fisheries under review; to
Arctic Oceans and their recommend conservation measures in
dependent seas (western respect of mesh sizes, size limitation,
Ltimzit aflDroxta er lv t260-- gear control, closed seasons and areas,
Lat tuae, eastern �wimt 51El Longitude) amount of total catch or fishing effort.

South Pacific All To promote research; to adopt conserva-
tion measures including protection of
species, open and closed seasons and
nrnnA opnr ,-nnrrnl;

L'C
Z-

TABLE 3 (continued)
Date EstablishedZ
Commission Name Acronym and Auspices Membership

Sealing Commission for SCNEA 1957 Nor-way, U.S.S.R.
the Northeast Atlantic International -
Agreement

Shellfish Commission SCSK 1952 Denmark, Norway,
for the Skagerrak- International Sweden
Kattegat Agreement

Western Central WECAFC 1973 Brazil, Columbia, Cuba, France,
Atlantic Fishery Resolution of FAD Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Ttalx
Commission Council under Jamaica, Japan, Republic of Korea,
Article VI-l of Netherlands, Nicaragua, Poland,
FAD Constitution Senegal, Spain, Pogo, Trinidad and
Tobago, United Kingdom, Zaire N

TABLE 3 (continued) tr
Z
tv
Area of Competence Resources Covered Management Responsibility X-
Northeastern Atlantic east of Stocks of seals, including To formulate proposals in respect of c:
Cape Farewell, including the the Greenland seal, the scientific research and conservation -4
Greenland and Norwegian seas, hooded seal and the walrus measures, including closed seasons
the Denmark Strait, the area and areas, and total catch quotas.
of Jan Mayen Island and the and areas, and total catch quotas.
Barents Sea

Skagerrak and Kattegat waters Deep-sea prawns, European To coordinate scientific and
(bounded on the west by a line lobsters, Norway lobsters practical research to recommend
from Lindesnes light and on and crabs conservation measures.
the east by the 13th meridian
east of Greenwich)

Western Central All To promote collection of statisitcs;
Atlantic Ocean Alto facilitate the coordinati; u of
research programs; to assist member
governments in establishing national
policies. j

Z
t'
1-4
United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization Department of Fisheries. Report on FAO, the FAO Committee X
on Fisheries and International and Regional Fishery Bodies. "Doc. FID/C/331;" Rome: FAO, 1975. pp. 41-52.
<-

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

In the case of the International North Pacific Fisheries conven-
tion, the terms of the tripartite convention of Canada, Japan, and the
United States give primary consideration to principles of conservation.
However, the convention also calls for the abstention from fishing by
Japan for halibut, salmon, and herring found off the coast of Canada and
the United States. Herring and Bering Sea halibut stocks have been
taken off the abstention list since the Convention came into force in
1954+. But Japan still abstains from fishing salmon of North American
origin east of 1750 west longitude, the so called "abstention line."
Thus, this convention not only provides for cooperation in the con-
servation of resources of common concern between the three countries,
but also substantially limits Japan's take of salmon of North American
origin and halibut from the eastern North Pacific Ocean.

The International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Convention between
Canada and the United States calls for the conservation and rehabil-
itation of sockeye and pink salmon occurring in convention waters (the
Frazer River of Canada, its tributaries and the territorial sea and high
seas off the estuary). However, this convention goes beyond a strictly
management function to provide for an equal division of the catch of
these two species of Pacific salmon between the United States and Canada
within Convention waters.

With respect to recent amendments (January 1, 1974+) to the Inter-
national Convention for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries, recent amend-
ments (January 1, 1974+) permit "economic and technical considerations,"
in addition to scientific considerations, to serve as the basis for
joint action by contracting governments. These amendments in conjunc-
tion with earlier amendments to the TCNAF Convention provide not only
for the conservation but now the allocation of the fish stocks of the
Northwest Atlantic among member nations, taking into account economic
and technical considerations.

But with these exceptions, the vast majority of bilateral and
multilateral fishery conventions have been concerned almost solely with
the conservation of the resources; i.e., the achievement of the maximum
physical yield from the resource. This objective was reasonably well
met in the early years of the conservation conventions and during the
years following World War II. It was during the years from 194+5 through
about 1960 that these agreements achieved considerable success. The
International Pacific Halibut Commission succeeded in rehabilitating
depleted halibut stocks; the International Pacific Salmon Fisheries
Commission has brought about a very substantial increase in the stocks
of pink and red salmon of the Frazer River; the International North
Pacific Fisheries Commission permitted the United States to rehabilitate
stocks of salmon in Bristol Bay; and the International Commission for
the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries was successful during its earlier years
at conserving cod and other stocks of fish of the Northwest Atlantic.
In recent year, however, as a result of the tremendous growth in fishing

421

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

3 1

effort accompanied by the lack of adequate methods to deal with this
increased effort and the increased number of nations participating,
overfishing of major stocks of living marine resources off the coast of
the United States has occurred.

THE EXECUTIVE BILATERAL AGREEMENTS

With the increase in foreign fishing off the coast of mainland
United States and Alaska, as mentioned in the previous section, and with
the subsequent conflicts that arose as a result of the physical presence
of these vessels in waters off the United States coast, it became evi-
dent that there was a need for improved operating procedures by foreign
and domestic fishermen to minimize conflicts arising from competition
for common stocks of fish and/or common fishing grounds. A common
complaint by United States fishermen was that their fixed fishing gear
(halibut set lines and crab and lobster pots off both the Pacific and
Atlantic coasts) , were being destroyed by the large foreign trawl vessels.

A series of bilateral executive department agreements were negotiated
with the Soviet Union, Japan, Canada and several other nations to resolve
these specific problems. The purpose of these agreements was not to set
new ocean policy, but to reach an understanding with foreign fishermen
so that the economic interests of the United States fishing industry
could be better protected while the rights of foreign fishermen on the
high seas could also be preserved.

There are presently 11 of these agreements in effect for the Atlantic
and Pacific Oceans. These bilateral agreements have tended to provide
guidelines for governing the conduct of foreign and United States vessels
fishing primarily off the coast of the United States. In general, they
have succeeded in minimizing conflict between United States and foreign
fishermen and have reduced--but not eliminated--economic losses to
United States fishermen. Table 14 gives a list of these bilateral agree-
ments and their purpose. The Agreements are included as Appendix I of
the report.

A REGIONAL ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES TREATIES AND EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS

In this discussion, treaties will be considered in relation to
general geographic regions established under the Fishery Conservation
and Management Act of 1976. While a number of the international treaties
overlap the boundaries of the regions established by the Act, it never-
theless appears appropriate to consider by region what effect the exten-
sion of jurisdiction and the new management regimes will have on these
treaties and on the foreign fisheries and governments party to the
treaties.

422

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

Table 4

Bilateral Agreements Dealing With Fishery Matters

Agreement Parties Date Entered into Force

Agreement Concerning Shrimp Brazil, U.S.A. February 14, 1973

Agreement on Reciprocal Canada, U.S.A. April, 15, 1973
Fishing Privileges in
Certain Areas Off the
Coasts of the United
States and Canada

Agreement Concerning Certain Japan, U.S.A. December 24, 1974
Fisheries Off the Coast of
the United States
--Agreement Concerning
Salmon Fishing
--Note of the Government
of Japan Concerning
Dragnet and Longline
Fishing in Certain Waters
--Note of the Government of
Japan Concerning
Enforcement

Agreement Concerning an Japan, U.S.A. April 23, 1974
International Observer Scheme
for Whaling Operations from
Land Stations in the North
Pacific Ocean

Agreement Concerning King and Japan, U.S.A. December 24, 1974
Tanner Crab Fisheries in
the Eastern Bering Sea
--Note of the Government
of Japan Concerning
Procedures Relating to
Incidental Catches of
King and Tanner Crabs

Agreement Regarding Fisheries Polish People's January 1, 1976.
in the Northeastern Pacific Republic, U.S.A.
Ocean Of f the Coast of the
United States

Agreement Regarding Fisheries Polish People's July 1, 1973
in the Western Region of the Republic, U.S.A.
Middle Atlantic Ocean

423

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

Agreement Parties Date Entered into Force

Agreement Concerning Cooperation Republic of December 12, 1972
in Fisheries Korea, U.S.A.

Agreement on Certain Fishing U.S.S.R., U.S.A. July 1, 1973
Problems on the High Seas io
the Western Areas of the
Middle Atlantic Ocean

Agreement Regarding Fisheries in U.S.S.R., U.S.A. August 1, 1975
the Northeastern Pacific Ocean
Off the Coast of the United
States of America

Agreement Relating to Fishing U.S.S.R., U.S.A. August 1, 1975
for King and Tanner Crab

424

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

Ala,;ka and the b:iering Sea

All foreign fishirnK now taking place off the United States coast
takes place within the 200-mile limit except for Japanese high seas
salmon fishing west of 175� West longitude in waters adjacent to the
Aleutian Islands. The Northeastern Pacific and Bering Sea groundfish
fisheries of Japan, the U.S.C.R., Korea and Taiwan take place within the
200-mile zone of the Unitedi States and Canada. These fisheries are, to
one degree or another and with the exception of the small effort by
Taiwan flag vessels, being conducted within the framework of existing
international treaties and executive agreements.

The International North Pacific Fisheries Convention includes
Canada, Japan, and the United States. Convention waters include all
waters, other than the territorial waters, of the North Pacific Ocean
(see Table 2). After several years of study beginning in 1955, it was
found that significant amounts of salmon of North American origin
migrated west of the provisional abstention line at 1750 West longitude.
Thus the Japanese, in conducting their high seas salmon fisheries west
of this line, were taking substantial quantities of salmon of North
American origin. The Japanese fishery was found to be harvesting
sockeye salmon from Bristol Bay, Alaska. Attempts were made within the
Commission to move the abstention line further west after discovering
the extent of the Japanese interceptions of Bristol Bay sockeye salmon.
These attempts were resisted by Japan and the abstention line remains at
1750 West longitude. Nevertheless, the INPFC has been helpful in
preventing depletion of those stocks such as salmon and halibut fished
by all three member nations, Canada, Japan, and the United States. It
has also encouraged cooperation among member nations in gathering scien-
tific information for stock assessment. On the other hand, the limited
membership of Canada, Japan, and the United States and the restricted
objectives of the Convention, have meant that the Convention has been
useful only with respect to the relatively narrow objectives of the
Convention and thus has applied only to the three member nations. It is
reasonable to conclude that Japan has viewed the Convention as more
restrictive of Japan's fishermen and of less utility than to the fishermen
of Canada and the United States.

The North Pacific Fur Seal Convention will also come under review
with the extension of United States fishery jurisdiction. Since its
inception, this Convention has been uniquely successful in accomplishing
its objectives. The Pacific fur seal herd was reduced by Soviet, American,
Canadian, and Japanese hunters at about the turn of the last century to
a total of approximately 110,000 animals by about 1911. Since that
time, international conservation agreements among the four sealing
nations of the North Pacific Ocean, Canada, Japan, the United States,
and the U.S.S.R., have permitted a rehabilitation of these resources
until in recent years fur seals have numbered well over one million
animals and the production rate has been between 30 and 60 thousand
animals a year on a sustainable basis.

425

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

3 5

The International Pacific Hialibut Convention between the United
States and Canada provides for a (Commission and a separate scientific
staff which carries our conservation and management studies on Pacific
halibut. The Pacific halibut fishery is located almost entirely within
200 miles of the coasts of the United States and Canada, from the
northern Bering Sea to the coast of Oregon. However, most of the
fishing occurs off the AlaskAn coast of the United States, although many
United States vessels from Pacific Northwest ports in the United States
fish off the coast of British Columbia. The long and successful history
of this particular conservation convention and the excellent relations
existing between the United States and Canadian government and fishermen
would seem to dictate that the International Pacific Halibut Commission
will continue after the United States extension of fishery jurisdiction.
However, some consideration should be given to the allocation of the
catch, with an increased proportion going to the United States since the
majority of the halibut resource is located within 200 miles of the
United States coast. In recent years, the incidental catch of Pacific
halibut by Japan and the U.S.S.R. have apparently contributed to a
reduction in the productivity of Pacific halibut (Figs.5 and 6).

The International Pacific Salmon Fishery Commission, another bilateral
convention between the United States and Canada, has provided for the
successful rehabilitation of the Frazer River stocks of sockeye and pink
salmon. The Frazer River salmon were decimated during the early years
of, the twentieth century when railroad construction in the Frazer River
canyon of Canada dumped thousands of tons of rock in the river and
almost completely blocked the upstream migration of adult salmon to
their spawning areas. Cooperative studies by scientists of the two
countries provided evidence of this block and fish ladders were installed
in the Frazer River during the 1930's permitting the salmon to continue
their upstream migration. Since that time, the Frazer River sockeye
salmon runs have been increasing, and the two nations have been coop-
erating successfully in the conservation and management of these stocks.

In very recent years both countries have sought to amend the
present convention, and currently negotiations are under way to revise
the Convention and alter the allocation of the catch between the fisher-
men of the two countries. The United States and Canada have become
increasingly concerned about interceptions by fishermen of both countries
of salmon bound for the rivers of each country, and they have agreed in
principal to attempt to reduce these interceptions. It is likely that
in the near future a new and revised international convention, governing
the conservation and management of the salmon stocks of common concern
between Canada and the U.S., will be negotiated to attempt to resolve
this problem.

Executive agreements pertaining to the North Pacific Ocean and
Bering Sea will he significantly altered by the extension of fishery
jurisdiction. If the time comes when the foreign countries, whose
fishermen fish in the area, accept the extended 200-mile fisheries

426

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

jurisdiction of thie United states, there will be little need for such
executive agreements. Until such time, existing bilateral executive
agreements will probably need to be renegotiated with a view towards
improving conservation neasures in the Northeastern Pacific Ocean and
Bering Sea and to take into account the extension of fisheries juris-
diction to 200 miles by the United States.

