REPORT TO THE CONGRESS BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES es a, Account 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 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 Nee aa ES) : | n ! f VOLUME II ) APPENDIX Page IEA Compilation and analysis of Federal laws affecting the U.S. commercial fishing industry 1 TE ICI 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 mn American and spiny lobsters 160 eo Menhaden 178 —sZ Oysters 192 5a Salmon 204 7 Scallops APA === Shrimp 238 = Tuna 254 = Underutilized fish resources 270 =o = 5 IV Profiles of the fishing industry in —_= selected foreign nations 284 = Canada 284 Denmark 298 Japan 308 Mexico 324 Soviet Union 38)5 United Kingdom 350 West Germany 360 V Statistics on the U.S. and foreign catch of Lish Off the U.S)... coastline S172 VI University of Washington study 383 APPENDIX II APPENDIX II 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.qg., 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 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 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. if, specific There are many instances where specific laws could be improved by amendment. These are divided into several different categories and summarized below. APPENDIX ITI 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- COR Ob PAG Section 304(e) of the 1976 Act encompasses several other research statutes--l6o 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) 26 -UsS 2G. §755 .and 16.U.8.C., ,§1221, et 4seqg..», 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 seqg., 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 seg. 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 Seg., also overlap with 16 U.S.C. §777 et seg., 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.€. §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 reguire 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, GPUS Ge SSivibia wands) 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. SazZam 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: a transfer from the Secretary of the Interior to the Administrator of EPA of the obligation under 16 U.S.C. §757£ 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: (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 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 ana to coordinete 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. (8) 227 USC. aS27/)53)(b)),= whuich™ poh bilitsirorer'gqnemiisleinte aiay: 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) 19902 SVC. -§1323, allowing the President ‘to rartset duty rates up to 50 percent above the rate existing on July 1, 1934, could be obsolete if the rates today have already reachea 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(0), 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 76 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--l16 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. §§772b, 781, and 955(c) by specifically pro- hibiting 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 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 seg. and 21 U.S.C. §601 et seg., respectively. Under 15.U.5.¢€... §7/l13¢-2,.the.Secretary of .Agricultumeses to provide for the purchase and distribution of surplus fishery products. Under 15 U.S.C. §713c-3;,. the Secretary of the’ Enterron 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 snould be amended to reflect the transfer. Section. 205 of the,1976 Act. and, 22 U.S.C. §1978.overlanmea 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 reguired 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 seg.), loans (16 U.S.C. §742c), and loan guaran- tees (46 UES 3Ce S271 et seg.). 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 ana 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. §§666a,, -772£, “7/6e; 653, S16e and -£,)-989\)vand 460 JS 2G AUS a9. APPENDIX II APPENDIX II DETAILED COMPILATION AND ANALYSIS Ie 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 a 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 fisheries-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; * * *" (§3 of P.L. 57-552, an Act establishing the Department of Commerce and Labor (1903), 15 U.S.C. §1512); "k * * to provide for the * * * development of the high seas fishing industry of the United States * * *" (§1 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: "x * *(1) 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 Jaws s ete APPENDIX II 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 Government may regulate fishing within State territorial waters. The United States has jurisdiction, beginning March 1 , 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). LESUIS AC y agS 1091 =109 23 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 10 APPENDIX ITI 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 seg. 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. ll 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. §760-2 thru 760-12 ie Ussec. S663 16-U.S-C. §777 et seas 16 U.S.C. §664 16 U.S.C. §1221 et seq. 16 U.S.C. §665 16 U.S.C. §1531 et seg. iG Ws.c. S757a, (by = lenge ose. saad Several sections appropriately specify the Secretary of Commerce, and serve as an example: TegUeSeee 6755 16 U.S.C. §785 16 U.S.C. §756 16 U.S.C. §1201 et seq. 16 U.S.C. §760e-760g 16° 0?s .cfe9t3G1 16 U.S.C. §760d 16 U.S.C. §1431 et seg. 167Ues sce Sisel Ue MES Cs a7 12 scewseae 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; 1g2 APPENDIX II 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 aguatic 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. §760a--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. a3 APPENDIX II APPENDIX II (9) 33 U.S.C. §1442--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 researcherelated 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 14 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 chemical’s (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. 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 1S 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. Several statutes--l6 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 Administrator 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 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 16 APPENDIX II 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- 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 7 APPENDIX ITI APPENDIX II to fish and wildlife in interstate or navigable waters. Congress might want to consider transferring this function to the Adminis- Eat Om Ome At. (6) 26 ULS.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 seg.--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 seg.--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. (lO)s Le: UIShC., ssl2it—12i3——provides for study, andmconunom 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 seg.--directs the Secretary jon cue 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 seg.--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. §l43l et seq.--authorizes the ‘Seeretary (oF Commerce to designate aS marine Sanctuaries those ocean waters 18 APPENDIX II APPENDIX II as far seaward as the outer edge of the Continental Shelf, as he determines necessary, to preserve or restore sucn areas for conservation, recreation, ecology, or esthetic value. (14) 16 U.S.C. §1531 et segq.--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.S5.¢. §772a et .seq., dInternational,,Pacifiec: Halibut Commission--regulates catching ae halibut in the northern Pacific Ocean and other waters. (2) 16 U.S.C. §776 et seg., 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 seg., Great Lakes Fishery Commission-—— regulates Great Lakes fisheries. (5) 16 U.S.C. §951 et seg., 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 seg., International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas--regulates tuna fishing in the Atlantic. (7) 16 U.S.C. §981 et seg., 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. aie) APPENDIX ITI APPENDIX II (9) 16 U.S.C. §1100b et seq. Cel ene 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 seg., 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 seg., 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 seg., 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 seg. 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. §§757a and b and 16 U.S.C. §1221 et seg., 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 seg., (the Marine Mammal Protection Ace) and éy UsSeGs S96 et seg., (the Whaling Convention Act) overlap to the extent they both regulate catching whales. 16 U.S.C. §1383 recognizes potential overlap and provides that 20 APPENDIX II APPENDIX ITI 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, 6M SS eC. eSS 7 oval and: ibe 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. §§661-664 (unclear whether transfer has been made), 16 U.S.C. §§760-2 telnet COOSA, ainel 1O WseSiaCa Guava et seq. In cach, case, they Eransier 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. 21 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, 22 APPENDIX IT 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. (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. 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. §§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. §§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 23 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. §§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. §2753(b)—=prohibits foreign salies for a pervod of one year to any country that seizes or fines an American fishing vessel for fishing more than 12 miles from the coast of that country. (10) 22 U.S.C. §2370(0)--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 3ll--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 24 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 22,025 .¢-. §2370(0), 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 Ky) eke 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. 72) 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)—-callls for “regulations restrictma importing and exporting tropical tuna. (7) 16 U.S.C. §97le(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 Of: 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 seg.--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: 26 APPENDIX II APPENDIX II (1) 16 U.S.C. §772b(£)=--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. §91l6c(a)—-restricts sales of whales and whale products. (6) 16 U.S.C. §97le(a)(2)--restricts sale of Atlantic tuna. (7) 16 U.S.C. §988(a)——-restricts sale of £iish of North= west Atlantic fisheries. (8) 16 UlSSC. §1029 (a)——-restricts salle iof rsh of Noreh Pacific fisheries. (9); eo USSSG. “Sti (Ca)=——-restricts salle of sea otters. (10) 16 UlS.G. §1372(a)(3) and (4)——-restricts sale and other commercial use of marine mammals. (Dy VOUS Cy SilSss——restrices) sale ‘andsovher commercial use of endangered species. (12) 7 U.S.C. §1621 et seg.--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. eu APPENDIX II APPENDIX II (14) 15 U.S.C. §§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. §372a--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, 11l71(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 specriirealiy 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 28 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 seg. and 21 U.S.C. §601 et seq., respectively. on Under 15 U.S.