In summary, there are about six foreign nations actively engaged in
fishing off the coast of Alaska and in the Bering Sea)11 There are up
to 300 foreign fishing vessels fishing in this area during the year,
taking two to two and one-half million metric tons of fish. These
foreign fisheries have substantially reduced the stocks of groundfish
off the coast of Alaska and stocks of salmon of the Bering Sea and
Aleutian Islands, obviously reducing the potential harvest to American
fishermen. However, the international treaties and executive agreements,
which relate to the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea, have been partially
successful in preventing overfishing and minimizing the adverse effects
of increased foreign fishing effort on United States fisheries. Of
these several conventions and agreements, the North Pacific Fur Seal
Commission, the International Pacific Halibut Commission, and the
International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission continue to he partic-
ularly effective. With regard to the International North Pacific Fisheries
Commission and the bilateral executive agreements, these agreements have
served a limited but useful purpose and will be replaced by new and more
effective arrangements negotiated in the context of the Conservation and
Management Act of 1976 (PL 9t4-265).

The Pacific Coast States

Extensive foreign fishing occurs in the coastal waters of California,
Oregon, and Washington. The International Pacific Salmon Fisheries
Commission, involving the pink and sockeye salmon of northern Puget
Sound and southern British Columbia, is the major international commission
in the geographic area encompassed by the Pacific Council proposed under
the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, (although the
International North Pacific Fisheries Commission has some responsibilities
in the area with respect to fisheries of Japan, the United States, and
Canada). As mentioned previously, negotiations are currently taking
place between the United States and Canada to redefine the limits of the
Salmon Commission, incorporating additional species of salmon of common
concern to both countries. It will permit an improved method of coordination
for research and management of salmon runs migrating along the coast of
the United States and British Columbia to southeastern Alaska. Salmon
troll fishermen from the United States fish off the coast of British
Columbia and substantial numbers of Canadian salmon trollers fish off
the coast of southeastern Alaska as far north as Cape Spencer and to the

IlCanada, Japan, Poland, South Korea, Taiwan, and the U.S.S.R.

427

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

3'I

south as far as the Columbia F:ver. canadlian fishermen also fish off-
shore of California, Oregon, and Washington for albacore tuna during the
summertime. In addition, a fleet of about 25 to 30 U.S. groundfish
trawlers fish the inside waters of British Columbia (Queen Charlotte
Sound and Hecate Strait). These joint U.S.-Canadian fisheries have not
been under any effective joint agreement although both governments have
long realized the need for joint management programs.

The current executive agreement with Canada relating to reciprocal
fishing within the 3- to 12-mile fishing zone of either country has
provided for stability in the management and continued fishing of
traditional fishing grounds by the fishermen of both countries. Accord-
ing to provisions of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976
(Sec. 202, b), it will be necessary to renegotiate the bilateral executive
agreement with Canada before March 1, 1977 if there is to be a continuation
of the reciprocal fishing rights within the 200-mile zone by fishermen
of both countries.

The bilateral executive agreements with the Soviet Union, Poland,
and Japan, regulating the fisheries of these countries off the Pacific
Northwest have reduced conflict between the foreign and domestic fisher-
men, but unfortunately the large fishing effort coupled by inadequate
control of the foreign fishermen have resulted in substantial overfishing
of Pacific Ocean perch and reductions in the Pacific hake and black cod
stocks. Again, the FCMA requires renegotiation of the agreements to
conform to the provisions of the act.

The Atlantic Coast States

On the Atlantic coast, the International Convention for Northwest
Atlantic Fisheries i, the major international fishery agreement although
there are bilateral executive agreements with Canada, Poland, and the
U.S.S.R. Tie ICNAF Convention and the executive bilateral agreements
have come under increasing domestic criticisms in recent years as the
increasing fishing effort by all rnations and lack of uniformly effective
contrel over the fishing has led to depletion of certain stocks such as
haddock and yellow tail fiounder and a substantial decline in the total
fisheries bioma-;-. With-ut question, the inrernrtionai agreements have
prevented wide-spread dolet-ion c.f fishery stocks off the 01n tud States
Atlantic cod:;t in reen .t -jers , but they have not1: bee-: effectirve enough
to prevent depletionll f some of the smaller stocks of fish, espe-ially
thos-e stock:S which irlterinll]te oD c'mmon -fis hing peunTdjs with the larger'
'to)cK.s of hcrrin! anld ma . erel. United States -ien;cistS a;rc! ojnsinecs
that evc-n thes.-': al:nlant. i')nmir;arilt 2?-cies are overfis"ie, i:,d have
r1--ca)!mn-!erniced dris -tc rducti4:.;o in bfsh;in?; ffrrt ., a result. T-he
United State- -cai1al fisheries have eecrn adverseiy affecte Ljy _he
redcction in fi:;h sen k:;

An!err icr W fesheries !e ins sfro - the New Eng.land and id--A'lrantti-
ares- a.r-~ve bee- vFr" ~;r ti-ic. -Cl the inteerr:tij nai a.gteett.l. i .ts: -:' :have
advocated ;-i- uniiatrl-i exuensijon of fishery rllr-:ii..-'ion v ti t- inite

428

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

States government. Many now advocate that the United States abrogate
the ICNAF treaty, and unilaterally eliminate all foreign fishing off the
coast of the United States out to the 200-mile limit. Obviously, the
United States will be obligated to withdraw from the ICNAF convention or
to renegotiate the treaty with major modifications because of the FCMA.

In summary, ICNAF and the Atlantic bilateral agreements have not
prevented a large decline in the fishery stocks off the coast of the
United States. In the past five years, however, the conservation
measures taken and the new provisions of the amended convention which
permit allocations of the total allowable catch favoring the coastal
states, have provided for some rehabilitation of the fish stocks and
have prevented more serious economic dislocation of United States
Atlantic coast fisheries.

The Gulf of Mexico

There is a relatively small amount of foreign fishing off the coast
of the United States in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean. Some
Cuban shrimp vessels and Japanese longline tuna and marlin vessels fish
off the United States coast in this region, but their impact on either
the stocks of fish or American fishermen is minimal.

Several hundred United States flag vessels fish off the coast of
Mexico primarily for shrimp and finfish of the snapper family. These
United States distant-water fishing vessels will he seriously and
adversely affected by an extension of fishery jurisdiction to 200 miles
by Mexico and other Caribbean nations.

DISTANT WATER OR WORLD-WIDE FISHERIES AND
MARINE MAMMAL TREATIES

The United States-Brazil Shrimp Agreement

This bilateral execlitivze agreement signed on May 9, 1972, and wince
renegotiated, provides for bilateral or cooperative studies of shrimp
and limited fishing by the United %:ates in the 200-mi~le zone claimed as
a territorial sea by Brazil. Thek agreement was extended in l974 and has
been further extended with certain modificatior:s up to the present date.

rn the absence of: this agreemernt, there might hive been a cerio.:s
foreign relatJinms problem with Brazil because of the claim by that
Country of a 200-mile territorial sea at a time when the 1United States
recogn;izd a 3.-mile I.Z. arid a 9-mi le Contiguous fishery Zone. 'nh.
agreement has periivitted a contznuation of a limited United States shrimp
fishery jfrf the coast -f braxzi adr-] at the same time has facilitated the
improved enforcement ani co.lecrtion! of data for eventi.lal improved mnaege-
reint of the shrimp fishery of -:e w..es.tern tropical Atlant-ic Oceal and
Caribbean Se:;.

429

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission

The Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission was established by
conventions between Costa Rica and the United States on May 31, 1949.
At present its membership numbers eight and includes Canada, Costa Rica,
France, Japan, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, and the United States. In
addition, vessels of five other nations are fishing or have recently
fished tuna in the area covered by the convention: Bermuda, Colombia,
Ecuador, The Netherlands, Antilles, Peru, and Spain.

The primary function of the convention is to inquire into the
condition of yellowfin and skipjack tuna and to recommend joint conser-
vation measures so as to manage effectively these species and produce on
the average the maximum sustainable yield.

In summary, the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission has been
highly successful from a technical point of view; that is, the yellowfin
and skipjack stocks of Eastern tropical Pacific Ocean have been managed
in such a way as to sustain high levels of catch without serious damage
to the stocks (even though at the present time there may be some over-
fishing of yellowf in tuna). Still the political problems within the
commission have become increasingly severe in recent years. The devel-
oping nations wish to limit the growth of the United States yellowf in
,fleet and catch, and these smaller, less affluent nations wish to have
directly allocated to them a greater proportion of the catch. The
United States tuna fishing industry has, of course, resisted this
pressure and thus conflict has occurred. The result has been an increas-
ing allocation of catch to the developing nations, particularly Mexico.
Because of this and because a number of other countries have entered the
fishery, some of whom are not members of the Commission, the proportion
of the catch taken by the large and efficient United States fleet has
dropped to its present level of about 68 percent. When the regulatory
scheme was put into effect, the United States catch was about 90 percent
of the total yellowfin tuna taken in the Commission regulatory area.
With the imminent extension of jurisdiction by Mexico and other coastal
South American states, the United States government will need to make
accommodations if it expects to preserve an economic United States
distant-water tuna fleet.

International Convention For the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas

The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas
was established by a Convention in 1966. Present parties to the Convention
include: Brazil, Canada, Cuba, France, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Japan,
Republic of Korea, Morocco, Portugal, Senegal, South Africa, Spain, and
the United States of America.

The Commission (unlike IATTC) has no management function and no
permanent scientific staff. One justification for the lack of permanent
scientific staff involves the decision to form a working relationship
between the Commission and the Food and Agricultural Organization of the

43 0

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

United Nations (FAO). Presumably the investigative function of the
ICCAT is carried out with the assistance of FAO staff and facilities.
Its orientation is strictly regional and its primary purpose limited to
the investigation and study of pouplations of tuna and tuna-like species
(Article IV).

The Convention has been'in force for slightly over ten years.
During this time it has developed a much improved statistical system and
its various committees, studying different species and stocks of tuna
within the Convention area, have developed much information on the
nature of the many species and stocks. The Commission has recommended
to member governments conservation action as a result.

Only one species, the northern bluefin tuna, is found consistently
in any quantity off the Atlantic Coast of the United States within
200 miles, but this species migrates widely throughout the North Atlantic
and is subject to capture by fishermen of several nations as it migrates
along the United States and Canadian coasts of North America and at
other times of the year is found in the eastern North Atlantic off the
coast of western European countries. Extended jurisdiction to 200 miles
by the United States, Canada, and western European countries may well
alter the catch of bluefin tuna by the fishermen of some countries, but
the wide-ranging migratory habits of this species dictate that a regional
-international convention of one type or another is necessary to conserve
the North Atlantic bluefin tuna stocks.

Virtually the same situation prevails with all other species and
stocks of Atlantic tunas. The catch of all Atlantic tunas has been
about 300,000 metric tons in the past year or two and indications are
that several species are now being fished at levels of fishing effort
beyond that which will produce the average maximum sustained yield.
Reductions in fishing effort must be accomplished by cooperation among
nations fishing the resource; thus, the absolute necessity of an inter-
national convention much along the lines of the present Convention.

International Whaling Commission

The International Whaling Convention entered into force November 10,
1948. The current members of the Commission are Argentina, Australia,
Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Japan, Mexico, Norway, Panama, South
Africa, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and the Soviet
Union. The Soviet Union and Japan are the major whaling nations in the
world today, although there are small land stations in a number of other
coastal countries. The major whale hunting takes place in the Antarctic
ocean, with a moderate effort in the North Pacific and North and South
Atlantic Oceans.

In recent years, a world controversy has existed over the hunting
of whales, with conservationists claiming that all whale hunting must
stop or the animals will become extinct. Scientists of the International

431

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI
414

Whaling Commission claim, however, that while the harvest of whales
during the decades of the 1950's and the 1960's was too heavy, the
hunting is now under control, and that the whale catch is less than the
growth of the stocks of these animals. Thus, it appears as though the
stocks of whales, including many thought to be endangered a few years
age, are on the increase. However, because of the slow growth rate and
rate of reproduction, it will he many decades before the stocks of some
species of these large marine mammals will again be plentiful.

Considerable whaling in the Atlantic and Pacific t'akes place within
two hundred miles of coastal countries. Thus, whaling will be affected
by the extension of jurisdiction and will have an effect on the numbers
of these animals taken. Within waters under the jurisdiction of the
United States, the taking of whales is already prohibited by the Marine
Mammals Act. Whaling in the North Pacific Ocean by Japan and the Soviet
Union will be affected by the United States extension of jurisdiction
over fisheries to 200 miles.

BROAD EFFECTS OF A 200-MILE FISHERY ZONE

The Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 becomes fully
operative on March 1, 1977. The legislation itself has two major
objectives. First, it extends the jurisdiction of the United States
over fisheries resources to 200 miles. (The United States has exercised
control to 12 miles since 1966.) Secondly, it establishes a national
program for the conservation and management of living marine resources
by establishing a number of regional councils composed of federal and
state fisheries officials and specialists from universities, the fisheries
industry, and the public. The regional councils, with the Secretary of
Commerce, will initiate fisheries management plans called for by the
legislation. Without question, this legislation is the most important
law ever enacted by the United States with respect to marine fisheries.

Among other things, the law calls for a renegotiation of all inter-
national agreements and treaties so as to make them conform to the
legislation. Clearly this unilateral assertion of jurisdiction will
affect the activities of the close to 1,000 foreign fishing vessels
catching on the order of three million tons of fish within the 200-mile
limit of the United States. It is unlikely that these nations will
casually agree to the extension of jurisdiction by the United States.
It seems equally apparent that the establishment of a national policy
for the conservation and management of marine fisheries will have a
tremendous impact on the activities of all fishermen, foreign as well as
domestic.

THE LAW OF THE SEA

It must be kept in mind that, since 1968, the United States has
been a member of the United Nations Seabed Committee drafting a new Law
of the Sea Convention. The fourth meeting of the Conference of the Law

432

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

'42

Of the Sea ended on May 7, 1976, with revised single negotiating texts
covering the most important issues, including the question of juris-
diction and control over living resources of the sea. The articles
dealing with fisheries are in general similar to those found in the
Fishery Conservation and Management Act signed by the President. There
are some major discrepancies, however, that will require study and will,
at least initially, cause difficulties in reaching new agreements with
the foreign nations fishing off the United States coast within the 200-
mile zone.

.The single negotiating text from the Fourth LOS Conference meeting
is just that. 12 Tha~t is, it is not an agreed text nor has the United
States or any other nation of the world agreed to the provisions for the
conservation of living resources which are included. On the other hand,
the revised text is very similar to the orginal single negotiating text
produced at the Geneva LOS meeting of 1975. This indicates that the
leaders of the conference believe that the provisions included in the
articles on living resources are about as close to a consensus as can be
a~chieved.