@. §7l3c—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. Sl9S78overlap 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. §§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 29 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- Ssistencies 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. (he 260U.S.C.0§ 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 7423 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 30 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. 31 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. §777c--provides for apportionment of funds by the Secretary of the Interior (transferred to Secretary of Commerce) among States for fish restoration and management projects. (2) 16 U.S.C. §779 et seg.--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) le UTS es §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. 3i2 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. §1461l--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. 33 Jat e) 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 seg.--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 seg.-—-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. Bre 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: Fisktuts Lead fUnly 4 (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. §760d--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. 34 APPENDIX II APPENDIX II Fenn S Prorecove Aut ae (4) 22 U.S.C. §§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 Bh CoE PEL SEE LEL waters. Herre bee! MAM Nt Pro UF) ort (5) 46 U.S.C. §1177--allows owners or lessors of vessels [ee et 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. MMA “Feguemes Oeucenod HyarANTte Prom S (6) 46 U.S.C. §1271 et seg.--authorizes the Secretary of { so Uf “ Commerce to guarantee obligations that aid in financing or refi- \ 2S 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 US.C. §1401 et seg.--authorizes the Secretary of ale 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: (i) <7 90. SSCs s§6lZcrand ' 15S UlSiCs1§§7L3c—2 tand “3==promote certain commercial activities for fish products. (2) 16 U.S.C. §66l1--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. x (3) 16 U.S.C. §1538--exempts fish importers and exporters from certain requirements of the Endangered Species Act. (4) 22 U.S.C. §1971 et seg.--provides for protection of U.S. fishing vessels seized by foreign countries and directs the 35 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 reguired 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 seg.), loans (AG BUSS AG. tSiaZic)r and loan guarantees (46 U.S.C. §1271 et seg.). 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? (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 subsidies 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. 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: 36 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; * * *" (Z) 16 U.S.C. §772d--directs the Coast Guard, the Customs Service, and NOAA to enforce the Northern Pacific Halibut Act (LG URIS ACen Si/a7Z Se Seg-)s (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 (26 WS iGer Nicol etrseg=) (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. §97ld--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 37 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. §§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-1(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 i Ket 38 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 6 UnS.C. SSo6Ga, J/ZE, 776c, 653, 9l6evand £,. 989), ands 46 USC. eS Sole Wie 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. 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 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 39 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, which 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. 40 APPENDIX II APPENDIX II Popular Names of Laws U.S. Code citation appearing in text 7 Wa8eEo Silo 7 U.S.C. §1621 et seq. iS 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 USS. Co Sc isc—s U.S.C. §§460k-460k-1 UsS..C= *§ 4600-12 U.S.C. §§661-667e U.S.C. §§694-694b U.S.C. §§742a-754 U.S.C. §744 US .Ce, SS /55—-s50 U-s.C. SSi/ova—-Io7E Uso... SS7oc_i5o0d US. C.SS eae — aed Uss.C. SS776—7/ 1605 WSs Comes Si miniele 7i7e-771g, 777k Uss.C. SS7Sl—Tis5 USS.€. §S§835, Si35C—035C—2, GC3DC—4 41 Popular name of law Food and Agriculture Act of 1962 Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 Fishery Products Act Refuge Recreation Act Federal Water Project Recreation Act Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Fish and Game Sanctuary Act Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 Predacious Fishes Act Columbia Basin Fishery Development Act Anadromous Fish Conservation Act Farrington Fishery Resources Act Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1937 Salmon Fishery Act, also referred to as Sockeye Salmon Fishery Act of 1947 Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Act Amendments of 1970 Sponge Act Columbia River Basin Project Act APPENDIX II 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 21 22 22 22 WSS65Go SEsalogeys USSG. SS9l6—9i6l iS iCan SS Sil Or aity Ui wCnn SS ool oot WisSyeCen eS SHOES HO2B LO25—1032 U.S.C. §§ 1051-1058 U.S.C. §§1081-1086 U.S.C. §§1091-1094 U.S.C. §§1100b-1100b-10 WieSr Can SSeel Sas 9) TIES IL ILE} hab 7/tb ala 7/3 1181-1187 U.S.C. §§1221-1226 WesCo SS Solel soz, Wes7/ily Wektsale Ilesey- 1401-1407 U.S.C. §§1451-1464 Uses aCe e§S1531=-1543 U.S.C. §301 et seg. UeoeG.) SSLO7I=1979 Ues.c. §2730(o) i (Ee Ss A7N5)Si((19))) 42 APPENDIX II Black Bass Act Whaling Convention Act of 1949 Atlantic Tuna Conventions Act of 1975 Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Act of 1950 North Pacific Fisheries Act of 1954 National Fisheries Center and Aquarium Act Bartlett Act (three-mile fishery jurisdiction) Bartlett Act (twelve-mile fishery jurisdiction) Offshore Shrimp Fisheries Act of 1973 Fur Seal Act of 1966 Estuarine Areas Act Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 Endangered Species Act of 1973 Federal Food, and Cosmetic Act Drug, Fishermen's Protective Act of 1967 The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 1965 Amendment Foreign Military Sales Act APPENDIX II 29 33 33 Wooo USS JC. Uso. Wo iSiglCa Wasa Uso Ce §213/(a)i() §1104 §1123 §§ 1441-1442 §1312 §ll §251 §259 §§319, 325 §§531-534 §601 Sid SNE nd bl bg A §§1271-1276, 1279a and b Uno. Gre §§1401-1413 43 APPENDIX II Maximum wage and maximum hours provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act Marine Resources and Engineering Act of 1966 National Sea Grant College and Program Act of 1966 Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 Submerged Lands Act Registry Acts Coasting and Fishing Act Enrollment of Vessels Act Anti-Smuggling Act Motor Boat Act of 1940 Seamen's Act of 1915 Merchant Marine Act of 1970 Federal Ship Financing Act of 1972 United States Fishing Fleet Improvement Act APPENDEX Tit 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 WSIS) are shown in Table l. 44 APPENDIX IIT APPENDIX III eqjep Azeututterzq /e (2 230N) 966‘0F HCO WIE SLE 72S 9S9'2T 616 98 “6014 2 6SL‘8 Fer. Oc. LeEsare SL6T (2 330N) p00 ‘6€ 606 6nn Ve L6T LUG? Gi OTT‘96 T08‘9 v6°9'8 816’6T 800‘ST VL6T 8S9‘PE OVs‘LOT Szs SOK Ce ee 8. 6 OLE’Z8 S06’9 L7Z9'8 DOGS Lie “sOS Ay Tt €Lé6T GTZ‘E€E€ 689'06 T6? ENN WT Aside LY “e9e “E9 SHS 8L0‘6 Og GC Gis Si Sour Glo 90E‘TE 68v‘?8 OOL SEO acm sie 9 S€S‘7S 86L’9 7S9’ZT 816‘9T 999'9T WAS T6L‘82 v07 ‘66 SEL EV6nce Oe LL Sie L9= = c8iowS S06 cl avve-V le SG LOMO OL6T BE7‘SZ SvL‘08 IGE GEG ‘I. 16 Ss GLS‘6h SSS‘¢ LSP EL “Shy el Sq 7on 696T 82L‘SZ 977‘L9 977 006 [Mee 4 7 7SS‘Ob 681’? SIE SO Lee ty Cle OiaviGe 896T 987‘0Z2 00S‘TL ETS Ivy 7Se'P 7SO0‘Sh 9€6‘E €78 ‘6 eG + TLS -Coeon L96T TSS’8T TOLL ELEN S6E 9L8°E Clb Sia PGs G6 =1 bh airicce Ol aarceaae 996T €€L‘9TS 678'0L ana; 607 L6G Lees 880‘hh T8E’ES B80E’TT EP6‘6S FP0‘ST S96T (PeF3TWO 000) SnTeA Spunog OSNTeA Spunog snTeA spunog SnTeA sSpuNnog sNTeA Spunog TeIOL Z3urx0 gans TOS pazey TPOK (UDTOEM 3eEW) SL61-S96T Setoeds tofew Aq sweTD FO enTeA pue sbutpueT -Ss-n T dIev 45 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 ILS) 7/3} ero). IMS) 7/3) 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 46 APPENDIX III APPENDIX III ejep AreutwtTterg — ae ee = ae pee oP Se Eat ety See. ee /® OOT OOT fh qe 6°8T 6718 8°6P C2en — -GlOr. » Sez quecited Ot +6670 EZO7TIT SLZ Hes Sei7Z SLB Sey702 Tze Ht 9667zI S167 98 Teq04 =e +5 a = ae =e = == i ak = = a (20 ae =) 15 ud oj T Teo = ial 8 - = 6 S z (S - - uobai9 View 98S Gia it SASIKG ORS aoe GSt SSZ OTS = = uojb5utysem > 6T TE IE 6T HE = = = - - - ePxASeETW iVSPoOD) Pits ood ee ZET O?@T = = 4 = GET O2T = = eptizolta = = = = = = = = = = - etbhz0a5 Ga Lae 9LT =) y a = Lae OLT - - ePutjTozepD yqNnos ye Ee S82 = =} = = EKA S82 = - BuTTOAIeD YIAON :OTIUPTIW YQNOS 7. Ol SPO 9 WARIO = = = = AGO) “1 880‘T 7289'S 880'‘6E BeTUTHATA Wg TILL) ve, 997'9 = = GiLO ie SZiSiOkeTy (iP, 8S TT Ok Te ees GiecG pueT Arey :Aeq oyeodesayoD ~ (5 69€ psEe’Zz = = = = L OL Z9E WItte oye ezemetsqg % GmeSiT, etekSe 9 Cee 2G me = TPT 69T TS9’T O29 TS OCH y OSISM sis Avszoe MON OPS « ye Sie {eset © AG & YE £9 TOE’PT 899’8 8B9L o8ss‘?P YTOK MON :OTQUPTIW PTPPTW {SS STT TSé = = = = Siar Tszd = - qynotTzZo.9euU0D G°e 977‘ T GSileaan = = Oz oT Gar” 1 OU ye S)IL pueTSsSI espouy Coa (\G(h AL 079’'T = = OOL OSL OGOSE 0S8 6 OZ sf3zesnyoessep - - - = = = - - - - - arTtTusdueyH MON JOE OVAe GSS‘y = = GOIMS Reiss MyLal 8 = = auTeHW :pueTbuq Mean ee (Ppez9TWO QUO) ———— SBNTeA Spunog oNTeA Spunog AsINnTeA Spundog OeNTeA Spunog snTeA Spundg THe. aan swueqTo 2eUuj0 we To 3350S weTo P4ieH weTo Jans $09e9S quedreg (TTeus 9y4R buTpnToxs ZybTemM 7eOeN) (e 83z0u) 3323S Aq sbutTpueyT weTD GL6T €¢ daTaVvs 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 fon 1972. 48 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 hlieS Rakes 2 7,265 120 9 7,396 8.2 Hoes 3 10 6,978 2 6,993 Vad Tongs = 3,826 = - 3,826 4.2 By hand = 986 30 = 1,016 IL gal Shovels = 331 = 171 502 -6 Picks = 373 = = 317/83 4 Diving outfits = - = 163 163 of Otter trawls - 75 - - 75 sil | 63,471 GEES 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- Meer 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 reguir- 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, many clams are | still harvested by hand, using rakes, forks, shovels, 3nd 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 49 APPENDIX III APPENDIX III frozen or with the meat removed (shucked) and sold fresh or frozen. 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 py7i2 Number of Standard Production plants cases Percent Pounds Percent Value Percent Whole 3 S}f 1/Sisl = 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, 15a. 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 clam chowder, frozen clam broth, deviled clams, minced clams, and stuffed clams. The largest and least ex- pensive of the clams are marketed as "chowders." 50 APPENDIX III APPENDIX III "Cherrystones" are medium-sized and medium-priced clams used almost exclusively for baked clams. "Little necks" are the 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. 51 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 SS SSSSSSaS= (Gopi Ula vey Ne})) SSS 1965 70.8 a5 Ye 303 1966 72.8 Aol 74.9 2363 1967 Tpke Pes HS\a3 esit/al 1968 67.2 2.0 69.2 -347 1969 80.7 P3e 2) 83.6 -415 1970 992 4.9 104.1 pentil 1971 84.5 4.2 88.7 -431 1972 DOr, yon! 95.8 - 460 1973 (note C)e Loses 4.3 110.6 525) 1974 (note C) oS 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 Ser aeS=—= (cents per pound) -------- 1965 66.1 29.9 ee) 1966 68.7 33n3 8.6 1967 74.0 40.1 De7 1968 78.9 40.4 10.2 1969 83.2 41.2 a ee) 1970 89.6 46.3 aa 1971 Loa S57) ayo 1972 119.0 623 12755 1973 (note a) 120.2 79.1 9 1974 (note a) 132.7 FI teal iA) a) Preliminary data. 52 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 AY AG 1963 16,341 1964 Sp OLS 1965 16,884 1966 16,459 1967 13) 5 2Y57/ 1968 14,369 1969 ILS) 5 bey ak 1970 14,979 1971 16,638 35) APPENDIX III APPENDIX III Recreational fishing Recreational clam digging is a very popular activity. Large numbers of people and large amounts of clams are an 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 3 milion sazomiclams- 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 54 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 35) 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 rehated 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. The Maryland soft clam resource was hit hard by Hurri- 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, 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 1 million pounds. 56 APPENDIX III APPENDEX TTT 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 57 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 1 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. 58 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 59 APPENDIX III APPENDIX III of hard clams in newly developed markets in California, Florida, and Illinois; and clamoto juice, a drink combining 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 control. Also, the surf clam is a common pro- perty resource. More and better vessels have been added to the fleet and fishing has increased rapidly. 60 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. 61 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. 62 APPENDIX IIf 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. 63 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 ti e975: 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 blue 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 64 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 Ly Current harvest— 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 HACE OMS Is In the ogulf, 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 an) 1975. was) 162.2) milion 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 an 1975 from the 1974 record catch of 64.2 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. 1/the latest data available was used in all cases. 65 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 Atlantic blue crab are in the shore areas of Virginia, Maryland, and New Jersey, and the cities of Baltimore, Washington, Philadelphia, and New York. 66 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 unprofitable. Soft-shell crab fisherm2n 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 67 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 anchored 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. f. 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 an the Atilantic States. In the Gull Sitatess iam 19727 IPols boats; 60) 782 scrab pores, o724. ELOtlmiune’s - andes4 27 10) bush lines were used to land blue crabs. 68 APPENDIX III APPENDIX III in the North Pacriac, 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 69 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 estimates 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. Tne 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 the taking of king and tanner crab. 70 APPERNDIEXS ik APPENDIX IIT *setTjunoo uteqze0 oF ATdde ATuo SOx SOK SOK son (e 330U) sexo Sox Sox eueTstTnoy sox TddTSstsstw seqeqs Jin) Suz ut Kew suotjertnbezr pue smetT oe3eqs SUS /~ = Sox = sox SOR SOR = SOK = Sex = SOR eUegqetTwW (e 370U) ept4oTa asusta qeia entg ey7 uo SUOTROTAASSY pue sjUSWeATNbsy uot zonzASUOoD ZTequnNn 82TS edA 2SUOTIOTAASOA 7Ve8H TEqunn uosess paesoto eZzTS SoTewezy PTACIDH 7SUOLAOLAISon, Uopeo s6eq zeAa5 AtTured esusoTT :SqZuowerTNbsy 71 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 E£isherves. 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 1 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 72 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 Stake Officials, there 15 a sutbierent 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 improvements in processing or product development in the Pacific crab fishery are not needed. Present capa- bility is adequate to process all harvested crab in an accept- able and marketable manner. Marketing potential Present markets for blue crab are located primarily in coastal areas; therefore, there is an opportunity to develop 73 APFENDIX 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 price, 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. 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 the effects of this substance could be more fully determined. The closing of the James River has had serious economic implications for an estimated 150 fishermen who depend on it 74 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 75 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 exceeds the processing capacity of local plants. At these times, crabbers are asked to stop fishing or the catch is shipped QUEROL Meher aneae 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 available 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 and with labor supply problems, the need for efficient mechanical processing 76 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. Wi 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. 78 APPENDiIGxXe ssi APPENDIX III Table I Commercial Atlantic Groundfish Landings (except Florida) (note a) Landings Year (pounds) Value (millions) 1960 529.8 SSie0 1965 AW) D 53) 37) 5G 1970 BLOG 7 Sieh oul 1972 Pi AVANT] 1973 29259 48.6 1974 (note b) PU SY HO 9 1975 (note b) 285.1 64.8 *Includes landings of cod, cusk, flounders, haddock, red and white hake, ocean perch, pollock, and silver hake (whiting). Dbreliminary 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. 79 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. 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 wa (O00honst ted) ————— Cod D7) Sins) 77,370 74 Haddock 6,653 11,290 59 Ocean perch 19,129 aye Ale/'S} 83 Silver “hake shal alas 286,609 ilay Red hake 6,038 73,922 8 Pollock 7 eae 2 poee 65 Yellowtail flounder 55,225 55,818 99 Other flounders 45,224 46,826 97 Total 238,496 602, 330 40 80 APPENDIX III APPENDIX III G6L‘09 9Ghas SLUG poe‘e O€0‘T €87'S 7S SE 9¢U WOW EE anTen BLO Ge 9LS‘0Z vSO'Ze VSO’ TT 99T’ 9T 796‘ E0T 860‘E T06‘SS spunog ‘(epta0Ta 3deoxe) oTqUeTIW TeqOL ! N 88G‘E 299 TL ONTeA spunog ‘(eptioTa 3deoxa) OTIUPTIW YWNOS EG Gaal ONTeA ayeodeseauy ~ spunog SNTeA Teiats 17 SUD‘E SL 6EC —-(pe33TWo 000)——— (2 930U) SL6T -eqep 789‘ 02 Z7ET‘GS 96€‘87Z S906 G9OL‘Z 6 CLimC = poe ‘e Gollieil cE6 E €87‘S AS eASS, L9S‘02 7S0‘ZE LS8'6 GOT OT BEING 761‘ LZ PIE’SL OTIUPTIV STPPTW = 970 860‘E€ OvL 898‘7T 9PT’SS spunog enTeA spunog OTIJUPTIV SLTPPIW | pueTbUug MON (eptzoTga 3deoxse) sbutpue] ystypunoszy oTqUeTAY TeToOrTSUMUIOD € dlavo AzeuTUT Ter TUT (e exey ASATTS 4ASOTTOd yorzed ues00 (83 T4M pue pez) soyey YOOPPeH szZepunot gy 4snD POD ‘SeTtoeds 81 APPENDIX III APPENDIX III 060‘S8z 80‘ 0z TeUOTIeUASAUT UT qZyubned 8S S9 Lg) Lv Ae) S9 87 v9 OOT LECACT - ST OOT 9LS‘0Z 6 GL8‘T OOT pSO‘ZE BE 870‘ZT OOT VSO" TT G Tvz OOT 99T‘9T O€ OLL‘?P OOT 796‘E€0T - 897 OOT 860'€ Zz 99 OOT T06‘SS G Sa 1e7 1 (pe4g4 Tuo (pe 44 TU 000) 000) (q 930U) spunog 3uU9079qg spunog 3UuUSs079g Qus01I9g soioyus ubTeroF TeIOL JJO sz73a7eEMm S96‘9L Spunog 7Uue07eq SOTTU ZI OF € FSPOD OTIUCTIV JFO JUHNeED SoOUeISTC SeTtTW ZT A2eAO it VIE'PZ OE SOG len 8T PPP‘ 6T T 96T‘S ae 196'6 8 GEGaL9 VT LOGs E OP €96‘SE 92 (peq4 TWO 000) *butpunoz oF enp ppe jou Aeu sehbequeorzeg Bbe 7S Z6p'2T VEL‘E OLD T6s‘€ TEC L 9L6‘T 87b‘T 97h’ TT (peq9 TUO 000) spunog jus0rTeg €T 8T 1G (q *e ep ASCUTEL Sie 69€ ‘GE 9S0'S oyxeYyY ASATTS 799‘T AxSOOTTOd Z6 yorzed ues00 920‘Z (89 TUM pue pez) soyey 86T >OOPPeH Spr ‘Tz SZepunoT A €OT sno L8E‘D pod (pe34 TWO 000) f spunog SdIOgdds seTtu € 07 0 (Be a30U) GLET ‘’SezoYUS ubtTez0qg FJO ST9QeM TeUOTJeUZeQAUT UT WYUbNneDd pue 3seoD OTRUeTIW 84a FFJO FUBNeD soueqstq Aq ‘setoseds Aq (PEPTIOTA Wdeoxs) sbhutpuey ystFpunozy oOTAueTIW TeToOreWMIOD y alawb 82 APPENDIX III APPENDIX III Fishing shleet 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 eene tadies 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 cat i medium and large trawlers fishing on Bus cece ds. SpRAG ERY 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 the jare less able to survive storms in offshore areas. U.S. sperodis 83 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 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 products has“ increased rom 233) pounds in. 960 Nton™S 68), pounds si nw1975:. 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 MTOM POUNG Snes 975). 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- halpitted trom landing tvsh wdirechily vate Ubon POEs. Groundfish prices vary depending on 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. non 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. 85 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 SDS Haddock 501 2,528 Red hake 497 904 Silver hake 1, SOW, 2095 Pollock 2.,45 1. 5,584 Total: 54,081 112,885 86 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 87 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 orf the vArlanete "Coast H(noce rb) From Maine to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina Pounds Species Estimated MSY 1977 quota (000,000 omitted) Cod 95 te 55 Haddock 110 ike} Ocean perch 38 20 Silver hake 236 236 Red hake al32 a 7) Pollock ae 22. Yellowtail flounder 86 SIL Other flounders 5 44 Total 774 518 @MSYs are based on commercial catch statistics and represent current estimates of maximum sustainable commercial catches given current recreational catch levels. Includes some area on Georges Bank which is within 200 miles of Canada. By 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. 88 APPENDIX III APPENDIEX ehh 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. 89 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 anda 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- MeMitRCOniiEno ly. Because groundfish species intermix, several species are usually caught when trawling. Also, small groundfish are Caught in small mesh nets used in other fisheries, such as the shrimp fishery. 90 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 effect of different catch levels on each species and to understand the interrelationships 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. Syil 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 Beyond 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 92 APPENDIX III APPENDIX 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 93 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 contend 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. 