LOS AND THE FCMA

The Law of the Sea Convention will consist of four parts, providing
agreement can be reached: The first deals with legal regime of the
deVep-sea bed; the second deals with boundaries, fisheries, the status of
islands, and navigation; and the third part deals with regulations of
shipboard pollution and the protection and preservation of the marine
environment, along with provisions for the conduct of marine scientific
research. The recently passed Fishery Conservation and Management Act
of 1976 deals with fisheries and other living marine resources. Thus,
the problem of consistency between the FCMA and the LOS text is limited
largely, but not exclusively, to those articles in the Law of the Sea
single negotiating text dealing with living resources. It is conceiv-
able that the differences between the two will be of such a nature that
the Congress will accept the text produced by the Law of the Sea Conference
and amend the domestic law.

It is more likely, however, that there will be substantial differences
between the single negotiating texts and the United States legislation.
The Law of the Sea text does not deal with national management provisions,
but does refer to fishing controls, enforcement, and dispute settlement
questions within the 200-mile zone and the high seas beyond. For example,
one major difference between the single negotiating text and the United
States law, involves the treatment of highly migratory species of fish
such as tuna. The provisions of the Law of the Sea text give the coastal
state control over the highly migratory species within its 200-mile
exclusive economic zone, while the United States legislation specifically
excludes highly migratory species from the exclusive management authority

12The Fifth meeting of the U.N. Law of the Sea Conference will take
place from August 2 through September 17, 1976. It is unlikely that
the Conference will complete its task by the end of that meeting.

433

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

'43

of the coastal nation (Section 103). The FCMA requires that the Secretary
of State initiate and conduct negotiations for the purpose of entering
into international fisheries agreements providing for the conservation
and management of highly migratory species such as tuna. This is in
contrast to the single negotiating text which encourages the establish-
ment of international commissions but also gives coastal states exclu-
sive control over tuna withitA its exclusive economic zone.

Another difference between the Law of the Sea text and the FCMA
involves anadromous species such as salmon. The Law of the Sea single
text gives the coastal state responsibility for salmon stocks orig-
inating within its waters, and requires all other states to cooperate
with the state of origin to insure conservation and rational management.
Enforcement of regulations regarding anadromous stocks, caught beyond
the exclusive economic zone of the host state, is to be by agreement
between the state of origin and the harvesting state. The FCMA, however,
gives the United States exclusive management authority over anadromous
species throughout their migratory range, including the high seas beyond
the 200-mile fishery conservation zone. The bill does indicate, though,
that such management authority will not extend to salmon and other
anadromous species during the time they are found within any foreign
nation's territorial sea or fishery conservation zone. In such a case,
the Act requires that negotiations be conducted by the two nations in
order to provide for the effective conservation and management of
anadromous species.

An additional major area of difference between the fishery articles
of the Law of the Sea single text and our Fishery Conservation and
Management Act is with regard to enforcement. The new United States
legislation provides for absolute enforcement by the United States
within the fishery zone and permits imprisonment of individuals and
forfeiture of vessels if any violation of United States regulations
should occur. The new LOS single text (Article 61), however, gives the
coastal state broad enforcement powers within the zone but stops short
of permitting imprisonment or confiscation of property. This is a
rather substantial difference, and there will be an additional question
of whether the Congress will be willing to forego the right of the
United States courts to apply corporal punishment to foreign fishermen
found violating United States fishery regulations. In spite of this,
nevertheless, one must conclude that the differences between the current
single text and the Fishery Conservation and Management Act recently
passed by Congress are relatively small. Both give the coastal states
wide authority and jurisdiction over living resources and broad powers
to enforce its regulations on foreign vessels, as well as on its own
flag vessels fishing in the zone.

The Enforcement Problem

The Fishery Conservation and Management Act provides for absolute
coastal nation enforcement of fishing regulations within the 200-mile
zone on March 1, 1977. Given that a number of nations (possibly the

4 34

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

L44

majority of nations) now fishing, in waters within 200-miles of the
United States, will not accept our unilateral assertion of exclusive
fishery jurisdiction, the United States must decide whether it will
strictly enforce its law during the period prior to the time that the
new LOS treaty enters into force or until such time as new agreements
are negotiated and accepted by Congress. In any case, it seems clear
that Congress must permit tht executive branch to exercise considerable
flexibility in carrying out the enforcement provisions of the Act
(Section 311) in order to avert serious disputes with friendly nations.
It is also believed that the United States executive branch can nego-
tiate more effective enforcement procedures with countries fishing off
our coast on a bilateral basis than on a multilateral basis; however, it
is unlikely that such negotiated provisions would satisfy the current
provisions of the law.

The FCMA calls for the responsible United States government author-
ities to enforce the provisions of the Act with or without a warrant or
other due process, and in that respect, officials may arrest any person
if there is reasonable cause to believe that person has committed an act
prohibited by Section 307 of the Act (which lists the specific prohibited
acts). The appropriate government authority may board, search, and
inspect any fishing vessel subject to the provisions of the Act (i.e.,
any vessel, foreign or domestic, operating within the 200-mile zone);
seize any fishing vessel together with its gear, any fish, or any other
evidence if there is reasonable cause to believe a prohibited act has
been committed. The provisions of the Act then provide the inspecting
United States officer with the authority to issue a citation and to
bring the offending person or persons into the United States court for a
hearing. Severe penalties may be assessed by the United States courts,
including jail sentencing and confiscation of the vessel, gear, and
catch.

The current LOS text provides for coastal nation's enforcement
within the 200-mile zone and the assessment of reasonable fines against
the offending vessels. However, the text would require turning the
vessel over to the flag state authorities within a reasonable time
period and does not provide for confiscation of catch or vessel or for
imprisonment.

It would appear appropriate for the United States Congress to
consider further the penalty provisions of the FCMA. They appear too
severe and inappropriate for simple violations of fishery regulations.

FISHERIES TREATIES AND THE 200-MILE ZONE

The Fishery Conservation and Management Act requires prompt initiation
of renegotiations of any treaty which pertains to foreign fishing within
the fishery conservation zone of the United States. Furthermore, there
is the strong implication in the law that the United States should with-
draw from any treaty that is not consistent with the Act, particularly

435

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

'45

if the treaty is not appropriately renegotiated within a reasonable
period of time after the date of enactment of the legislation. With
respect to the tri-nation International North Pacific Fisheries Com-
mission (United States, Canada, and Japan), the United States is obli-
gated to renegotiate this convention in such a manner as to gain recog-
nition of the United States' exclusive management authority in the
Northeastern Pacific Ocean o~er salmon and groundfish species of fish
(flounder, Alaskan pollock, black cod, etc.) which have been under the
study and a small measure of control by this Convention.

The United States has already claimed jurisdiction under the 1958
Continental Shelf Convention to king, tanner, and Dungeness crab and the
American lobster, among other sedentary shellfish located on its conti-
nental shelf. Therefore, these species will not be directly affected by
the passage of the new Act.

Canadian fishermen fish halibut, black cod, and salmon off the
United States Pacific Northwest coast and the coast of Alaska, and
scallops, herring, and some groundfish off the Atlantic coast of the
United States. It will be necessary to negotiate an acceptable new
bilateral arrangement with Canada since the United States fishermen,
in turn, fish halibut, salmon, and groundfish in waters off Canada which
will be under exclusive jurisdiction of Canada. 13

With respect to Japan, the United States unilateral extension of
jurisdiction will have a major effect on Japanese high seas fishing for
salmon in waters off the Aleutian Islands, both north and south, and
will bring the large and extensive Japanese bottomfish fisheries off the
coasts of California, Oregon, Washington, the Gulf of Alaska, and the
Bering Sea within the jurisdiction of the United States. The Japanese
have, in addition, initiated a significant b lack cod fishery in the
Northeastern Pacific Ocean, and this too will be affected by the legis-
lation. Since there is no possibility of an adequate number of states
ratifying a Law of the Sea Convention by March 1, 1977, and since
renegotiations will have a major impact on Japanese fisheries, negotia-
tions with Japan will undoubtedly proceed slowly and with difficulty.
It seems unlikely any new agreement acceptable to Japan could conform
absolutely with the provisions of the Fishery Conservation and Manage-
ment Act. An alternative approach to the renegotiation of the INPFC
treaty and the bilateral agreements with Japan would be to negotiate
with a review toward providing greater control by the United States,
with provisions for continued fishing for those species not fully
utilized by the United States fishermen, but ignoring for the moment
absolute Japanese acceptance of United States jurisdiction.

Such problems are not expected to occur with regard to Canada, the
other member of the INPFC. An acceptable reciprocal agreement with the
United States should result with little difficulty.

13Canada has announced its intent to affect jurisdiction of a
200-miles fishing zone on January 1, 1977.

436

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

Thus, the area off the coast of the United States on both the Pacific
and Atlantic coasts is one of the most important fishing grounds in the
world for the Soviet fishing fleets. Without a specific agreement with
regard to the continuation of Soviet fishing in these waters and some
guarantee for the future, it appears unlikely--in the absence of an
effective multilateral Law of the Sea Treaty--that the Soviet Union will
accept United States claims 'o jurisdiction over a 200-mile zone. It is
more likely that the U.S.S.R. would be willing to accept greater regula-
tory authority by the United States in these waters and reduce their
fishing effort if they are not obligated to accept the principle of
exclusive jurisdiction or sovereignty over fisheries. If that course of
action is not acceptable to United States government officials, a
serious confrontation over the fishing rights issue with the Soviet
Union could result. Still, the possibility exists that the Soviet
Union, faced by the prospect of an increasing number of nations assert-
ing jurisdiction over a 200-mile fisheries zone, will also claim such
jurisdiction. The Soviet Union would thus gain control over important
cod fishing areas in the Barents Sea and of productive fishing areas in
the Northwestern Pacific Ocean.

In the Gulf of Mexico there is a minimum of foreign fishing off the
United States coast although, as mentioned before, there are several
hundred United States flag vessels fishing off the coast of Mexico and
other Caribbean coastal nations. The Mexican government has declared a
200-mile fishing zone, and has stated its intent to enforce its author-
ity over this zone. With the extensive Mexican fishery for shrimp off
its eastern coast, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to negotiate
satisfactorily for a continuation of United States shrimping in waters
under Mexican jurisdiction for any prolonged perior of time. Only the
few Mexican boats which fish off the coast of Texas and the small number
of Cuban boats which wander into the northern Gulf of Mexico will be
affected by the United States extension of jurisdiction.

The major fishery agreement on the Atlantic coast affected by the
extension of jurisdiction is the International Convention for the
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries. The Commission is composed of 17 members
including such technologically advanced fishing nations as Canada, the
U.S.S.R., and Japan, and such developing Eastern Bloc nations as Romania
and Bulgaria. The United States is clearly required by the FCMA to
renegotiate this treaty. Setting aside the case of Canada, it is
unlikely that many other distant-water fishing nations will readily
accept the 200-mile extended jurisdiction of the United States. Such
refusals will lead to protracted negotiations. The negotiations are
likely to take the form of time-consuming bilateral negotiations in
which the United States requests nations to accept an agreement required
by the FCMA, the General International Fisheries Agreement (GIFA). It
can be anticipated that some of the smaller nations, wishing to maintain
good relations and fishing privileges within the United States' zone,

437

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

[47

With, respect to the international Pacific Halibut convention (the
United States and Canada), a strict interpretation of the Act requires
the United States to renegotiate the Convention with a view toward
Canada's acceptance of the exclusive management authority of the United
States. Canada will probably be willing to accept the requirements of
the Fishery Consetvation and Management Act with the United States
accepting exclusive Canadian'jurisdiction within its zone, and it seems
likely that the renegotiation of the IPHC will result in a reciprocal
agreement permitting a continuation of fishing by United States fisher-
men in Canadian waters, and Canadian fishermen in United States waters.
In renegotiating this treaty, the United States should give consideration
to a greater allocation for United States fishermen, since most halibut
taken in the Northeastern Pacific ocean and Bering Sea will be from
waters within the 200-mile zone claimed by the United States.

The International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Convention (Canada and
the United States), which has resulted in a conservation program for
sockeye and pink salmon of the Fraser River, is being renegotiated at
the present time. The possibility exists that the two countries will
agree to a very broad salmon conservation convention, involving salmon
fisheries and salmon stocks of common concern to both countries off the
coast of British Columbia, southeastern Alaska, and the Pacific North-
west states. Such a convention will probably permit a continuation of
Canadian salmon fishing within the United States 200-mile zone and a
continuation of fishing by the United States in Canadian waters. Such a
convention should provide for cooperation and coordination of salmon
management programs deemed necessary to rationally conserve and manage
those stocks of salmon which migrate through the waters of both countries
and which are fished by the fishermen of both countries.

With respect to the Japanese and Soviet whaling in the Northeastern
Pacific Ocean, the United States without a doubt will prohibit the
capture of whales within the 200-mile fishery zone. It may not be
necessary for a major renegotiation of the International Whaling Con-
vention, however, since the provisions of the current Convention would
apply outside waters under the exclusive control of coastal states. On
the other hand, renegotiation of this treaty probably is desirable to
take into account current scientific and world opinion of whales and
whaling.

A number of bilateral executive agreements regulate fishing by such
countries as the U.S.S.R., the Republic of Poland, Korea, and others off
the Pacific and Atlantic coasts of the United States. It will be necessary
to renegotiate or, withdraw from these bilateral agreements. The FCMA
calls for the negotiation of a General International Fisheries Agreement
(GIFA) between the United States and foreign countries who wish to fish
within the 200-nile zone of the United States. With respect to the
Soviet Union, as many as a hundred vessels fish off the United States
during the year. Their catch of fish in the Northeastern Pacific Ocean
and Bering Sea waters is on the order of 500,000 tons and the catch off
the Atlantic coast has exceeded 100,000 tons per year in recent years.

438

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

will accept United States jurisdiction. 14 In the meantime, disputes
with the major fishing nations will continue on into the year 1977.