94 APPENDIX III APPENDIX III GULF STATES GROUNDFISH The Gulf States' groundfish consist principally of red snapper, grouper and croaker. All three are fOOds sai Sih», ) oui 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. 95 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. 96 APPENDIX III APEPNDIX IIT 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 RHE, FeESHERY, 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 ) —A 1950 1,943 Spool 6,839 S 629 14,787 $2,480 1955 OZ Su 2 She 5,569 568 S820 By, 42 1960 11,996 3,039 6,859 774 18,855 383} 1965 15-8362 4,550 9,950 ee OMEZ. Drone Soo 1970 eye 422 By Owl: 8,637 SiS 20,059 6,644 1971 ae s02 5,334 8,081 > 55 19,383 6,889 EOF 2 Li, SoS 6,097 8} 5 @7al 2 OS 19,426 8,134 EOS O22 6,561 6,620 1,896 POA 2 Saw, oY APPENDIX III APPENDIX III The 1973 landings, by State, follow. State Snapper Grouper Total (millions) Florida 65 BG 8) 254 Mississippi 30, 3) = Died Alabama 0 52 1.52 Texas ats! = 8 Louisiana - - - Total 10.6 (See Teer Other -4 me) ao Total TIO 6.6 ENG 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 extend 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 98 APPENDIX III 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 any 972F 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 Port 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. 99 APPENDIX III APPENDIX III Product form Red Red snapper Other Year Snapper Fillets snapper fillets (note a) (thousands )HJH—HaA—aW—WJHHHs—————. L952 = = 113516 = a W953 = - 7595 = —- 1954 = - 768.8 = = IL) = - 724.7 = re 9'5i6 = - PEW) 0.6 LOS a - 58946 24.4 7 1958 = - 587.6 IDEs ¥ 1959 a 202.0 314, 9 NEES) = 1960 = - 243.8 230i, 7. PIG = 376.4 Bulsiee = = 1962 = 60.4 563.8 80.5 = 1963 - 2529 SH6r & 68.5 2 Since? 1964 = ts) Ly OGSie# Nhe 1 a. 6 1965 = 142.5 896.8 360.8 99 1966 - hesied TLS 484.0 2iae 1 Deg - 94.0 SOG). 2 272ia2 Loins 1968 - 435.1 SS ee7/ - - 1969 20 392.4 33904 - oul aS ¥7/ 10) 20.6 358.4 36359 - _ Oya! Sys) 142.0 183.4 = Dire 1972 Lai. P22 208.7 29:9) 513 TSG Total 169.0 2 pAMB..2* An 6d S49 2,040.4 EEGre 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 1 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 profit- 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 boets 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 EIS Gute One le160)2 sein eo alee 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 refrigeration, 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 IIT 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 1 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 ITl 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 being: 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 United 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 GecuEN'S 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 that 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. 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. 106/107/108 APPENDIX III APPENDEX® dik PACIFIC GROUNDFISH Groundfish is the name applied to a group of fish that live on or near the ocean bottom. Most groundfish, or bot- | tom fish as they are sometimes called, are caught by the use | of trawl nets. 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 principal U.S. bottom fish fishing grounds are loca- | 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 1 Landings of Groundfish by Statc for 1973 Alaska Washington Oregon California Total Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Species (note 4) Value (note a) Value (note a) Valuc (note a) Value (note a) Valuc Cod 158 $ 37 7,747 $ 703 514 $ 45 = > 8,419 $ 785 Flounder 992 72 8,466 1,039 M2 A97) Li aa27, 32,550 3,913 54,505 6,451 Hake - - 2,482 37 78 4 34 1 2,594 42 Lingevod 91 21 2,402 253 2,326 212 3,559 389 2,378 875 Pacific Ocean perch - = 5,862 500 566 50 = = 6,428 550 Pollock - = 109 8 = = = = 109 8 Rock fish 189 35 12,&73 983 4,924 361 22,216 2,310 40,202 3,689 Sablefish Wwe at 473 578 111) 1,327 155 8,550 __ 661 12,366 1,400 votal 3,34) 9638 40,519 $3,634 22,232 $2,254 66,909 $7,274 133,001 S13,800 to in pounds. Sour loshery Stutisties of the United States, 1973 tLional Marine Pusherics Servic 110 APPENDIX III Ursr APPENDIX III Table 2 Pacific Groundfish, Year 1960 IL) GAL 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 i’) 7/dL E72 OH a/ — Includes cod, pollock, b/ — Expressed in pounds. Sources: UES Atlantic and Pacific Groundfish, flounder, rockfish, Landings and Exvessel Value of 1960-73 (note a) (round weight) Quantity (note b) Value -------- (000 omitted) --------- 108,434 SG 102,818 6,142 ai SILO 7,099 MILA pSSO 7,493 Oia 9 4: 6,926 120,604 TE S28 ILO Sis 7,936 108,596 7,418 103,166 7,058 LO S85 7,746 104,658 8,168 7, 13 8,641 124,840 ALS B95 130,407 ey 7/ S33 lingcod, Pacific Ocean perch, and sablefish. Does not include hake. Department of Commerce Basic Economic Indicators OB 2 Oi (2 Fishery Statistics of the United States, IES) 7/1 5 LS) 7/2, 1973). National Marine Fisheries Service ya APPENDIX III APPENDIX III COE EIS TAP RAL Ee) "OOTAATDS Sol -JOYSty} OUTAPW TeUCTIAeN “GL6T “809045 pojztun ou JO SoTAOMYSTy 2o09INOS $ TBE °L 6 pps‘s L68‘PE 091 809'T 9Lb'Z 719‘0z 792 SL8‘T ZL Guile - - Zs LMS Oe - - UGE 60€ ‘0S por £69'Z SASH IL GS reise eit 6eTs S0z‘T ONTRA (e& OFOU) ONTeRA (eB 330U) ae 345TOM zybToM TeWAO, soioyus ubtaioj JJO STORJeEM yTeuotzeureqjur SL6T Sip aea%) EG LS ete hies eeeeike 699 $ PE8B's 7S8'9S ONTeA (e 240U ) onTea soTtw doc 92 ZI soTtw 21 LOS‘LT CHL e BPI ’Z (e o30U) ZY4BTOM Onms “O1TQGeTTeAe Jou beaiser OS} iAl Baca Wf) T2301 ,= 74 *spunod ut possoidxg = = = (9 3 30U) /e OCT*Z$ 90S’°LT Teo, poobutyT - - (2 a70u) YysTzoTqes TOL 676‘€ (q BROU) SOYysSTFXOOY Gal 769'T (q 930U) YOOTTOd C Sz yored uedD0 OTFTOLd 60 Toe‘ eayey OTsFTORd 776 €p7'9 SIopunoTJZ oTztToOKd 1G SS Wes c poo oOTzZ TOR, ONTeA (e 930Uu) qyubTOM soltu ¢€ OF 0 saizoy uTUSTd Ss *S°Q 330 QUbNneS doUeASTC € 9TGeL *s-q Ag yustypunorzy jo sbutpuey TetToTOUMIOD sotoeds £12 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 groundfish 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, which are a primary target for Alaskan trawlers. Much of the incidentally caught groundfish is thrown away or is reduced to fishmeal. pair 3 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 o£ the world catch of groundfish in 1972 and received 65 percent of the total world exports of fillets and billocks: 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 ine alolewor 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 Year 1967 1968 1969 ILS) 7/0) 11957 1 1972 US 7/S 1974 a/ Table 4 Supply of Blocks, 1967-74 U.S. production Recent of Quantity total (note a) supply 9,004 4.5 477235 1.6 3,497 Ge 3/139 1.4 6,186 2.0 3} SOE 10 9,865 Qed 47,O2n 7 Imports Percent of Quantity total (note a) supply 189,504 D555 261,086 98.4 266,748 35 7 2127,655 98.6 Sree AGG 98.0 355)459 99.0 Pisi53,730 © 9723 266,073 eas — Expressed in thousands of pounds. b/ — Record. Source: Fisheries of the United States, 1974 National Marine Fisheries Service. 115 APPENDIX III Total supply quantity (note a) 198,508 A65 ps2 QHO 245 276,547 Sy, SSA 358,967 b/ 368,595 270,694 APPENDIX III APPENDIX III Table 5 U.S. Imports Of Fillets and Blocks 1968 and 1973 (note a) Species 1968 ez} (000,000 omitted) Cod WP), Mh 23759 Haddock 55.6 " 75.8 Atlantic perch SOR Ss 88.4 Pallas iis Atlantic 536 756 Pacific - SYS) 6) Wolf fish YES eS Pollock: Atlantic 8.4 41.9 Alaska She | 6252 Unclassified S545 47.8 Total B/ 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 IEORW. Japan B43 S32 Other countries 5) 516 3) ole Tota: B/437.0 692.5 a/ b/ — Sum does not add due to rounding. Expressed in pounds. Source: Indian Ocean Fishery Commission, United Nations Development Programme, 1974, vol. 40. 116 APPENDIX III APPENDIX IIT 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 POL ESTEEn 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 Sere 4 Sand sole alts; English sole -14 Dover sole (14" and over, 33% slime allowance) MIS} Rock sole (13" and over) -19 Rex sole = Ab} Rock cod: Ocean run LOS Red = WINS Ocean perch 5 1S Flounders -08 True cod: Round s12'5 Dressed 583 Lingcod: Round ai25 Dressed 323 Black cod: Round, under 8 pounds pales Dressed, under 5 pounds 6 BP Round, over 8 pounds = IL Dressed, over 5 pounds eae Alaska pollock -08 Minor species, such as skate, etc., handled on a local basis & 6 (0)7/ ial 7) APPENDIX IIT 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 part, 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 Puget Sound marketing 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 ye Oregon S/412 California ILLS! a/ oes not include vessels catching groundfish incidentally. Dy ast Gnd eieaniee &/ jlo7A) aaeae 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. 1) 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 dominance 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, partyboat 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 AIRS 9) 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. 12k 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 128 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 25 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 fa- 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 on 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 ina 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 fin- 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. 130 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, some 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 off Oregon and Washington. However, this has not resulted ina 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. ibs} 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. 32 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 when such fishing would preclude or greatly development of U.S. fisheries. The tradeoff governments in such situations could be our fish in areas or for stocks which currently potential for the United States. 133 foreign fleets impede the to foreign permission to have low develop- APPENDIX III APPENDIX IIT 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. However, 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. 134 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 b Location, Dollar atuan and Live Weight 1972 11973 (note a) _ 1974 (note a) Pounds Value Pounds Value Pounds Value (000 omitted) Pacific (Alaska and Hawaii): 0 to 12 miles 9,144 $ 4,438 8,521 $ 4,400 11,593 $5,812 12 to 200 miles 17,424 8,510 15,463 8,002 6,680 3,393 Beyond 200 miles 45 21 18 t 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 5,950 12 to 200 miles 17,506 8,573 15,515 8,048 6,714 3,425 Beyond 200 miles 46 21 44 31 32 —= Total 26,834 $13,153 24,196 $12,601 18,449 $9,404 a/1973 and 1974 figures are preliminary. Source: Fishery Statistics of the United States; 1960, 1965, 1970. Pisheries of the U.S.; 1972-74. 15 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 began 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 thro, ILS)7/s) fennel US) y/ZA Table 9 U.S. Halibut Landings by Port Dressed Weight (note a) Port 1973 1974 (000 omitted) Kodiak Ay ow 6) al Petersburg 2 ile: 3) OAT, Seward 2,850 1,686 Pelican 657 878 Juneau 937 769 Ketchikan 706 465 Sitka 862 463 Seattle 508 432 Others 3/082 2,997 2 Total UTZ 0 133,193'8 ‘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 J SS (thousand pounds) (pounds) 1960 40,857 3227 1961 395 578 5206 1962 38,629 7208 T3963 34,962 ak85 1964 38,587 «202 1965 34,398 ot77 1966 ai Oo «L62 1967 34,396 -174 1968 35175 -1g'6 1969 33/067 -164 1970 307152 -148 Source: Economic Research Laboratory, Fisheries Service. 137 National Marine 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 1966 86.3 1967 80.1 1968 Del 1969 99.9 1970 98.6 1971 Wil 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 IIT Ralbilkewe2 Number of U.S. Regular Vessels .in the Pacific Halibut Fishery for Selected Years Year Total regular vessels (note a) 1950 52S 1955 402 1960 3DE, 1965 209 1970 AxALAL IS) 7/ab 190 WS) 7/2 ZANT L973 US)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 wessel’s kell trom 5,786 in’ 1958" to) 628 an L974, “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 13:9 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 1 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 Uns 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 U974 the U.S. srilsheny bad. l54 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. 140 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 States. The United States appropriates funds for the Commission throuagh the Devartment 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! NowehePacwtac. | Included in the annex of the Convention are conditions of abstention for certain stocks of halibut already being exploited. The halibut originating along the 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 175° Ww. 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 1s754 We 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 APPENDIX III APPENDIX III 6° VE itis SiGe Onc Ske OG 8°92 See Ome Eee ae 8°72 i IE Se AL 8°9 rts S}OTAOS pue sseueder Aq pepueytT juscreg ANqTTeY OTFTOe JO yoReOD TeIOL c° CV CES 0°¢9 eye 0°82 6°09 8° EL 0°€8 0°08 8°6L 0°S6 0°OOT DGG L°S6 Esco L°98 (spunod JO suoTTTTwW) (Ppeuea pue peqtun) yozVo $03e4S ueoOTISUWY YUFAION “UOTSSTUMIOD 4FNQTTRH OTFTOeq TeuotzeurSequTy Dac L 8c 6°62 L 4E% te LACS ORE BaGG Gua ETGE (sp KG SIG LS 0°02 (8) yoqeO FETAOCS pue esoueder pazeutjse TeqIo, (FUbTeM BATT AO punoy) fL-8S6T S}89TA FOTAOS pue Sssoueder Aq y93eD ANGTTeEH TeIOL JO JUeOATEG €T 9TqeL wotroror = SCuoOoOtNE AONDAHM . ~Oonnmea rab! yoru 3eTAOS peqeutqisa” :901n0S 6° PT E€L6T S°8T TLET Simae TL6T Wwe OL6T 8°9T 696T (6° Shit 896T (APIA L96T (LOG) 996T v°S S96T G°9 pI6T Ee (Hak €96T 6°97 Z96T 9°62 T96T Ea8iu 096T ee) 6S6T GAS 8S6T yo urd TeaR esouedep pejzeurtijsg” 143 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 APPENDIX III 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. EEERCTS 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 yellowfin 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 1 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 19732/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 Sawa2 Masschusetts BAe 275 Rhode Island Soul EL 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 9028 $2430 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 Doe Sell: Oregon .04 -003 Total 44.63 345013 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) S239 Fish and spreads ( .02 million cases) 4 Salted: Cured and refrigerated AIS XS ho 5 Fish 8.44 By sil Roe 26 55 Eggs on kelp ao 9 Smoked ~45 52 Meal and scrap IO ©) 7/ 2 Oil 5.06 “5 Pearl essence (b) ial Bait By She: -4 Total 542.4 @Table does not include some products, such as fillets, which pwere not classified separately. Not available. Individual 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 Officuals: 149 APPENDIX III APPENDIX 7 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 ws 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 to 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 mindusiery: (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. LO 2 Ur So PeuanGanG) SiO srt amit Cm HersisaaG 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 y5d APPENDIX III APPEND EX tik 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 1 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 eqgs 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 fishing 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. ICNAF 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) maiat:on- pounds’ 4 ‘Gatch statistics ston ais 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 Tomales 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 1U.Se. vessels in the Atlantic. «NMES and *iandustry. 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 fishmeal 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 fishmeal 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 1 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 low quotas of 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 offi- 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 LS? 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 offi- 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 system 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 Augusta else el Oi7.5)- STATUS OF FISHERY Current 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 O MEO m2 landings Total Miles 2 EO 2 010 Total Value Year (note a) Miles Landings (Exvessel) (millions) 1960 29.3 1S hig ah Sans 1961 257 Des 280 Aro 1962 26.8 Ped 29555 USS S(0) 1963 2S Be 0 SOS 16.8 1964 26.9 Areal: silks © 19.9 1965 24°55 Saa7 HO 5A 2210 1966 2I5R6 Bo 295 212.33 1967 D2. ARS 265 Dawe 1968 Pag e's) 4.9 S244 Daye |S: 1969 26.8 Ho 333h5 8 2OF0 1970 A Sy5 AL 8.4 83}55 335 LOT ZaS9 8.4 33.3 SiS) 5, 1 1972 26 Tea Ql 23 a6 1973 (note b)23.9 bya 29.0 AneAG 1974 (note b)22.4 Bic is} DBS 42.4 1975 (note b) 23.2 ye 29.0 49.1 2) 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. >) preliminary data. 162 APPENDIX IIT APPENDIX III TABLE 2 1975 American Lobster Landings by State (note a) Percent State Pounds Value pounds = (000 omitted) Maine 17 ONES Sil pane 58.6 New Hampshire 510 918 1.8 Massachusetts Soa 97, 142 ORO Rhode Island 3,643 6,545 126 Connecticut 647 eral 2 DSB New York 669 1,400 Dae New Jersey 850 D> 2.9 Delaware 2, 48 al Maryland 59 106 52 Virginia 91 165 =3 North Carolina - = = Total 29,036 $49,090 100 a/ — Preliminary data Table 3 shows a 10-year history of the U.S. and Florida spiny lobster landings including Florida catch from domestic and foreign waters. The Florida spiny lobster catches grew steadily to a peak of 11.4 million pounds in 1972 and then declined in succeeding years due to increasing harvesting restrictions by the Bahamian Government. The overall trend for catches in Florida waters has been gradually upward. (See table 4). Preliminary statistics for 1975 show a decline in landings from Florida waters. The major portion of the decline is attributed to unilateral actions by the Bahamian Government prohibiting a U.S. spiny lobster harvest in the continental shelf waters of Bahama. On August 1, 1975, U.S. fishermen were displaced from fishing the continental shelf waters of Bahama. Bahama de- clared the spiny lobster a creature of their continental shelf making it unlawful for other nations to fish them. Negotiations with the Bahamian Government have proved fruit- less, and as a result about 800 fishermen in the Florida area are unemployed. About 50 vessels are now working the shelf areas off Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua. How long this will be permitted by these countries is not known. 163 APPENDIX III APPENDIX III ~S$i07eM ubterzo0z woz4 jusoieg Ome Saas) Seay, ey) 6°S CaS J 8) ts} 47 iy {3 EV wots ho) cae Rei eve ONC Sac (3) UE Cu as OFT EN? (SUOTTTTU) ubtero0 wolrg J szezeEm 2T3seuUop wolrg spunog *eqep AzeUuTWTTeAd “serous *S*M WOTJ seTtw QOz 03 dn szo0jeEm sopntour ,, L6 9°6 Gir 6°6 LEE (q 8}F0U) GLET S8 2 teal 6°OT Se Sil Gical (q 930U) PLET 86 otal C SLT OV PAIL Pe Wal (G 830U) ELET L6 Sibi i= 101 Shacae GaGa CLOT L6 Oe Co Sie 6°8 LEA S6 6°S 6°6 tee 8) Ga OM OL6T 98 €°s OIL €=9 8°8 696T c8 0°? GS) v°sS GS°L 896T T6 Le 0°? Get 6°° LV6L 76 S°Z v°s Gia 8°S 996T 76 (AMS AS tee ts) 9°E S$ Cae S96T (SUOTTT TU) spunog onTeA Spunog Teo Si03eM (© 930U) (SpuNod) °S°h oenNTeA JO zUueD7Eg sbutpuelT eptazoOTaA TeIOoOL eptz0Td FJJO SA93eM UbTSeIOY woijz pue uT sSbutpuey zeqsqoT ‘eptazoTd ‘*s°n € ATavL sbutpuet ers) 10 TROL 164 APPENDIX IIT APPENDIX III TABLE 4 1975 Spiny Lobster Landings by State (note a) Percent State Pounds Value Pounds (000 omitted) Florida 7,485 2) SO 7! 98 California 165 330 2 Hawaii 4 7 Totals 4 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 7S) 7,103 904 1965 ti nrasy 69 88 7,409 949 1966 6,858 56 87 7,001 947 1967 6,720 58 135 6,913 908 1968 ged 78 150 7,225 966 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 2,459 2/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 LESH OOG 1966 376 ld ig 488 T5000 1967 388 140 528 digs Noyes aS) 1968 187 265 452 168,390 IGS 255 205 440 164,655 1970 266 226 492 21977 LO UST 250 279 520 225,862 O72 205 324 SiS 272,495 £973 269 402 671 304,490 1974(note a) N/A N/A 658 405,700 a/ — 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 essentiallv 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 $0.75 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 fisnermen Trawl fishery Pot fishery trawl and pot Year on vessels On vessels On boats and shore fisheries Regular Regular Casual eae 1964 365 92 3,708 Oral 8,236 1965 425 96 3,794 4,999 8,405 1966 414 fad 3,847 3,636 7,974 1967 636 81 3,823 3,563 8,103 1968 lal Si 3,948 Spa 8,561 1969 669 164 4,035 4,079 8,947 1970 633 218 4,639 4,541 10,031 972 518 395 4,927 4,357 10,197 1972 346 511 5,166 eo y LO tS 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 eas 1964 109 381 118 608 1965 106 469 50 625 1966 PAS 5s 36 801 1967 299 621 234 947 1968 690 288 23 de OOw 1969 509 347 29 885 1970 598 441 20 O59 1971 746 358 45 1,149 1972 902 379 41 yoee 1973 Ib db sis) 411 30 Ali sy a/c! 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. lobster fishery Off U.S. coasts by foretgn £tsher— 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 and 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 over 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 aia 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. 1/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. LR2 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 1 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) 323) 3=27/16 SILAGE no regulation FPREWOoO 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 1975 Massachusetts enacted legis=- 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- cumstances. The legislation also provides for a lobster fishery study to develop rules and 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. a7 7/ 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- Panic cOasitsi. 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 is 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--1ll 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 ine SiGmacite ms 519 dare OS OO Ompomuncdss 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 the amount of effort. 