The bilateral agreements with the Soviet Union and Poland, applying
to waters off the Atlantic coast, will not be extended in their present
form. These agreements wer4 necessary because of foreign fishing
activities in coastal areas beyond 12 miles, heretofore considered to be
the high seas. They have been partially successful but-'have not been
adequate to prevent depletion of many of the economically important
fishery resources, nor have they prevented physical interferences
between United States and foreign fishing vessels and gear. It may be
necessary to renegotiate bilaterals with these countries, but if so they
will have to be modified substantially in order to conform even in part
to the new law.

It seems unlikely that there will be any great surplus of fish over
that which the United States fleet can catch. In view of the fact that
a number of important species have been overfished, cod, haddock, red
hake, yellowtail flounder, herring, and perhaps even mackerel, one can
foresee the possibility that the United States will attempt to remove
all foreign fishing from the waters within 200 miles of the United
States' Atlantic coast, at least until the stocks have been rehabili-
tated. This would disrupt the fishing of a number of friendly foreign
nations as well as the Soviet Union and Japan. Such a position by the
United States would lead to disputes between our government and member
governments of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention. In the New
England and mid-Atlantic coastal areas, one can foresee a good deal of
difficulty and continuing conflict between the United States and those
foreign nations who have traditionally fished off the United States
Atlantic coast.

CONCLUSION

The enormous task of renegotiating some 28 conventions and agree-
ments among more than 20 nations fishing within the 200-mile coast of
the United States points up the need for a flexible position by the
United States in the implementation of the Fishery Management and
Conservation Act of 1976. In the absence of such flexibility, one can
predict severe conflicts and disputes that could well affect other areas
of our relations with countries whose fishermen fish within the 200-mile
zone off the coast of the United States.

However, with time, patience, and perseverence, it seems quite
likely that the United States will have the opportunity to greatly
improve the conservation of fishery resources found in waters off its
coast and to improve the economic status of its domestic fishing industry.

14Since this section was written, agreement has been reached with
Poland and Korea on the GIFA's.

439

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

At the same time, it seems clear that there will be, for some time to
come, the opportunity for foreign fishermen to continue to catch substan-
tial quantities of fish within the 200-mile zone of the United States.

440

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alaska Sea Grant Program. Alaska Seas and Coasts: A Newsletter for the
Alaskan Commercial Fishing Industry. Vol. 3, No. 4; Anchorage,
Alaska: University of Alaska, October 15, 1975.

Alverson, Dayton Lee, "Fishery Resources in the Northeastern. Pacific Ocean,"
Future of Fishing Industry United States, Vol. 4; Seattle:
University of Washington, 1968.

Browning, Robert J. Fisheries of the North Pacific - History, Species,
Gear and Processes. Anchorage: Alaska Northwest Publishing
Company, 1974.

Chapman, Douglas G. Dean, College of Fisheries, University of Washington,
Seattle, Washington. Personal discussion, May 3, 1976.

Comments by the Ocean Policy Committee, National Research Council on
Legislation Establishing a 200 Mile Fishery Conservation Zone
for the United States (H.R. 200), unpublished.

Comptroller General of the United States. Action Is Needed Now to Protect
Our Fishery Resources. Washington, D. C.: US General Accounting
Office, February 18, 1976.

Comptroller General of the United States. The Need for A National Ocean
Program and Plan. "Report to the Congress;` Washington, D. C.: U.S.
General Accounting Office, October 10, 1975.

Congressional Research Service. Treaties and Other International Agreements
on Fisheries, Oceanographic Resources, and Wildlife to Which the
United States is Party. Prepared at the request of Honorable Warren
G. Magnuson, Chairman,for the Use of the Committee on Commerce,
United States Senate, 93rd Congress, 2nd session, Committee Print;
Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 31,
1974.

Godfrey, H., Henry K.A. and Machidori, S. Distribution and Abundance of
Coho Salmon in Offshore Waters of the North Pacific Oceaas. "Bulletin
Number 31;" Vancouver, Canada: International North Pacific Fisheries
Commission, 1975.

Gulland, John A. (ed.) The Fish Resources of the Ocean. London: Fishing
News Ltd. (FAO), 1971.

Hoag, Stephen H. International Pacific Halbut Commission, Seattle, Washington.
Interview, April 21, 1976.

Hoag, Stephen H. and French, Robert R. Further Information on the Incidence
of Halibut in Japanese and U.S.S.R. Trawl Catches. Unpublished, no
date. (Authors from International Pacific Halibut Commission and
National Marine Fisheries Service, respectively).

441

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

!51

Hoag, Stephen H. and Skud, Bernard E. "Effect of Multi-Species Fisheries
on the Management of Halibut Stocks," Selected working papers
submitted to the Eighth Working Session of ACMRR, FAO Fisheries
Reports No. 171, Supplement No. 1 (FIR/R171 Suppl. 1). Sesimbra,
Portugal. FAO (UN),8-12 September 1975.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. Annual Report - 1974. La Jolla:
Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 1975.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. Proceedings
Of the Fourth Regular Meeting of the Commission (Provisional).Madrid,
Spain: ICCAT, November 19-25, 1975.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. Report
for Biennial Period, 1974 - 75, Part 1 (1974). (English Version).
Madrid, Spain: ICCAT, 1975.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. Statistical
Bulletin. Vol 5; Madrid, Spain: ICCAT, 1975.

International Pacific Halibut Commission. Annual Report - 1974. Seattle, WA:
IPHC, 1975.

International Pacific Halibut Commission. Items of Information on the Halibut
Fishery in the Bering Sea and the Northeastern Pacific Ocean Requested
for INPFC (Document 1712, 1974). Unpublished, October 1975.

International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission. Annual Report; 1974.
New Westminister, Canada: INPFC, 1975.

Johnson, Donald. Regional Director, Northwest Fisheries Center, National
Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, Washington. Seminar, April 6, 1976.

Johnson, Eleanor Barbara. The Regulation of International Fisheries.
Seattle, Washington: University of Washington, 1973. (Ph.D. thesis)

Kasahara, Hiroshi & Burke, William T. North Pacific Fisheries Management.
"Paper No. 2 in a series prepared for the program of International
Studies of Fishery Arrangements;" Washington, D. C.: Resources
for the Future, Inc., May 1973.

Kirkness, Walter. Letter to Donald L. McKernan, April 23, 1976.

Knight, H. Gary. "International Fisheries Management Without Global Agreement:
United States Policies and Their Impact on the Soviet Union," in
Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law, Vol. 6, 1976.
pp. 119-142.

Knight, H. Gary. The Future of International Fisheries Management.
"American Society of International Law;" St. Paul, Minn.: West
Publishing Co., 1975.

442

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

Koers, Albert W. International Regulation of Marine Fisheries: A Study
of Regional Fisheries Organizations. London: Fishing News Books,
1973.

Koers, Albert W. "The International Regulation of Marine Fisheries:
Some Problems and Proposals." In Annales d'etudes internationales,
Vol 4, 1973. Geneva: Association des Anciens Etudiants de l'Institut
Universitaire de Hautes Etudes Internationales, 1973. pp. 191-221.

Kramer, Chin & Mayo, Inc. Alaska Salmon Study: Management Study. Seattle:
Kramer, Chin & Mayo, Inc., November 1975. (For Jay S. Hammond,
Governor, State of Alaska & James W. Brooks, Commissioner, Department
of Fish & Game).

Low, Loh Lee. Status of Major Demersal Fishery Resources of the Northeastern
Pacific: Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. Seattle: Northwest Fisheries
Center (NMFS), April 1976.

Matsumoto, Walter M. "The Skipjack Tuna, Katsuwonus pelamis, an Underutilized
Resource," Marine Fisheries Review Vol. 36, No. 8, August 1974. pp. 26-33.

McHugh, J.L. "The Whale Problem: A Status Report - Book Review and Perspective,"
unpublished manuscript.

McKernan, Donald L. Director, Institute for Marine Studies, University of
Washington, Seattle, Washington. Personal discussions, March 29 -
May 14, 1976.

Miles, Edward. An Assessment of the Impact of Proposed Changes in the Law of
the Sea on Regional Fishery Commissions,on FAO Technical Assistance
Programmes in Fisheries and on the FAO Committee on Fisheries and
Department of Fisheries. "COFI, Sub-Committee on the Development of
Cooperation with International Organizations Concerned with Fisheries,
4th Session, COFI: C/4/76 Inf. 3;" Lisbon, Portugal: FAO, 8-12 March 1976.

Myhre, Richard J. "Assessment of Halibut Stock and Proposed Regulations
for Next Season," Western Fisheries, Vol. 91, No. 5, February, 1976.

National Geographic Society. National Geographic Atlas of the World.
Revised,3rd ed; Washington, D.C.: National Geographic Society, 1970.

North Pacific Fur Seal Conference. Report of the North Pacific Fur Seal
Conference. "Doc. 7;" Washington, D.C.: December 1-12, 1975,
December 12, 1975. Unpublished.

North Pacific Fur Seal Commission. Report on Investigations from 1967 Through
1972. Hyattsville, Maryland: Dependable Printing, Inc., June 1975.

443

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

Office of Extended Jurisdiction Planning Council/Plans Study Team. (NMFS).
Regional Fishery Management Council Operations and Fishery Management
Plan Development Procedures. (Draft) Washington, D. C. : NMFS, February
23, 1976. Unpublished.

Office of Fisheries. Fisheries in Korea. Seoul: Government of the Republic
of Korea, 1966.

Of fice of Technology Assessment. Fisheries Technology Assessment: Interim
Status Report. Washington, D. C.: Office of Technology Assessment,
January, 1969.

Parker, Walter B. Alaska and the Law of the Sea: International Fisheries
Regimes of the North Pacific. Anchorage, Alaska: University of
Alaska (Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center), June 1974.

Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission. 27th Annual Report of the Pacific
Marine Fisheries Commission for the Year 1974. Ed. by Leon A.
Verhoeven. Portland, Oregon: Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission,
July, 1975.

Rothschild, Brian J. World Fisheries Policy: Multidisciplinary Views.
Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1972.

Saila, Saul B. and Norton, Virgil J. Tuna: Status, Trends, and Alternative
Arrangements. "Paper No. 6 in a series prepared for the Program of
International Studies of Fishery Arrangements;" Washington, D. C.
Resources for the Future, Inc., June 1974.

Skillman, Robert A. "An Assessment of the South Pacific Albacore,.Thnn
alalunga, Fishery, 1953-1972,"1 Marine Fisheries Review, Vol. 37,
No. 3, March l975.pp. 9-17.

Skud, Bernard E. Director, international Pacific Halibut Commission, Seattle,
Washington. interview, April 21, 1976.

Skud, Bernard E. "Halibut Stocks Stabilize in 1975 According to Halibut
Commission," Western Fisheries, Vol. 91, No. 5, February 1976.
pp. 13 & 54.

Skud, B. E. "Management of the Pacific Halibut Fishery," Journal Fisheries
Research Board of Canada, Vol. 30, No. 12, Pt. 2, 1973.pp. 2393 - 2398.

Staff Report of Meeting of Fisheries Subgroup of the Ocean Policy Committee,
Washington, D. C.; February 12 - 13, 1976. Unpublished.

Staff Report to the Associate Administrator for Marine Resources, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Fisheries Management Under
Extended Jurisdiction: A Study of Principles and Policies. "Discussion
Paper;` Washington, D. C.: U.S. Department of Commerce (no date.)

Statistics and Market News Division. Fisheries of the United States, 1974.
Prepared for the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service.
Washington, Dr.: U.-S.- Government Printing Of fice, March 1975.

44 4

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

United Nations. National Legislation and Treaties Relating to the Law of
the Sea, "United Nations Legislative Series;" New York: United Nations,
1974.

United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization,Department of Fisheries.
Atlas of the Living Resources of the Sea. Rome: FAO, 1972.

United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization, Department of Fisheries.
Report on FAO, the FAO Committee on Fisheries and International and
Regional Fishery Bodies. "Doc. FID/C/331;" Rome: FAO, 1975.

United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization. Report of the FAO/NORAD
Round Table Discussion on Expanding the Utilization of Marine Fishery
Resources for Human Consumption."FAO Fisheries Reports, No.175;"
Rome: FAO (UN), 1975.

United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization. Report of the Technical
Conference on Fishery Management and Development, Vancouver, Canada,
13-23 February 1973. "FAO Fisheries Reports #134;" Rome: FAO, 1973.

United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization. Review of the State of
Exploitation of the World Fish Resources. "COFI/75/4, Committee on
Fisheries, loth Session; Rome: FAQ (UN), 3-10 June 1975.

United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization. Review of the Status
and Composition of the Fishery Committee for the Eastern Central
Atlantic (CECAF). "Committee on Fisheries, 10th session;" Rome:
FAO, June 3-10, 1975.

United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization. Review of the Status
of Exploitation of the World Fish Resources. "FAQ Fisheries Circular
#328;" Rome: FAO, 1974.

United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization. Yearbook of Fishery
Statistics: Catches and Landings - 1973. Vol. 36; Italy: FAO, 1974.

United Nations, Legal I Advisory Group. Conservation and Protection of
Marine Living Resources: An Overview. Na. 75 - 2353. 10-14 November
1975. Unpublished.

United Nations, Level One Advisory Group. "Activities in Conservation
and Protection of Marine Living Resources. 10-14 November 1975.
Unpublished.

United Nations. The Sea: Legal and Political Aspects: A Select
Bibliography. "Dag Hammarskjold Library, Bibliographical Series,
No. 14, ST/LIB/SER.B/14;" New York: United Nations, 1974.

United Nations Treaty Series

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Plan for Marine Fisheries. (Final Draft).Washington, D. C.;
U.S. Department of Commerce, October 1975.

445

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

Washington, University of. Washington Law Review. Vol. 43, No. 1;
Seattle, WA: School of Law, University of Washington, October 1967.