178 APPENDIX III APPENDIX sila 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 ehe L970, Ovi sand 97/4 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 IIT 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 “keed- 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. /eathe liquids are centrifuged to separate the oil and stickwater. Stickwater is further reduced by evaporation to Tex 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) LIGOr “4236, 846 is19 7202 sae wOOrs2 999 183,403 Sil sse 1965, 351,918. 625,869 146,360 4,666 175), 204 areas 1970 377,100 34,658 WAS) sip se! SG, 263 ons 197i “442 008 S45 :9169 IA) GUE, Sn 7/7) 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 fishmeal 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, tame. 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 tonnage. 182 APPENDIX III APPENDIX IIT The vessels are highly specialized and fish during daylight hours in relatively shallow waters, generally about 1 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 NoreEhs Carolinas talaly fas hermyeam s1l9W7i5i. --10 were 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 47355 - LIIGS 25722 - 1970 2,066 909 USI Z oe 899 ib) 7/3} 1,850 ih al aS) 1974 N/A i 65 The guality 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 fishing zone in 1966 effectively prevented the entrance of foreign fishing fleets into the Atlantic and Gulf States men- haden fisheries. Atlantic The Atlantic menhaden fishery is under no formal manage- ment scheme. There are no regulations controlling either totaly eltorte or cateh- 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, TET APPENDIX IIT 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 l1- 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 on the 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 ‘Vs'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 industrv 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. He 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 fish in catches. --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. Gulf 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- sing. 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 IIT 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 commercial purposes. STATUS OF THE FISHERY Current hares 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 lohe latest data available was used in all cases. HSN 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 ILS)5\0) sete) AL) 7/S}- Table 1 U.S. ster Landings By Region, 1950-75 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 11,680 774 5iL5 1956 50,692 13,513 11,928 75,134 1957 45,689 14,307 11,662 71,658 1958 44,753 10,407 W233 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 Spb r4sc) 1967 30,471 21,747 Uae) 59,957 1968 Zips 26,739 Neg 10 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 517931 1974(mote b) 27,565 13,652 3,656 44,873 1975(note b) 26,547 19,639 6,977 53,163 *some total figures do not add due to rounding. > preliminary. IWS) 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 in 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 Fresh and Year frozen (note b) EIS 1956 US 7) ILQ)S 8) ILS) 58) 1960 UQDEAL 1962 1EIIGS 1964 1965 1966 LEOIGY/ 1968 IGS LNG LS) 7/AL WS) U7 3} if a —Source: bf Table 2 APPENDIX III Quantity and Value of Oyster Imports to the United States, (Meat weight (pounds) ) Canned (note c) Total (000 omitted) 23 1,368 141 ROR 86 2,489 aS 5,002 4 ap DOIG 64 G55 oD) WE NGZ HO 71,282 IN, O35 Te Owel: 743 yA 968 8,003 854 Wpdey/ 2,686 14,986 2,066 13,484 OZ WS) 5) 50) 1 DIS 1S 721016 905 8,790 Bp DAW UY) 7 HY) IE teh UG 7 (9.4L ib erejal 28 Pp, Sl) Sy OS 57 DAN DD) Lp Ak yy Sis) 7) 8,906 8,154 9,001 DOS UA POU” 1S), 5) 50) LG) 1622 15,484 DACs 227,09 18,508 Value 1955-73(note a) (all forms) 686 869 1,028 Wp SiS 7/ pos 2,302 2,496 2,883 3,706 377320 3,842 5,054 Gy 9s2 (9) SAKE: TAs) D7 356 Fp 15,842 12,30) Imports and Exports of Fishery Products, Bureau OL CensusmloS5=vier —Conversion factor for imported oysters to meat weight is ORD C/onversion 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 irom 5,97 2aEOms), S02. 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 o£ the Gulf States" production, respectively. “fhe 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. Iey ALS) 7/7 26 (Gu atsweA 7] 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 196 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 bécome 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- eiealauil GooiIkbEsloin 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 WS) APPENDIX IIT 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, quilt, 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, anda 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. im one, State, about, 130,000, acres” of Sheii— 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 highly 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 IIT 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. 201 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. 203 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 the 1972 U.S. commercial salmon catch by species and by State. 204 APPENDIX III APPENDIX III “YOOQTBSR TPOTISTILIS ZL6T UOTSSTWWIOD SAaTIJaYySTY OTJTOeG YRION TeuCT}eUIaAUT :90an0Sg SS8‘T LOT’? L9G SZ *butTpunodr o4 enp ppe jou Aew stej0L/q “ySTJ jO siequnu ut passaidxg/e VZ6‘ST 098°L 992 LE (q syou) Teron C60 8ST = G*0> = 0S9 eBTULOFTTED VZE G76 T G*0> ev 60° 1 uobez0 987 esa. S68 v Bee 798’€ uojbutysem L8Z 60S‘T 7v6'2 OOP C0 LT6 7SO’8T uzeqzses -YU4no0S Gd TSC HL DPE’E E40. e LEv‘6 Tez4Us) WiaG OL Loe - HEAL 009’Z 890'P urI34S9OM EGS TESY T G90‘L 026‘ST 0659 6S6‘TE PYSETY (pe3z4TWO 000) yYOoouTtuod OyuoD wnyod yUutTd akayoos Sotoeds IlW so3eas setoseds (2 930U) ZL6T AOF YORLD uowTes TetozreuMi0oD °s‘n T SToed 205 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 OLvdollaxrSm eo 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 of Major Salmon Products for 1972 (in millions of dollars) Salmon products Value Canned $ 89.8 Caviar--egg roe Lies Smoked 5.6 Fresh/frozen Sod 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 beheaded, 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 macnines 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 ceéncs 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) UsSs exports of iSalmon—-—-freshy, Exozen, 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 frozen salmon. Pushing, Elect ; 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 otealy, exclusive Type Washing- Can OL dupia— of gear Alaska ton Oregon fornia cation (note a) Purse seine 1,048 192 (b) (c) I ke Gillnet (anchor) 2,525 33S) iL 199 (c) 31/055 Gillnet (dbase) 405! 1,476 514 (c) Bp G2 roel: 7895 2 UOS as 1b OS 7570S Moveeil Sil) 4,102 DAD Lp gos 17,869 a/ — 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. 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 OV 2(norema) Washing- Cali- Alaska ton Oregon fornia Total Purse Seine 5,360 PES (b) (c) 6,021 Gillnet (anchor, set, stake) 2516 417 199 (c) Syely hy Gillnet (dist fe) 749,860 1,689 514 (c) 6,964 Atseoyl tl By ad Shp SZ 2 a0 3,590 ALA 15) 5) 2 Totaly — 16543 65S ass By 910 28,709 a/ 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. b/ oe 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 1 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.1/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 the Congress 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 1/Pigure 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 commer- 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 regqularvons and) the Slate law awe a= 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. PML APPENDIX III APPENDIX III Alaska's current limited entry program became effective on ApPEPIN? 7, 1973. tm W297 Sttehes Commission rTegul atedrentry stor 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- eries 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 22 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. Government and Indian tribes in the mid-1850s. These treaties provided, Zales APPENDIX III APPENDIX III in language similar to the following from the Medicine Creek Treaty, that: "The argh tio jcaking) Ei Shi- at ‘all sire) tand tac= 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 ‘curmg SPI” = CHOY States, HIS 2)) 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) aftfd, 520 °F 2d 676° (9th Cir; 1975) decided in Tacoma, Wash= INgeOn On Hebruanys ler to742 "On idune 45 1975 - sehesuese 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 Seprenbers ws 1970 Ene US a DAR teieC Em COU Oyemthe nm Uiors 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 grounds and stations," which he defined as "* * * 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 iran eregieccediae..- 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 at should be noted. F2rsit® Ehe Coure Stricely, Jam tedmiene 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 225 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 EORDUSpercenteoOrethewhanrvest Of Columbial Raver 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 occurring 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 216 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 miilion 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 are widely accepted throughout the United States and processors have not found expansion to other product forms necessary. 217 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- Cadi. 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, do 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 gillnets. 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 IIT 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 175° 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 WP M APPENDIX IIT APPENDIX III JILNVILVY LSAMHLYON JHL 4O SGNNOYD ONIHSIS dO1IV9S V3S YOrVW SS 209 9 eZ Gas ee ee ee ee ES Ee ES ES ; * JONNOSMAN as} afjag 40 401s “L AUNDIS 222 APPENDIX III APPENDIX III TOTAL SCALLOP LANDINGS (MILLION POUNDS) BAY SCALLOP LANDINGS 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 (CALENDAR YEAR) FIGURE 2. SCALLOP LANDINGS 223 APPENDIX III APPENDIX S si lek 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 1975 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 = = - = So 3,019 13S Rhode Island 104 194 = = = = 104 194 Ae) New York 270 389 444 713 = = 714 1,102 4.9 New Jersey 711 son = = = = 711 1,391 6.2 Maryland 4 6 = - = = 4 6 = Virginia 1,266 2,324 - - = = 1,266 2,324 10.4 North Carolina = = 139 VT = = 139 111 So Florida = = 15 ll 1,400 812 1,415 823 Slat, Washington 1 N/A = = 1 N/A ~ Alaska 403 520 = = 403 520 28 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 *Preliminary 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 eRfarcienit=. 224 APPENDIX III APPENDIX III 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 11'5)5) ILS Ib IL 333! 1962 IYAAL 1963 95 1964 93 1965 IL5)5} 1966 23 1967 WIL 1968 F/O) 1969 149 1970 82 iS) 7/1. 