Collection of Articles: North Pacific Fisheries Symposium
1) Johnson, Ralph W. "The Japan - United States Salmon Conflict". pp.1-43.
2) Yamamoto, Soji. "The Abstention Principle and Its Relation to
the Evolving Interfiational Law of the Seas". pp. 45-61.
3) Oda, Shigeru."Japan and International Conventions Relating to
North Pacific Fisheries". pp. 63-73.
4) Johnston, Douglas M. "New Uses of International Law in the North
Pacific". pp. 77-114.
5) Burke, William T. "Aspects of Internal Decision-Making Processes
in Intergovernmental Fishery Commissions". pp. 115-178.
6) Comitini, Salvatore. "Economic and Legal Aspects of Japanese
Fisheries Regulation and Control". pp. 179-196.
7) Nagasaki, Fukuzo. "Some Japanese Far-Sea Fisheries". pp. 197-229.
8) Royce, William F.and Hanse, Edward D. "Food Fishery Policies in
the Western United States". pp. 231-267.
9) Swygard, Kline R. "Politics of the North Pacific Fisheries --
With Special Reference to the Twelve Mile Bill".pp. 269-282.
10) Crutchfield, James A. "Management of the North Pacific Fisheries:
Economic Objectives and Issues". pp. 282-307.

446

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

APPENDIX A

I. International Regulatory Fishery Agreements to which the United States
is Party

A. International Whaling Convention

B. Interim Convention on the Conservation of North PAcific Fur Seals

C. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Convention

D. International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas

E. International Convention for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries

F. International North Pacific Fisheries Convention

G. International Pacific Halibut Convention

H. International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Convention

II. Bilateral Regulatory Fishery Agreements to which the United States
is Party

A. United States - Brazil Agreement Concerning Shrimp

B. United States - Canadian Agreement on Reciprocal Fishing Privileges
in Certain Areas Off the Coasts of the United States and Canada

C. United States - Japan Agreement Concerning Certain Fisheries Off
the Coast of the United States

1. Agreement Concerning Salmon Fishing

2. Note of the Government of Japan Concerning Dragnet and Longline
Fishing in Certain Waters

D. United States - Japan Agreement Concerning King and Tanner Crab
Fisheries in the Eastern Bering Sea

E. United States - Korean Agreement Concerning Cooperation in Fisheries

F. United States - Polish Agreement Regarding Fisheries in the North-
eastern Pacific Ocean Off the Coast of the United States

G. United States - Polish Agreement Regarding Fisheries in the Western
Region of the Middle Atlantic Ocean

H. United States - U.S.S.R. Agreement on Certain Fishing Problems on
the High Seas in the Western Areas of the Middle Atlantic Ocean

447

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

I. United States - U.S.S.R. Agreement Regarding Fisheries in the
Northeastern Pacific Ocean Off the Coast of the United States
of America

J. United States - U.S.S.R. Agreement Relating to Fishing for King
and Tanner Crab

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

I.International Regulatory Fishery Agreements to Which the United States
is Party

A. International Whaling Convention

Prior to World War II, it was generally recognized by the inter-
national community that several species of whales were in danger of
being overfished. However, numerous efforts to reach agreements for
the protection of whale species either failed or resulted in ineffective
agreements. Not until December 2, 1946 was agreement on a total catch
limit for Antarctic pelagic whaling achieved through the International
Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. This agreement was based on
a seasonal limit of 16,000 BWU's (blue whale units) for all waters
south of 400 South Latitude and established an International Whaling
Commission as regulatory authority.

The Commission consists of one representative per country. It has
no scientific personnel and only a part-time administrative staff.
World whaling statistics are compiled under the auspices of the Bureau
of International Whaling Statistics located in Norway.

Since the 19146 agreement, the convention has undergone several
revisions and amendments, most recently during the period 1972-1975.
And, in addition, membership has undergone substantial change. Present
adherents to the International Whaling Convention (as of 1975) include:
Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Japan,
Mauritius, Norway, Panama, South Africa, the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics, the United Kingdom, and the United States. However, despite
the convention revisions and the modifications in membership, the basic
responsibilities of the International Whaling Commission have remained
the same:

Article IV

1. The Commission may either in collaboration with or through
independent agencies of the Contracting Governments or other public
or private agencies, establishments or organizations, or independ-
ent ly
(a) encourage, recommend, or if necessary, organize studies
and investigations relating to whales and whaling;

(b) collect and analyze statistical information concerning
the current condition and trend of whale stocks, and the effects
of whaling activities ther~eon;

(c) study, appraise, and disseminate information concerning
methods of maintaining and increasing the populations of whale stocks.

2. ...
Article V

1. The Commission may amend from time to time the provisions
of the Schedule by adopting regulations with respect to the

449

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

conservation and utilization of whale resources, fixing (a)
protected and unprotected species; (b open and closed seasons;
(c) open and closed waters, including the designation of sanc-
tuary areas; (d) size limits for each species; Ce) time, methods
and intensity of whaling, (including the maximum catch of whales
to be taken in any one season); (f) types and specifications of
gear and apparatus and appliances which may be used; (g) methods
of measurement; and (h) catch returns and other statistical and
biological records.

Concern over whale stocks, particularly those in the North Pacific,
led to a broadening of the scope of the International Whaling Commission;
the failure of the quota system in the Antarctic during the 1950's
having resulted in stock depletion and an increase in effort levels in
the North Pacific. Despite the abandonment of the artificial BWU's as
the basis for regulation and the adoption of. quotas for individual
species in 1966, the pattern of excessive overfishing in the North
Pacific prevailed. This resulted in the U.S. Department of the Interior
invoking the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969 with the desig-
nation of eight species of whales as "endangered." In so doing, it
thereupon became illegal to import into the United States products manu-
factured from these species. Since the United States was a significant
importer of the world's whale products, the ban had a measurable impact
on Japan. This pressure from the United States, and the passage in
1972 of a ten-year moratorium on the hunting of whales at the United
Nations Conference on the Human Environment at Stockholm, as well as
the increased public concern over whale conservation, led in succeeding
years to reduced quotas and the establishment of an International
Observer System.

In addition, at the 27th meeting of the IWC in June 1975, agreement
was reached on the imposition of a selective moratorium, giving auto-
matic protection to any stock of whales which falls below a designated
level of abundance. And lastly, the decision to impose quotas by stocks,
according to geographic area, rather than globally by species, was
generally accepted. The remaining problem of allocation of catch (global
quotas are established and national shares determined after Commission
meetings) is yet to be resolved.

Despite the fact that whaling is no longer an active industry in
the United States (only Alaskan natives are engaged in whaling for the
purpose of subsistence or creating articles of native handicraft), the
United States has continually indicated its concern with the problem
of whale conservation through its participation in the International
Whaling Conmisision and the passage of such legislation as the Marine
Mammal. Protection Act of 1972. The latter will be amended by 'the
Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (FCMA) so that
Section 3 (15) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 will read:

(15) The term "water under the jurisdiction of the United
States" means -

450

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

(A) the territorial sea of the United States, and
(B) the waters included within a zone, contiguous
to the territorial sea of the United States, of which the
inner boundary is a line coterminous with the seaward
boundary of each coastal state, and the outer boundary is
a line drawn in such'a manner that each point on it is 200
nautical miles from the baseline from which the territorial
sea is measured.

By this amendment, the United States will bring under its juris-
diction for the purpose of whale conservation and management, a sub-
stantial area of ocean territory in the North Pacific where previously
countries such as Japan and the U.S.S.R. fished freely. In this area,
on March 1, 1977 (effective date of FCMA), Section 101 of the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (i.e., "There shall be a moratorium on the taking
and importation of marine mammals and marine mammal products....")
will apply. The area of jurisdiction in the North Pacific of the
International Whaling Commission will be substantially cut back and
it is highly probable that efforts to negotiate bilateral agreements
for the taking of whales within the 200 mile zone will result.

B. Interim Convention on the Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals

Canada, Japan, the United States of America and the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics, originally negotiated this agreement for a period
of six years. However, it was extended in 1963 and 1969; the last
time for a period of eighteen years. An attempt at renegotiation,
initiated by the United States, in order to bring the convention into
correspondence with the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 was
made in December 1975. Agreement was reached on a Draft Protocol
Amending the Interim Convention on Conservation of North Pacific Fur
Seals at that time. However, the Protocol has yet to be ratified
approved by the Party Governments.

The 1957 Convention: 1) prohibits pelagic sealing (Article III);
2) gives the United States and the Soviet Union sole responsibility
for regulation of herds on islands under their jurisdiction (Articles
II, IV); and 3) provides Canada and Japan with compensation for their
losses as a result of the ban on pelagic sealing (Article IX). (The
United States and U.S.S.R. must give 15 percent of the fur skins each
takes to Japan and 15 percent to Canada). In addition, the North
Pacific Fur Seal Commission was established (Article V) for the purpose
of coordinating research programs, determining limits of pelagic
sealing for research purposes, and, as a result of the October 8, 1963
Protocol Amending the Interim Convention, exploring the possibility of
whether a return to pelagic sealing should be allowed. Each member
state participating in the Commission has one vote.

Albert W. Koers in International Regulation of Marine Fisheries:
A Study of Regional Fisheries Organizations indicates that the over-
whelming success of this international organization has been due
largely to two unique characteristics of the situation..

451

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

First of all, fur seal operations no longer involve private
entrepreneurs, but are carried out by government agencies. This
greatly facilitates their regulation. Secondly, although there
are no formal barriers to entry, no new States have attempted
to enter the fur seal business in the Northeast Pacific,
primarily because of its modest financial and economic value.

The absence of new entrants is probably the most important factor
in the continued viability of the fur seal arrangements.1

Since the 1957 Convention prohibits all pelagic sealing, the
Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, extending the United
States jurisdiction over fisheries to 200 miles, will have little sub-
stantive effect on the Interim Convention. The same may be said for
the Draft Protocol which sustains the ban on pelagic sealing.

C. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Convention

The Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission was established by a
convention (originally between the United States and Costa Rica) signed
on May 31, 1949 and which entered into force in March 1950. At the
present time there are 8 members of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna
Commission: Canada, Costa Rica, France, Japan, Mexico, Nicaragua,
Panama and the United States. (However, in 197'4 vessels of 13 nations:
Bermuda, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, France, Japan, Mexico,
The Netherlands Antilles, Panama, Peru, Spain, and the United States
fished for tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean.) Each member nation has
I vote and decisions of the Commission require a positive vote from
all members.

The primary function of the IATTC is investigative; the purpose of
the Commission being to inquire into the condition of yellowfin
(Neothunnus) and ski'pjack (Katsuwonus) tuna and to recommend joint
conservation measures to be implemented in order to effectively manage
these species around maximum sustainable yield. In order to fulfill
this task, the Commission employs its own scientific staff. (The
management function of the IATTC is not explicitly stated in the 1949
Convention. However, since 1967, the IATTC has engaged in the setting
of overall quotas for the optimum harvest of yellowf in tuna.)

The future of the IATTC depends on its solution of a number of
problems, including one which bears directly on the United States
extension of jurisdiction to 200 miles. First, the Commission suffers
from a lack of funds. This financial constraint directly impinges on
the amount of ocean research that the Commission may carry on during
each fiscal year.

'Albert W. Koers, International Regulation of Marine Fisheries:
A Study of Regional Fisheries Organizations (London: Fishing News
Books, 1973), pp. 86-87.

4 52

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

Second, as overall quotas have become smaller and smaller, the
season for yellowfin has become shorter and shorter. The result has
been that the technology-deficient fishing industries of some member
states suffered as they have beep unable to harvest their "fair" share
of tuna in the face of technologically advanced industries (such as
as those from the United States).

Third, over the past several years the IATTC has argued for expand-
ing the harvest of skipjack tuna while pressing for further conservation
measures with regard to yellowfin. The difficulty here revolves around
the fact that the two species mix in schools to the extent that the
incidental catch of yellowfin, the regulated species, is substantial
after the close of the yellowfin fishing season.

Fourth, tuna are a highly migratory species and travel over long
distances. It has been suggested that the IATTC's area of competence
is not large enough and that perhaps a global institution should be
established in order to deal more effectively with the management problem.

Fifth, more nation-states are currently engaged in the fishing of
tuna in the area than are presently a party to the Convention. Effective
management cannot be achieved while some nations remain outside the pur-
view of Convention jurisdiction.

Sixth, in an exchange of notes on March 3, 1950 for the purpose of
clarification of the treaty, Costa Rica and the United States agreed
that "notwithstanding the specific powers conferred upon the Commission,
nothing in the Convention shall be interpreted as a relinquishment of or
a limitation upon the Sovereignty of a High Contracting Party over waters
under its jurisdiction." No attempt, however, is made to define the
"waters under its jurisdiction" nor the area of jurisdiction for waters
within the Convention's purview. With the extension of fishery juris-
diction to 200 miles of a number of coastal states off whose coast tuna
are caught, a number of areas originally open to foreign fishing fleets
will be closed. This, along with the lack of clarity in the definition
of waters of jurisdiction, will necessitate renegotiation of this treaty.

The 1974 Annual Report of the Commission states that, "During 1974
vessels of 13 nations (Bermuda, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador,
France, Japan, Mexico, The Netherlands Antilles, Panama, Peru, Spain,
and the United States) fished for tunas in the Eastern Pacific Ocean.
These vessels captured primarily yellowfin and skipjack tuna, along with
small quantities of other tunas. The three primary types of gear used
to make the catches, in order of importance, were purse seine, pole
and line, and longline.

Because of heavy exploitation, the yellowfin tuna fishery has been
under international management since 1966, but it has not been demon-
strated that there is a need to implement conservation measures of skip-
jack tuna or other species of tuna taken in the Eastern Pacific fishery.
The area in which the yellowfin conservation program applies is referred
to as the Commission's Yellowfin Regulatory Area (CYRA).

453

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

From 1965 through 1973 the aggregate capacity of the international
fleet fishing for tuna in the CYRA increased from about 47,000 to
138,000 tons, and by the end of 1974 this had increased to 153,000 tons.
During 1974 this fleet captured 189,450 tons of yellowfin and 84,000
tons of skipjack from the CYRA. The catch of yellowfin was the largest
taken from the CYRA in the history of the fishery. The 1974 skipjack
catch was about 36,700 tons greater than that of 1973, and nearly 17,000
tons above the average catch during the previous five years. In addition
to the catch from the CYRA, purse-seine vessels fishing west of the CYRA
and east of 1500 West Longitude caught 41,700 tons of yellowfin, 2,850
tons of skipjack, and 20 tons of skipjack and 831 tons of bigeye.2

The Commission staff is of the view that the yellowfin tuna stock is
probably capable of producing about 150,000 tons a year on a sustainable
basis on the average. However, the high catches during the past few
years plus other circumstantial evidence indicate that some overfishing
of the yellowfin tuna stock has recently occurred. Nevertheless, the
record of this international commission is very good indeed. Without the
controls placed on the fishing for yellowfin tuna unquestionably the
stock would have been depleted. The economic consequences of such deple-
tion would have been horrendous.

Skipjack tuna, the other major tuna species caught in the Eastern
tropical Pacific Ocean, occurs in nearly all the tropical waters of the
world's oceans. In recent years the world catch of this species has
exceeded that of any other tuna or tuna-like species. This is also the
case for the Pacific Ocean: in 1972, skipjack comprised 40 percent of
the catch of the principal market species of tunas in that ocean.

The scientific and management work of the Inter-American Tropical
Tuna Commission has been exemplary and very successful. It has, never-
theless, been plagued by political problems almost from its start. Com-
prised of nations with a high degree of technology, such as the United
States, Canada and Japan on the one hand, and developing nations such as
Mexico, Panama, and Costa Rica on the other, arguments in the Commission
revolve around developing country concern over preponderance of the
large United States fleet and its correspondingly large catch. Mexico
has succeeded in getting special allocation for its fleet, and this has
helped to increase its proportionate take of yellowfin to the present
level of about 10 percent (Table 1).

2Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. Annual Report--1974.
La Jolla, California: Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 1975.
pp. 24-25.

454

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

Table 1

Catches of yellowfin and skipjack from CYRA by flag
of vessel, in terms of percent of the total catch,
19741

Flag Yellowfin Skipjack

% %
Canada 4.7 5.6
Ecuador 5.2 10.0
Japan 0.5 0.4
Mexico 9.3 5.0
Panama 4.3 5.5
U.I.A. 68.0 60.3

Bermuda, Costa Rica,
France,
Netherlands Antilles,
and Spain 7.1 12.0

i Ibid., pp. 25-26.

455

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

D . International Convention f or the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas

After World War II there was a large increase in fishing for tuna
in the Atlantic Ocean. More than 20 nations fish Atlantic tuna stocks
and by 1960 many countries feared that some species and stocks of
Atlantic tunas were being overfished. As a result in 1966 a Convention
was signed and ratified by a number of nations. Present parties to the
Convention include: Brazil, Canada, Cuba, France, Ghana, Ivory Coast,
Japan, Republic of Korea, Morocco, Portugal, Senegal, South Africa,
Spain, and the United States.

The Commission has set up panels to study the populations of tuna
and tuna-like species (Article IV).

In addition, under Article VIII:

"(a) The Commission may, on the basis of scientific evidence make
recommendations designed to maintain the populations of tuna and
tuna-like fishes that may be taken in the Convention area at levels
which will permit the maximum sustainable catch."

However, the application of these recommendations are not applicable
to those parties indicating objections or reservations.

With regard to our new Fishery Conservation and Management Act of
1976, the following articles of the Convention are relevant:

"Article I

The area to which this Convention shall apply, hereinafter
referred to as the 'Convention area,' shall be all waters of the
Atlantic Ocean, including the adjacent Seas.

Article II

Nothing in this Convention shall be considered as affecting
the rights, claims or views of any Contracting Party in regard to
the limits of territorial waters or the extent of jurisdiction over
fisheries under international law."1

Since Article I does not specifically define the term "Convention area,"
sanction of unilateral United States extension of fishery jurisdiction
is explicit in Article II. However, a number of nations that are party
to this treaty have Atlantic coasts, and have or are in the process of
extending their own jurisdiction over fisheries. It is likely that,
despite the fact that the ICCAT has no direct management functions
per se, conflicts will result over the research function of the
commission.

Within the Convention area, the yellowfin tuna catch has increased
from 69,000 M.T. in 1964 to about 100,000 M.T. in 1974 and 1975. Accord-
ing to the preliminary scientific evidence available, the maximum

4 56

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

sustainable catch from the resource is probably somewhat less than
100,000 M.T., and thus it is likely that some slight overfishing of
the yellowfin tuna stocks of the Atlantic Ocean is now occurring.

Although varying significantly, the catch of skipjack has increased
substantially from 1964 to a high in 1974 of 113,000 M.T. Scientists
working with the Commission believe that substantially more skipjack
could be taken from this fishery.

Bluefin tuna, a species of the more temperate zone, has signifi-
cantly declined in catch from 1964 through 1974, from about 38,000 M.T.
to about 16,000 M.T. In response to reduced catches of bluefin tuna
in the Atlantic, recommendations by ICNAF made in 1974, resulted in
regulations being applied in several fisheries for bluefins. As a
result, the catch level in 1975 is below that which otherwise would
have been reached. It is the consensus that the current levels of
fishing mortality for this species in the Atlantic are very high for
such a potentially long-lived fish. The strong implication is that
reduced fishing would improve the yield from the bluefin tuna stock.

The albacore tuna catches in the North Atlantic Ocean, which also
come under the purview of this Commission, have declined slightly from
1964 to 1974. Incomplete scientific evidence indicates that the stock
north of the equator is approaching its optimum level of exploitation.

. With respect to the southern stock of albacore (i.e., south of the
equator), it would appear from the relatively incomplete scientific data
that have been collected, that this stock is relatively more heavily
exploited than the North Atlantic longline fishery for the same species.
Further increases in effort will very likely cause a decrease in the
sustainable yield. Thus, with respect to albacore tuna in the AtlAntic
Ocean, it appears that the fishery has expanded to its upper limit and
that increased effort will probably bring about a reduced return at a
considerably higher cost.

Several other species of tuna are taken in the Atlantic, the major
one being the bigeye tuna. The catch of this species has about doubled
from 1964 through 1974. Preliminary scientific data indicate that the
catch of bigeye tuna in the Atlantic probably can be expanded by a
small amount, but that the stock is being fished to close to its maximum
level of productivity.

Other tuna species (i.e., large bill fishes: narlins and sword
fishes) incidental to the tunas taken by the longline fleet, are also
fished in the Atlantic. The data from Commission records appear to be
incomplete with respect to the effects of fishing on these species.
A committee has been set up to study the status of the stocks of smaller
tunas.

457

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

E . International Convention for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries

The Commission, established by the International Convention for
the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries is composed of the following member
nations: Bulgaria, Canada, Denmark, France, the German Democratic
Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, Iceland, Italy, Japan,
Norway, Poland, Portugal,- Romania, Spain, the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics, the United Kingdom and the United States. Implementation
of the Convention by the United States resulted with the passage of
the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Act of 1950 in July of the same year.
The Convention has been frequently amended in succeeding years.

The Convention area is divided into six sub-areas and the sum of
these encompasses the ocean area off the eastern coast of the North
American continent from the middle Atlantic States of the United States
to the Davis Straits. Within this area the Commission concerns itself
primarily with: 1) joint scientific and research activities;
2) analysis of the statistical data relati'ng to all the living marine
resources found in the area; and 3) recommendation of joint regulatory
action in order to permit harvesting of fishery resources around maxiw
mumn sustainable yield. Special jurisdiction over hood and harp seals,
within the convention area, is vested in a panel established in 1966.'
Enforcement is provided through an inspection scheme which allows for
boarding of vessels suspected of violating ICNAF regulations.

Prior to 1969, the Commission's regulatory program had been
limited almost exclusively to instituting trawl mesh regulations.
However the great expansion of fishing effort in the Northwest
Atlantic made it evident that new regulatory approaches specifi-
cally designed to limit fishing intensity were necessary. The
Commission at its 1969 annual meeting approved overall haddock
quotas which entered into force in 1970. In 1970 at its
annual meeting, the Commission approved quotas for yellowtail
flounder stocks off New England and took action to limit fishing
for Atlantic salmon on the high seas.

Under an amendment to the Convention ratified December 15,
1971, the Commission received greater flexibility in the types
of regulations it could propose. The more general authority
granted under the Protocol provided the basis for the manage-
ment of fisheries involved by dividing the overall quota into
national shares. Those quotas were initially applied to the
herring fishery at a special meeting in February 1972. They
have subsequently been approved for most of the major commer-
~cially exploited finfish stocks in the convention area.

3Michael. J. Jacobs, "United States Participation in International
Fisheries Agreements," Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, Vol. 6,
No. 4~, p. 480.

458

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

Further dramatic progress occurred at the October 1973
meeting with regard to quotas. In June of that year, the
ICNAF scheme had nearly broken down when the United States
insisted that national quotas be imposed which would result
in significant reductions for all of the participating nations
other than ourselves and Canada, who would have been entitled
to moderate increases in catch. Faced with the refusal of
the Commission to adopt the quotas proposed by the-United
States, there were threats of the withdrawal of the United
States from ICNAF. That, combined with the growing momentum
in the Congress, carefully monitored by IGNAF participants,
for a 200-mile fisheries jurisdiction, resulted in adoption
of our proposal. In October 1973 sizeable cuts were taken
by non-North American participants. For example the U.S.S.R.
agreed to a reduction in catch from 1490 thousand tons in
1973 to 342.5 thousand tons in 1974, while our catch in
1973 of 191.3 thousand tons was increased to 195 thousand
tons.4

Reliance on the species quota regulatory system instituted in 1969
has not proved adequate for the effective management of the resources
contained in the convention area:

There is a belief that the fishing capabilities now de-
ployed in the convention area are out of proportion to the
available resources, and that there are far more vessels
present in those fisheries than are needed to maximize
harvests. The pressure of this large and highly mobile
fishing capacity poses a threat not only to the particular
species being fished at the time, but to the long-term
stability of the entire biomass of fish in the convention
area. Without overall effort limitation, proposed by the
United States in 1972 and under study in ICNAF, or other,
more effective conservation vehicles, excess fishing could
merely shift from one species to another, depleting each
in turn. It is possible that some stocks-in those fisheries
can be depleted within one or'two seasons of concentrated
fishing. for ecologically inter-related stocks, this poses
the possibility of a domino effect being set into motion.
The incidental catch of depleted stocks will further retard
the prospect of their recovery.5

4Ibid., p. 481.
51bid., p. 482-483.

459

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

F. ntrnaioalNorh aciicFiheresConenio

The International North Pacific Fisheries Commsinvaeintion

being as a result of the International Convention for the High Seas
Fisheries of the North Pacific Ocean (with annex and protocol) signed
on May 9, 1952. Parties to this convention include: Canada, Japan,
and the United States, th~ough more nations than these three now
participate in the North Pacific fisheries.

The scope of the INPFC is comprehensive within the region of the
North Pacific. Its goal is "to promote and coordinate the scientific
studies necessary to ascertain the conservation measures required to
secure the maximum sustained productivity of fisheries of joint interest
to the Contracting Parties and to recommend such measures to such
Parties.... 1" (Preamble, International Convention for the High Seas
Fisheries of the North Pacific Ocean). In meeting this management
challenge, the Commission undertakes three critical functions. -First,
the Commission administers those provisions in the 1952 Convention
dealing with abstentions. As a result of these provisions (contained
in the annex and protocol of the treaty), Japan originally agreed not
to fish various species of halibut and herring of North American origin,
where Canada ~knd the United States were engaged in commercial harvest
of the stocks (removed from abstention in 1963), and salmon originating
in the rivers and streams of North America. With regard to the latter
species, the Japanese high seas salmon fishery has been contained in
an area west of the abstention line of 1750 West.Longitude in the
Bering Sea and the North Pacific. No Japanese fishing vessels are
permitted to fish for salmon east of this line.

The abstention principle also has particular relevance for the
Canadian government and their fishing industry. Via this Convention,
Canada agreed to refrain from fishing for salmon originating in United
States streams and rivers of Bristol Bay, Alaska.

The second function of the INPFC is to investigate the condition
of stocks not subject to conservation measures, but currently exploited
by at least two parties to the Convention for the purpose of determining
whether or not there is a need for joint conservation measures (Article
III (1) (c)). Halibut was the first species to come within the compe-
tence of this article. Joint conservation measures were instituted in
1963, when certain halibut stocks were removed from abstention.

The third function of the Commission is outlined in the Protocol
to the Convention. In this section, the INPFC is authorized to examine
the provisional line of 1750 West Longitude for the purpose of readjust-
ment if it is determined that another line more accurately reflects
the division of salmon of American origin from those of Asian origin.

The 1952 Convention expired in 1962 and has since been extended on
a year by year basis. The Commission, as a result of this Convention,
is structured around three national sections, each of which has one vote.

460

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

The rule of unanimity applies with regard to all decisions, recom-
mendations and resolutions (Article II).

The passage of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of
1976 will have some significant impacts on the International Convention
for the High Seas Fisheries of the North Pacific Ocean, since the
national extension of jurisdiction will obviate existing Convention
regulations. On March 1, 1977 when the United States extends its
fishery jurisdiction to 200 miles for the purpose of effective manage-
ment and conservation, the United States will have jurisdiction over
living resources west of 1750 West Longitude (an area now reserved for
Japanese fishery interests). The abstention principle contained in
the International North Pacific Fisheries Convention will he negated
as a result of the implementation of FCMA. Renegotiation of the Con-
vention is, therefore, to be expected.

In light of the current Law of the Sea negotiations, along with
Article 6 (1) of the 1958 Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the
Living Resources of the High Seas, the United States negotiating position
will be formulated around the recognized special interest of coastal
states in maintaining the productivity of living resources in the high
seas adjacent to the territorial sea. The Japanese negotiating position
will probably be formulated around recognition of historic fishing rights.
On the basis of these disparate positions renegotiation will be a lengthy
and time-consuming process.

G. International Pacific Halibut Convention

The Convention for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the
Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea (March 2, 1953) established the
International Pacific Halibut Commission in order to provide for more
effective preservation of stocks of halibut. Unlike most international
fisheries treaties, this convention is bilateral in nature; Canada and
the United States being the only signatories.