76 1972 90 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 226 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 SUS) WS at a ois) 1962 41 1963 - 46 1964 255 ENGIS - 66 1966 -48 1967 o 1G 1968 1.08 1969 1.04 19) 7/0) le Ze Lg) 7/al 1.41 WE) WZ WG Ss) I7s 1.69 UO) 7a Wn BP 17S Legs 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) ———____—______(900 omitted) 1965 16,495 10,643 22,801 14,976 39,296 25,619 42 1966 Ni, AW 8,375 19,612 9,666 36,324 18,041 46 1967 13,461 9,314 12,750 Oy lsh26),.20n 18), 45 0 51 1968 EAN5 81 55709) 15,398" 6, 721129,979 —~ 32,420 49 1969 1A 322A GS Anse G25) 92) 25262579 41 eee 0), DOG 55 1970 16,830 19,666 10,837 12,403 27,667 32,069 61 Ie) 7Al 17-389" 25, 9382007226, 1351629) 277,685) “35,5611 63 1972 20,820 36,194 10,401 17,489 31,221 53,683 67 1973 19/8338) s3,625 7,972 13,1989 27/805) 946, 823 qat 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 22,3567 32,821 (59,539 60 “Expressed in percent. Preliminary 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, imereased from 59\ am, 1966 to 294 in 1972:f° Since seal liops 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) Flshing is) alminor activaty, and has Hattie effect on the commercial harvest of sea scallops. Management control Wa chin thess—mate territorial limit juris- duction authority over scallops. PREGA es ai reece have Sea scallop regulations, given the limited availabilit 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 APPENDIX III APPENDIX IIT 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 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 support, were planning to 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. Aithough no MSY has been established, an NMFS official estimates that it is 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 AND 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 initiate 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 WaSnlEs Wisks))c 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. PS\l APPENDIX IIT 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 Geaqrges 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- tan: to their tinaneral stability. DS 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 data, 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. 2333 APPENDIX III APPENDIX III The greatest portion of Gulf shrimp are harvested by Louisiana and Texas fleets in these States. State 1972 1973 1974 1975 SSS SSS 000-ont Eted==—==>->->—— == Florida, west coast 2218218 AGS, 28,462 28,168 Alabama Ie, 549 12,019 1350122 14,056 Mississippi PpQSail 3,681 i, SHG 4,044 Louisiana 887,082 58,648 59,581 BS) pn llsia! Texas OMe, SNe 81,720 78,677 70,509 Total 223319338 182,205 Ils) 5) 7 Sere), INS) Sabal 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 OLE Florida - - - - 105,009 Mexico off Texas 783,000 83,820 - - 225,000 Cuba off Texas = - LO O00 et O00 7665) ,000 234 APPEND exe tsielon APPENDIX IIIf Atlantic coast The North Atlantic northern shrimp fishery was closed indefinitely on April 15, 12976, by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Stocks had been declining at an alarming rate and landings had dropped sharply since 1972.) In 1975), 122.7 million pounds or’ shrimp worth oo 2 million were landed. Recommendations for 1977, if any, will be made to the Commission after a review of the fishery dur- img’ the: Lady of) 19:7'6.. 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 £11 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 4.3 Cooked 10.1 9.0 Breaded 3601 337, Specialties 4.4 3.0 91.2 90.0 Canned: Regular 8.0 5) Specialty cal 4 Se 0.7 Other: (Smoked, sun-dried, scrap, and meal) 7 3 Total 100.0 100.0 236 APPENDIX IIT 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 Siwheae) Atiers 0 0.8 15 il ts} Cooked On La 354 Sig 562 B16 Breaded ZO7 1Lf3}5 3} Sra0) 3.6 9.0 8.8 Specialties Oe Orn cai ic 2 Ib a0) 0.6 5258} 60.7 7.4 HAD ALS cad as Canned 55 @ Tae SiGi0 223 - - Total 64.3 Guid 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. a7 APPENDIX III APPENDIX IIT 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 Toa an additional pound or more was imported (except in In 1974 the United States imported a record 228.9 mil- IVOnePOUNdS RO: sShialmpmWwOGbEh nos 67.5 eli One impo rseSesaia 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 1972 (except 1967 and 1970), then jumped dramatically in 1973. 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. --1954 - Resulted from increase in domestic landings of record levels. 238 APPENDIX III APPENDIX III --1959-60 - Resulted from increased landings augmented by the largest annual increment in imports during the period. --1963 and 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- IT). 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, ene 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. 239 APPENDIX III APPENDIX III 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*1s 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 = ,394 Gulf of Mexico 4,848 411 S209) 7134 45 7179 Pacific 4) 33: 37 184 65 249 = ul u Total 6,088 575 6,663 6,897 110 ~ , 007 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 fishermen On boats Regular Casual On vessels North Atlantic 8) 7/5) IEC)7/ 550 South Atlantic 5119 818 37, OBE Gulf of Mexico 4,787 2 7343 1377 6085 Pacific coast 38 Ie) 730 Total Sy AES Snow NE PAS 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. 241 APPENDIX III APPENDIX If 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 rule. 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 NMFS 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 Snide eienale esi: 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 for 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 on 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 244 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 that -the gulf fishery ds “operating at’ or néartthe MSvaq 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 OA. APPENDIX III APPENDIX III A recent innovation in the Atlantic has been the intro- duction, of metal. traps, similar to, lobster traps.) 7Use, of these traps makes 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 habi- tat and to harvest as they emerge. The objective LS to) Gl) ssinerease caicch) per Unie eHrore (2) sspLO= 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 ITI 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 Tit APPENDIX III 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 IIT 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 1S 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 1l 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 IIT 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 on 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 Gaught, by U.S. fishing craft,/Ofbe U.S. Shores: are am che wo] 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 signiticant in relation to U.S. vesselvactiy— 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 inwWese 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’ they£ishery. ~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- ers' 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 IIT 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 form Ji percent of) the, otal. 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 tunajicatch, and an 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. SATUS OR GH Ey ARES HER 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 oF fornemgn, shores)... ( senirediatswon: co 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 regicns 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 Soa es ie ee GOO) Ci skis BS 1970 393,494 b 84,852 478,346 ILS) 7/Al 346,146 5128,770 474,916 1972 387,032 b147,668 534,700 IO)7/s: SAG Swill 17,2, 492 Bybe) P05 8) 1974 386,185 GOO Sil SUS)? 1975 39 Ag b177,100 568,249 a Expressed in vounds. 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, L975" 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 Olly, for va total value of S939 74emielilvon. (Canneds cunams 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 BS} 5 8} 1968 Aa 2 S240 DP? BAS) IS) 7/al 43.8 BA9 Aah 3 1974 ABS Are: 16.4 Source: Tuna Research Foundation iss) UI On ee 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 ba Year loins & discs lipo ei) abs loneshinss Total 1970 464,583 15S 72,109 536,845 ILS) 7/ak 506,602 1,050 SNe 1/ DP 566,444 OWE 764,784 384 56729 S22 729.7, IDWS 816,739 244 38,382 855,365 1974 838,889 2313 Dp SUS) 8917635 OS 486,795 Lee 51,472 538,466 a Expressed in pounds. Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, "Fisheries of the United Stakes L975." 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 prices 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. Pushing pt leet 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- fin 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 Aa a EEO APPENDIX III APPENDIX III fishing concentrated in the eastern Pacific off Centrai 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 NMESVotiicrvall coilld uss that tuna trolversefalshmp iri = 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 Emp loyment 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) 1035 ema inion pounds 97/07 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 TATIC ss LunctLong Se toms Situdyetroprcaly teunac ance others 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 EASTERN PACIFIC YELLOWFIN TUNA REGULATORY AREA « UNITED STATES oo 7 MEXICO bit f ') a INDURAS TE oe 5 mpehens ECUADGR oh EXPERIMENTAL AREA OPEN TO YELLOWFIN FISHING iN 1973 AND 1974 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 billfishes 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 FAO. 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 less 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 O£ the skipjack. (Seeyp. 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 TIT 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 aU.S. Jom Gusit) erator, 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 veastern Pacitve.) Sihis led Gtopaidzopyan catch permcon of U.S. fleet, capacity from) 5.03 42ons, ing L967. £0, 22064cens 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’ seeateh 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 an order “ve 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) Erom) overs 3007000. 4n, 1972, to 179),000.in 1973.4 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 Ol aehnem Dis taste sCouUmeuS HEU Ingn TOmtnew Lhload yCrraCunte ss COurat 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- fin 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. j 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 1 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 yellowfin 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 yellowfin 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 yellowfin 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 yellowfin 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. EFEECTS 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 IIT --Reduced 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 COSsirEs: 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 IATTC 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 IIT 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 WPF BSS) Alabama as S010 88,689 Florida 28,853,900 2G 7307 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). Palshang: Eleecs: 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. How- 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. 