The Commission's primary functions are investigative and regulatory
for the purpose of managing the fishery around maximum sustainable
yield. Therefore, the Commission is authorized to:

Article III(2)

(a) divide the Convention waters into areas;

(b) establish one or more closed seasons as to each area;

(c) limit the size of the fish and the quantity of the
catch to be taken from each area within any season during which
fishing is allowed;

Cd) during both open and closed seasons, permit, limit,
regulate or prohibit, the incidental catch of halibut that may
be taken, retained, possessed, or landed from each area or
portion of an area, by vessels fishing for other species of fish;

461

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

(e) prohibit departure of vessels from any port or place,
or from any receiving vessel or station, to any area for halibut
fishing, after any date when in the judgment of the International
Pacific Halibut Commission the vessels which have departed for.
that area, prior to that date or which are known to be fishing
in that area shall suffice to catch the limit which shall have
been set for that area under section (c) of this paragraph;

(f fix the size and character of halibut fishing appliances
to be used in any area;

(g) -make such regulations forthe licensing and departure
of vessels and for the collection of statistics of the catch of
halibut as it shall find necessary to determine the condition and
trend of the halibut fishery and to carry out the other provisions
of this Convention;

(h close to all taking of halibut such portion or portions
of an area or areas as the International Pacific Halibut Commission
finds to be populated by small, immature halibut and designates as
nursery grounds.

In order to successfully undertake these tasks, the commission has
its own independent staff. The Commission itself is composed of six
representatives, three from each country. Decisions are reached with
the concurrence of at least two commissioners from both the United
States and Canada.

Articles which are likely to be affected by the implementation of
the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 are the first two
of the Convention for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the
Northern Pacific Ocean and the Bering Sea. (These articles deal with
the waters outside of the territorial seas of both nations,) However,
since both parties to the treaty have a long tradition of close coopera-
tion, and since there is broad-based support for the task of rebuilding
the halibut fishery from all sectors involved, it is unlikely that any
serious controversy will occur as a result of renegotiation.

However, because both Canada and the United States intend to enforce
a 200-mile fishery zone on January I and March 1, respectively, in 1977,
reciprocal fishing rights of some sort will need to be negotiated
between the United States and Canada.

H. International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Convention

The International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission was brought
into existence by the Convention for the Protection, Preservation, and
Extension of the Sockeye Salmon Fishery of the Fraser River System of
May 26, 1930. (This agreement between the United States and Canada was

462

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

later amended by a protocol to include pink salmon on December 28, 1956.)
The Commission is composed of three representatives from each country.
Decisions are made by majority vote; the only stipulation being that two
members of each delegation must concur. The Commission has its own
scientific research staff.

The 1PSFC was an initial response to the loss in productivity of the
Fraser River salmon fishery after 1913, when salmon failed to return to
the river in sufficient number. By 194~4, it had been determined that the
loss of productivity was due to a rock slide occurring as a result of
railroad construction. A remedy to the situation was agreed upon via an
exchange of notes on July 21 and August 5, 194t4. Since 19'44, the Com-
mission has engaged in development of proposals for the purpose of
regulation, specifically with regard to: 1) ensuring adequate escape-
ment to spawning grounds and 2) dividing the catch allowable between
fishermen in the United States and Canada.

The following articles are likely to be affected by the extension
of fisheries jurisdiction to 200 miles: Article I (which indicates
the waters dealt with by the treaty); Articles IV and V (dealing with
gear and other fishing regulations on the high seas); and Articles VIII
and IX (dealing'with enforcement on the high seas).

46 3

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

II. Bilateral Regulatory Fishery Agreements to Which the United States
is Party

A. U.S. - Brazil t'greement Concerning Shrimp

The United States' Brazil Agreement Concerning Shrimp, signed
on May 9, 1972, and since extended, defines the "area of agreement"
as "the waters off the coast of Brazil having the isobath of thirty
(30) meters as the southwest limit and the latitude 10 north as the
southern limit and 1470 30' west longitude as an eastern limit."
(Article I). This area falls within the 200 nautical mile zone
off the coast of Brazil claimed by that country's government as
its territorial sea. In a brief statement preceding the text of
the agreement Brazil states:

that it considers its territorial sea to extend to a distance
of 200 nautical miles from Brazil's coast, that the exploration
of crustaceans and other living resources, which are closely
dependent on the seabed under the Brazilian territorial sea,
is reserved to Brazilian fishing vessels, and that exception
to this provision can only be granted through international
agreements.

In a similar declaration preceding the agreement, the United States
indicates:

that it does not consider itself obligated under international
law to recognize territorial claims of more than 3 nautical
miles nor fisheries jurisdiction of more than twelve nautical
miles, beyond which zone of jurisdiction all nations have the
right to fish freely, and that it does not consider that all
crustaceans are living organisms belonging to sedentary species
as defined in the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf....

Regulation of the shrimp industry is primarily for conservation
purposes. Under Annex I, Brazil agrees to institute the following
measures:

a) Prohibition of shrimp fishing activities, for conservation
purposes, in spawning and breeding areas;
b) Prohibition of the use of chemical, toxic or explosive
substances in or near fishing areas;
c) Registry of all fishing vessels with the Maritime Port
Authority (Capitania dos Portos) and with SUDEPE; 6
d) Payment of fees and taxes for periodical inspections;
e) Use of the SUDEPE fishing logs to be returned after each
trip or weekly;

6SUDEPE is the acronym for the Superintendencia do Desenvolvimento
da Pesca of the Ministry of Agriculture.

46 4

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

f) Prohibition of the use of fishing gear and of other
equipment considered by SUDEPE to have destructive
effects on stocks;
g) Prohibition of discharging oil and organic waste.

Under Annex II, the United States agreed to take the following
measures in the area deffined:

a) Not more than 325 vessels flying the United States flag
shall fish for shrimp in the area of agreement and the
United States Government undertakes to maintain a
presence of not more than 160 of those vessels in the
area at any one time. Such vessels shall be of the same
type and have the same gear as those commonly employed
in this fishery in the past, noting that electric
equipment for fishing purposes has not been commonly
employed by boats in this fishery in the past.

b) Shrimp fishing in the area of agreement shall be limited
to the period from March I to November 30.

c) Shrimp fishing in that part of the area of agreement
southeast of a bearing of 2400 from Ponta do Ceu radio-
beacon shall be limited to the period March I to July 1.

d) Transshipment of catch may be made only between vessels
authorized under this Agreement to fish in the area of
agreement.

Since this agreement deals only with the waters off the Brazilian
coast, the passage of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act
is likely to have a minimal impact, especially since the United States
has already "noted" the much wider jurisdiction of Brazil.

B. U.S. - Canadian Agreement on Reciprocal Fishing Privileges in
Certain Areas Off the Coasts of the United States and Canada

In renegotiating the Reciprocal Fishing Privileges Agreement in
1973, primary emphasis was placed on the origin of the anadromous
stock as a basis for determination of a state's jurisdiction over
the right to fish. The 1973 agreement contained the following
provisions:

1. Canadian salmon fishing in the U.S. contiguous fishery
zone south of Carroll Island at 480 3' North Latitude off the
coast of Washington was prohibited.

46 5

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

2. U.S. salmon fishing effort in the contiguous zone
off most of Vancouver Island was eliminated. Sport fishing
by U.S. nationals is not affected if they comply with Canadian
regulations.
3. Consultations to regulate fisheries in the Strait
of Juan de Fuca and Northern Puget Sound are to be held as
necessary.
4t. U.S. fishing days for king (chinook) salmon and
dog (chum) salmon near Point Roberts are to be coordinated
with Canadian seasons for the lower Fraser River.
5. Limited blackcod fishing is permitted for each
country in the Pacific reciprocal areas.
6. A limited tuna catch by Canada is permitted off the
U.S. Atlantic coast in the reciprocal area.
7. Large U.S. trawlers are not permitted where comparable
Canadian trawlers are prohibited off the Atlantic Coast of
Canada. 7'

Point (7) of the Reciprocal Fishing Privileges Agreement states:

(7) Nothing in this Agreement shall prejudice the claims
or views of either of the parties concerning internal waters,
territorial waters, or jurisdiction over fisheries or the
resources of the continental shelf; further, nothing in this
Agreement shall affect either bilateral or multilateral agree-
ments to which either Government is party.

This point explicitly recognizes that the jurisdictional limits set
in the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 will take
precedence over those set in the Reciprocal Fishing Privileges
Agreement. The latter agreement would therefore have to be renego-
tiated under Section 201. Foreign Fishing of FCMA.

C. U.S.-Japan Agreement Concerning Certain Fisheries Off the Coast
of the United States

According to this agreement, effected by an exchange of notes,
Japan agreed to:

take necessary measures to ensure that the nationals and vessels
of Japan will not engage in fishing... in the waters which are
contiguous to the territorial sea of the United States of
America and extend to a limit of twelve nautical miles from the
baseline from which the United States territorial sea is measured.

7U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA Press
Release 73-14~4 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, July 3, 1973),
no page.

46 6

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

Areas for loading operations are subject to the same limitations.
Specific areas of exception are carefully detailed. And in addition,
Japan is forbidden to fish for tuna, except in specifically desig-
nated areas. The imposition of a 200 mile fishery resource juris-
diction zone will necessitate the renegotiation of the understanding
formerly determined by a limit of 12 nautical miles.

1. Agreement Concerning Salmon Fishing

Via an exchange of notes, both parties agreed to accept the
provisional abstention lines specified by the International Conven-
tion for the High Seas Fisheries of the North Pacific Ocean. Any
renegotiation of the latter Convention, brought about by the passage
of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act will result in
renegotiation of this agreement.

2. Note of the Government of Japan Concerning Dragnet and
Longline Fishing in Certain Waters

Via this note, the Japanese government detailed areas and time
periods in which it would not engage in dragnet and longline fishing.
Many of these areas will fall within the extended jurisdiction of the
United States and delimitation of areas will therefore need to be
renegotiated.

D. U.S.-Japan Agreement Concerning the King and Tanner Crab Fisheries
in the Eastern Bering Sea

The exchange of notes which brought about this Agreement recognized
the historic right of Japan to fish for crab in this area. However, for
the purpose of conserving these living resources, Japan agreed to ensure
that (Point 3 (1)): "A. The fishing operations for king and tanner
crabs by nationals and vessels of Japan for the years 1975 and 1976 will
he conducted in the waters north of 550 331 North Latitude and West
of 1640 West Longitude." Japan also agreed to limit the number of
metric tons of crab within specific boundaries. This agreement, and
the agreements that preceded it, constitute de facto recognition of the
fact that the United States has exclusive exploitation rights to these
resources.8

In addition, it should be noted that according to Article 2 (1)
of the Convention on the Continental Shelf (4/29/58): "11. The coastal
state exercises over the continental shelf sovereign rights for the
purpose of exploring it and exploiting its natural resources." And
for the purpose of that Convention, natural resources are defined as
consisting of (Article 2 (4)):

8Walter B. Parker, Alaska and the Law of the Sea: International-
Fisheries Regimes of the North Pacific (Anchorage: University of Alaska -
Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center, June 1974), p. 36.

46 7

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

the mineral and other non-living resources of the seabed and
subsoil together with living organisms belonging to sedentary
species, that is to say, organisms which, at the harvestable
stage, either are immobile on or under the seabed or are
unable to move except in constant physical contact with the
seabed or the subsoil.

The Fishery Conservation and Management Act's definition of the
continental shelf fishery resources is consistent with the above.
The effect of the implementation of FCMA will be to make illegal
Japanese fishing operations for king and tanner crabs in the areas
presently designated in the bilateral agreement.

E. U.S.-Korean Agreement Concerning Cooperation in Fisheries

Provisions of this agreement are summarized below:

"The United States agreed to provide technical advice on
shellfish sanitation and salmon propagation to Korea.
(Article II).

Three loading areas were established within the United States
contiguous zone in the Bering Sea for Korean fishing boats
to transfer their cargoes. (Article III).

Both nations agree to exchange scientific and statistical data
and to assist in development of joint participation ventures
in commercial fisheries. (Articles I, IV).

Korea agreed to refrain from fishing for salmon and halibut
in the Northeastern Pacific ocean and Bering Sea east of
1750 west longitude ... (Article V).

The two neations agreed to consult on and limit gear conflicts
and to refrain from practices which would result in pollution
of the sea.9 (Articles VI, VII)."1

On March 1, 1977, United States unilateral extension of juris-
diction over fishery resources will extend westward beyond the
abstention line of 1750 West Longitude. Renegotiation of this
agreement will therefore be necessary if it is to continue in force.

F. U.S.-Polish Agreement Regarding Fisheries in the Northeastern
Pacific Ocean Off the Coast of the United States

The United States - Polish Agreement Regarding Fisheries in the
Northeastern Pacific Ocean is a first attempt to incorporate the
principles evolving from the current Law of the Sea negotiations.

9Ibid., p. '47

468

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

Recognition is given to the special interest and preferential
rights of coastal states. As a result, Poland accepts United
States determination of total catch allowable for all species found
off the Pacific coast and agrees to abide by a scheme by which that
portion of the total allowable catch which the United States is
unable to harvest is allocated among foreign fishermen.

Additional restraints and controls are placed on the Polish
fishing fleet in the form of quotas (specifically for hake),
licensing restrictions (a decline in the number of licenses;
15 to 12), and reduction of the number of fishing and processing
vessels permitted off the United States coast (from 11 to 8).
Poland also agrees to refrain from fishing the following stocks:
Pacific salmon, halibut, rockfish, black cod, flounders, soles,
Pacific mackerel, Pacific herring, and shrimp and other continental
shelf resources.

New area and time restrictions call for Polish abstention from:
1) fishing year-round from 380 30' North Latitude to the United
States-Mexican border in order to protect rockfish and juvenile
hake; and 2) fishing the area between 1470 West and 1570 West
longitude for a nine-month period.

This agreement appears most consistent with the provisions of the
Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976. Due to the foresight
with which this agreement was negotiated, a minimum of renegotiation
may be expected.

G. U.S.-Polish Agreement Regarding Fisheries in the Western Region
of the Middle Atlantic Ocean

The purpose of this agreement, signed June 2, 1973, and since
extended, is to: 1) arrange for exchange of scientific data and
promote cooperation among fishery research institutions (Article 1);
2) initiate a system of closed seasons and closed areas in order to
provide for the maintenance of fish stocks (Article 2 (1) (a and b));
3) limit inicidental catch of particular species (Article 2 (1) (c));
4) prevent intentional and incidental catch of lobster by Polish
fishing vessels (Article 2 (2) (a); and 5) restrain Polish fishing
vessels "from conducting specialized fisheries for yellowtail flounder
and red hake off southern New England, hearing in mind the conservation
regulations in effect pursuant to the International Convention for
the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries" (Article 2 (2) (b)). The agreement
also specifies in which areas and during what time Polish fishing
vessels may conduct loading operations within the nine-mile contiguous
fishing zone (Article 4), provides for entry into ports (Article 5),
indicates possible arrangements for exchange of fisheries authorities
(Article 6), and establishes a United States-Polish Fisheries
Conciliation Board (Annex I).

469

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

The implementation of the Fishery Conservation and Management
Act will require that this agreement undergo substantial renego-
tiation, since the area of competence currently specified in
the agreement will fall within the 200-mile fishery conservation
zone. Areas under the 1973 agreement which were open to Polish
fishing vessels will be closed to these vessels after March 1,
1977. In addition, since much of this agreement depends on the
enforcement capacity of the International Convention for the North-
west Atlantic Fisheries, successful renegotiation of the United
States-Polish bilateral will be largely determined by the outcome
of the renegotiation of ICNAF.

H. U.S.-U.S.S.R. Agreement on Certain Fishing Problems on the
High Seas in the Western Areas of the Middle Atlantic Ocean

Under the terms of this agreement, since extended, both parties
have agreed to: 1) arrange for the exchange of scientific data
and promotion of cooperation among fishery research institutions
(Point 1); 2) ensure maintenance of fish stocks by establishing a
system of closed seasons and closed areas (Point 2); 3) limit the
catch of scup, flounders, and black sea bass to 1967 levels in
areas specified (Point 2 (b); 4) limit catches of silver hake,
red hake, flounder (other than yellowtail), sea herring and mackerel
so that aggregate catches comply with ICNAF size limitations and do not
exceed agreed upon ICNAF national allocations (Point 2 (e and f));
5) prevent the U.S.S.R. from intentional and incidental fishing for
lobster (Point 3); and 6) impose specific conservation measures for
yellowtail flounder (Point 4).

The agreement also indicates in which areas and during what times
Soviet fishing vessels may conduct loading operations within the nine-
mile contiguous fishing zone (Point 6) and during what times and in
what areas the U.S.S.R. will fish within the ni-ne-mile fishery zone
contiguous to the territorial sea of the United States (Point 7).
Provisions for entry into ports (Point 8) are established and suggestions
for possible arrangements for exchange of fisheries' representatives
are made (Point 10). The 1949 International Convention for the North-
west Atlantic Fisheries Scheme of Joint Enforcement applies on a volun-
tary basis (Point 11).

With the implementation of the Fishery Conservation and Management
Act of 1976, it will be necessary to renegotiate this agreement since
the area specified will fall well within the 200-mile fishery conserva-
tion zone. Areas under the 1973 agreement which were open to Soviet
fishing vessels will be closed to these vessels after March 1, 1977.
In addition, since much of this agreement depends on the enforcement
capacity of the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic
Fisheries, successful renegotiations of the United States-U.S.S.R.
bilateral will be largely determined by the outcome of the renegotiation
of ICNAF.

470

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

I. U.S.-U.S.S.R. Agreement Regarding Fisheries in the Northeastern
Pacific Off the Coast of the United States of America

This agreement includes provisions for: 1) the exchange of
scientific information and facilitation of entry into ports of
research vessels of the other country when both are engaged in
joint research project~ (Point 1); 2) the implementation of
national conservation measures, particularly with regard to the
living resources of the continental shelf (Points 2-and 3); 3) the
institution of measures to prevent gear conflicts (Points 14 and 5);
14) aizeas and time periods in which no fishing with mobile gear will
be allowed off the coast of the United States (Point 6); 5) areas
"within the seaward waters of the territorial waters of the United
States extending to twelve nautical miles from the baseline from
which the United States territorial sea is measured" in which the
Soviet Union may engage in fishing and conduct loading operations
(Point 8); 6) areas in which the Soviet Union will refrain from
fishing (Point 10); 7) specific regulations with regard to halibut,
trawling, entry into ports, and pollution (Points 10, 11, 13, and
14); and 8) catch limitations for species found in the eastern
Bering Sea, the Gulf of Alaska, off the Aleutian Islands, off the
coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California, and for Pacific
hake (Point 12).

Renegotiation of this agreement will be necessary since many
of the areas detailed will fall within the jurisdiction of the
United States as of March 1, 1977.

J. U.S.-U.S.S.R. Agreement Relating to Fishing for King and
Tanner Crab

Point I of this agreement gives recognition to Article 2 of
the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf, which indicates that
king and tanner crabs are natural resources of the continental
shelf over which the coastal state exercises sovereign rights for
the purposes of exploration and exploitation. Nevertheless,
ensuing points authorize the Soviet Union to continue its crab
fishery in the eastern Bering Sea subject to catch limitation in
specific areas. In general, the Soviet Union is authorized to
fish in "that portion of the southeastern Bering Sea lying seaward
of twelve nautical miles from the baseline from which the United
States territorial sea is measured west of 16140 West Longitude and
north of 550 30' North Latitude" (Appendix Point 1). In addition,
this agreement sets size limitations, regulates incidental catch,
limits gear to crab pots, regulates Soviet catch of other species
and authorizes exchange of scientific information and personnel
between the two parties.

After March 1, 1977, the previously referred to area, will fall
within the 200-mile zone claimed by the United States for the purposes
of fishery management and conservation, necessitating renegotiation
of this agreement.

471

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

APPENDIX B

I. Other Regional Fisheries Associations

A. FAO Regional Bodies in which the United States Participates10

1. Fishery Committee for the Eastern Central Atlantic (CECAF)

2. Indian Ocean Fishery Commission (IOFC)

3. Indo-Pacific Fisheries Council (IPFC)

4. Western Central Atlantic Fishing Commission (WECAFC)

B. FAO Regional Bodies in which the United States does not Participate

1. Regional Fishery Advisory Commission for the Southwest Atlantic
(CARPAS)

2. Committee for Inland Fisheries of Africa

3. European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission (EIFAC)

4. General Fisheries Council for the Mediterranean (GFCM)

C. Non-FAO Regional Fisheries Arrangements12

1. Baltic Sea Salmon Standing Committee (BSSC)

2. International Baltic Sea Fishery Commission (IBSFC)

3. International Commission for the Southeast Atlantic Fisheries
(ICSEAF)

4. Japan - Republic of Korea Joint Fisheries Commission (JKFC)

5. Japan - Soviet Northwest Pacific Fisheries Commission (JSFC)

6. Mixed Commission for Black Sea Fisheries (MCBSF)

7. Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC)

8. Permanent Commission of the Conference on the Use and
Conservation of the Marine Resources of the South Pacific
(PCSP)

�Summaries included.

11Summaries not included.

12Summaries not included.

472

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

9. Sealing Commission for the Northeast Atlantic (SCNEA)

10. Sealing Commission for the Northwest Atlantic (SCNWA)

11. Shellfish Commission for the Skagerrak-Kattegat (SCSK)

473

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

I. Other Regional Fisheries Associations

A. FAO Regional Bodies in which the United States Participates

The FAO handles fisheries matters through its Department of Fisheries.
In 1965 the Department organized the Committee on Fisheries (COFI) giving
the FAQ a policy-making arm with regard to the living marine resources of
the world. Since its inception COFI has encouraged the growth of regional
bodies to deal with fisheries matters and has participated in detailed re-
view of FAO fisheries policies.

In addition to COFI, eight regional bodies have been formed under the
auspices of the FAO. They are the:

1. Regional Fishery Advisory Commission for the Southwest Atlantic
(CARPAS);

2. Fisheries Committee for the East Central Atlantic (CECAF);

3. Committee for Inland Fisheries of Africa;

4. European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission (EIFAC);

5. General Fisheries Council for the Mediterranean (GFCM);

6. Indian Ocean Fishery Commission (IOFC);

7. Indo-Pacific Fisheries Council (IPFC); and

8. Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission (WECAFC).

The United States is a member of four of these commissions: CECAF,
IOFC, IPFC, and WECAFC. Since the scope of this paper deals only with the
impacts of United States unilateral extension of fishery jurisdiction on
international fisheries arrangements, the remaining four FAO regional com-
missions will not be treated here.

1. Fishery Committee for the Eastern Central Atlantic (CECAF)

The Fishery Committee for the Eastern Central Atlantic was established
in 1967. Its area of competence is the Eastern Central Atlantic between
Cape Spartel and the Congo River and present members of the committee include
28 nations. The main function of the Committee is to promote rational use of
all species in the area via increased and better scientific research and
more effective data collection and dissemination. Management responsibilities
were assumed by CECAF in 1971 with the adoption of minimum mesh size regu-
lations for sea bream and hake.

Coastal areas of the United States do not border on the area of compe-
tence of this Committee. However, with United States unilateral extension
of jurisdiction over fisheries, other nations of this regional body may be

474

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

8'4
encouraged to follow suit if they have not already done so. If this should
happen, several difficult problems, already in existence, will be accentuated.
These include:

(a) the absence of management capacity within coastal nations still
regarded as in the process of development;

(b) the difficulty in reaching agreement on total allowable catch
for heavily exploited stocks,-when the coastal nations fishing in the area
share authority over the same stocks;

Cc) the lack of criteria available to coastal nations for guidance
in the setting of national quotas for shared stocks, particularly when
previous experience is not applicable; and

(d) the likelihood that southern coastal nations, in seeking access
to the rich northern fishing grounds, will be unable to effectively
compete with distant water fleets. 13

2. Indian ocean Fishery Commission (IOFC)

The Indian Ocean Fishery Commission (10FC) was established in 1967 via
a resolution of the FAO Council. It claims competency over all species in
the Indian Ocean as well as in adjacent sea areas (not including, however,
the Antarctic Ocean area).

The terms of reference of the IOFC are sufficiently broad so that
tentative movements toward management have already been taken. Ad hoc
groups have been set up for shrimp, for the fisheries in the Gul-f of
Oman and the Persian Gulf, and for tuna. There does not appear either
to be any need for changing the defined area of competence, the member-
ship or the internal structure of the organization.

The reason for this, besides adequate flexibility in the original
terms of reference, is that in the Indian Ocean the major problems
are the ones of development, not management. This places a high
priority not only on facilitating surveys and stock assessments but
equally on increasing coastal state capabilities to catch, process
and market fish. There is clearly the need for management measures
to be implemented on shrimp and there is a need for regulation of
the larger tunas, though the skipjack resources are under-exploited.

1 Edward Miles, An Assessment of the Impact of Proposed Changes in the Law
of the Sea on Regional Fishery Commiss-ions, on FAO Technical Assistance
Programmes in Fisheries and on the FAO Committee on Fisheries and Department
of Fisheries, (COFI: c/'4/76 Inf. 3. Prepared for Committee on Fisheries,
Sub-Committee on the Development of Cooperation with International Organi-
zations Concerned with Fisheries, Llth session, Lisbon, 8-12 March 1976.
Rome: FAO, February 1976), p. la.

47 5

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

There is a number of actual and potential conflicts between countries
over shared stocks but these can be dealt with bilaterally. 4

As in the case of CECAF, the United States does not have any coastal
area bordering on the Indian Ocean. However, with United States unilateral
extension of jurisdiction over fisheries, other nations of this regional body
may be encouraged to follow suit.

In the event of extensions to 200-mile Economic Zones all the
demersal and shrimp resources will come under national juris-
diction. only the tuna resources will be outside the 200 miles
yet,... it will not be possible to solve this problem in the
Indian Ocean alone. Extensions of jurisdiction will increase
the number of bilateral agreements concerning joint ventures
and the setting of license fees and... .they would acce~ntuate
the need for technical assistance in production, processing
and marketing. For this reason the IOFC should play a much
more active role than it has so far in promoting and coordi-
nating national fisheries development activities.-IS

3. Indo-Pacific Fisheries Council (IPFC)

The Indo-Pacific Fisheries Council (IPFC) was established in 19148 in
order to direct development and effective utilization of all species in the
Indo-Pacific area. This involves some overlap with the IOFC and successful
continuance of both organizations appears contingent on a clearer specifi-
cation of the area of competence of each.

Again, the United States does not have acoastline bordering on this
particular region. However, United States unilateral extension of juris-
diction might suggest to other nations in the regional area that they make a
similar move.

The most urgent management problems are curr~ntly in the South
China Sea. These involve some demersal species, particularly in
the Northern Gulf of Thailand, some local shrimp stocks and the
large tunas. Since extension of jurisdiction will have serious
impacts on the world tuna fishery, this will also be an urgent
problem, particularly in the Trust Territories Subregion. There
is an additional problem in the case of the South China Sea which
makes dealing with the management issue more difficult. This
concerns the significant political differences between certain
countries in the area.

In order to make these changes certain modifications will have
to he made in the Basic Texts of the IPFC. For instance the list
of members will have to be expanded; a general formulation will
have to be added to the current terms of reference giving the
IPFC the capacity to make recommendations on any management
measures that appear to be necessary; in the terms of reference

"ITbid., p. 16.
'I5bid.

47 6

APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI

of the Council an objection procedure should be specified whereby
recommendations on management become operative after a certain
period in the event of no objections being made by any member;
and, finally, it should be stipulated that decisions shall be
made on the basis of a two third majority.

The aim in proceeding in this way is to give the organization
both the competence to make recommendations and the flexibility
to adapt to changing situations. It therefore does not seem to
be advisable to enumerate the kind of management recommendations
the IPFC could make. The effect would be limiting and could
retard the organic development of the Council in response to
very dynamic external situations. For reasons of flexibility
also, an objection procedure is recommended.

In its approach to management problems, it would also increase
flexibility if the Council would establish ad hoc and/or permanent
subsidiary panels as necessary on statistics a~ndstock assessment
for the three subregions. These would give the IPFC the capa-
bility of separating the research and stock assessment work from
its involvement in management recommendations since these sub-
sidiary bodies could be restricted in membership to the countries
actually affected by any particular problem.'6

4. Western Central Atlantic Fishing Commission (WECAFC)

The Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission (WECAFC) was
established in 1973 to Promote data collection, coordinate research, and assist
member nations in establishing rational management programs.

Since WECAFC has no management responsibilities, unilateral United
States extension of jurisdiction is likely to have little measurable impact
on this regional body.

~Ibid., pp. 15-16.

477