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 AND 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 721] 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 fact- 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\ofethe ws: COaSi SOs sess rarsiis 273 APPENDIX IIT APPENDIX iif 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) LO 7a 8.4 Low 1972 Oma Selle 1973 hs 2 Ita 1974 NO=6 Ih 3 1975 9.0 is 2 274 APPENDIX III APPENDIX III Annual Production by the Industrial Bottomfish Fishery Northern Gulf of Mexico 1971-75 Thousands Wear Dollars of tons tS 7a Ile / 45.4 1S) 7) 72 15 77 ADS 1973 2) 50.8 1974 Deol 5226 OW Del 5. 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. 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 1945 but declined precipitously in succeeding years partly due to overfishing but mainly to several abrupt climatic changes that either killed the croaker or drove them out of | their traditional area of abundance. In 1967 large croaker suddenly appeared in considerably large quantities, and a fishery was established in the gulf with ready markets along the Chesapeake Bay. Fishing fleets Presently 21 vessels operate fulltime in the industrial bettomfish fishery. These vessels range in length from 60 to 90 feet, with carrying capacities from 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 vessel operators and processors. About eight of the vessels are owned by the processors. Ate the sitar oO seher ttshemy sine W677, sehiestoodirssin 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 PAL 26 Typical vessel length (feet) 90 78 Horsepower 470 350 Capacity (tons) IL} 41 80 Replacement value of fleet $4,675,000 S37 D0 F000 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 fishing 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- weed? 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. ATT APPENDIX III APPENDIX IIT 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, uti hizing, born smali sand. large trrsh forthe 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 EOM dessin 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 L£rishing 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 2D APPENDIX III VN = oat dy De >, Gs i 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 a (al ONS! Dy ep Thread herring 33! i333: 199 266 Scaled sardines 406 101 WS 203 Round herring 836 209 Sys} 417 Aggregate potential yield 443 64 886 “Based on 2 or more years of data. Dvields 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 offload 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- ilodically 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 CANADA PRESENT SITUATION AND TRENDS IN THE CANADIAN FISHING INDUSTRY In 1973 Canada's harvest ranked 15th among the world's fishing natvons, buc only Ehard ane 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 1 percent of Canada's labor force, in certain sec- tions of the country the industry 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. —-—iInstabimrey of the andustry . --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 fa- 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- grams 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 increasing 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- enews, IF N87 o 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 2S 2 Secon g9 2316 100 and over SS Total SoS 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 on 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 compensate 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 37559 15 Flounder 314.6 a2 Salmon __ 244.9 10 2,109.4 83 All others ene peti Total 2,238.8 100 Percent of Specie grouping Value total value (millions) Salmon 5 95.5 32 Cod 42.8 14 Lobster 40.6 14 Flounder S25 1 Herring _21.4 7 Za2eo 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 £ish preduction.on the, Atlantic Coase: 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 EaoMer Type of fish product Percent of total Frozen 53 Fresh PAL Cured 16 Canned 80) Total 100 290 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 waters, 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- Cente an 19/4 cons 4410s maione 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 1 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 bye 15:38 1s./Sp ima Dailsarone. 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. 29:2 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 million2/ 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 1/ The Canadian fiscal year is from April 1 to March 31. 298 APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV fishing vessel at least 35 feet in length. Provincial govern- ments also provide subsidies and loans of varying amounts ONS 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 i, 9/4, pruLces for fishermen: -(Si2. mil aon). 294 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 295 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 SitteaGdalye tor 5),15 9 Om saree Sere = 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. DS) 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,° >; gnghodl 0-50 6,683 6,822 Syl S0) 379 399 IESE 1)(0)0 61 96 Total 7 Les pcg 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 4769 since '972" co [5200-745 Aboute4 -O0UNGE 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 usually 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 value of the catch has more than doubled from $101 milidon=/ 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, 7722, maiaiivony pounds lof; pllance,§ 7/0) 52mosaion" pounds) Oe 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 ree consistency, we selected the following conversion rates and applied them throughout the Denmark profile. 1970 Si) 7 2 Onnronmers 1973 Siie=— oO Sekenoners 1971 Sil =s 6 9S keeomer 1974 Sl = 6.09 Kroner 1972 Sil — 62 So) heonet- 300 APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV the export market. Quality controls, including licenses is- sued to processors, are issued by the Fisheries Ministry. Fish processing facilities 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 301 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 suBpassed) 10" biiievon pounds) tn bothr 197 0handego 717 de- ereased, Eo. 9s bidslvon, pounds! ain) L972) and Eo) Sia25 bial lavon 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 supply Exports consumption consumption Available for human consump- tion 659 369 1,028 672 356 35 Animal feed and other purposes 3,386 255 3,641 Arete) 806 22 Total 4,045 624 4,669 3,507 G2 2 Danish fishery exports in 1974 increased by 6 percent in weight and 14 percent in value over 1973 figures. The 1974 data is shown below by commodity.1L Denmark's Fish and Shellfish Exports - 1974 US. Commodity Pounds dollars (Thousands) (Fresh or frozen: Cod, except fillets 42,216 $ 19,290,968 Cod, fillets and blocks 75,007 Si 2 oreo Codlike species, fillets and blocks 14,513 7,684,729 Flatfish fillets 17,668 157, 2a 30 Eels 8,104 13,434,646 Herring, whole 50,840 10,286,371 Herring, fillets 97,961 27,8397 737 Pond trout PAS Sy 4e) 25, Lan, Los 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 8151025 $449,876,500 1V/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 S259) O59 vanO 5y7/ Sweden 156,630 ial 48,269,280 at Switzerland 48,298 4 24,880,620 6 United States 45,962 3 310),.92)5) 14a 7/ Other countries PVT A TS ile SiG 4153879 9 Total WP SS OAS 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 Government 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 INGUSiEGy > 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- iedjis,itrom 10 toy 15.years. Firteen percent’ orethne Snd-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 period is’ i5 years for bualidings 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 Oise Guay ieoreell COE, Wie WEIS intone Winall ably 1, W745 elves 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 Ueisie Wises wally, ILS) 7/5,. 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 306 APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV fishing of North Sea herring be banned in 1976. Denmark 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. 307 APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV JAPAN PRESENT SITUATION AND TRENDS IN THE JAPANESE FISHING INDUSTRY Japan's 974 fish catch of 2323 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 billiom 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 Percentror Type of fishery Quantity (note a) total eogerat fisheries Ay e220. 6 Ij/ee Offshore fisheries hips AeA ene) SiGig J Distant water fisheries Siletiome SG Inland water fisheries and cultures 394.6 he 7 Marine cultures 1,940.0 Spee Total 223) pho 2 100.0 “Expressed 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 number 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- Elvanteest 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 basednonwpas = sleveihoricatehes. 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 Offa URS. bottomilsh andusitzy.: 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 1 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 category. Stal 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 inthe following table. Harvest (pounds harvested per Country gross ton of vessel) Norway SyeOnts) United States 16,645 Japan IL3) AiO) Spain 6,900 Soviet Union Pi) AU) 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 Dietisiter 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 Eom 70/0),000) am 955 co less) teham S00) 0010, any oi em 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 33 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 LOZ 1974 increase Fisheries worker S75 333 Seo D010 295 Agricultural worker 7,000 Ils SS ibs Y) City worker 5, 835 Ses} 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 Ary 4.1 Inland and marine cultures a! Deas Offshore 5D N52 Distant water S57 Beet 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. 314 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 GreaD BY 6B Mackerel Ps) 22 Sardines, herring 0 4.2 Skipjack, frigate mackerel 8 3:4 Flounder, halibut ac ye! Tunas 8 3.4 Sand lance 7 DS Anchovy 6 25 Mollusks (squid, octopus, shell- fish) a9 8.0 Crustaceans (crab, lobster, shrimp) wh 1G Other species (in- eluding cultures) 7.4 Silke Total PSV ats 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 a Hal she 3 Tunas 673 WI AS Cod, pollock S72 6.4 Crustaceans 301 Sr Salmon, trout 261 als) Skipjack, frigate mackerel 247 4.3 Mackerel PU} 36 7/ Flounder, halibut 191) S05) Other species (including cultures) Dey ar 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 andshalabue, (Gis45 5 mil ivonspounds)), cunas (27.9) mslaen 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 remaining 17 percent was used for nonfood products, D S35 Ih ital ILilakoyiny, jororulinvelS 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 peneent. 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- ing. 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. 317 APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV Fresh and frozen shrimp accounted for 36 percent, $1.1 billion, Of Japan's fish) imports, an 1974.5 Other: hagh=vaiue import items included fresh and frozen skipjack tunas and other fish, 35 percent, salted dried and smoked fish, 12 per- ecent,, prepared Fish, 6 percent,* andj dave fish, 6 percent. The Main sources of imports were as follows. percent ot 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 244 percent. Following are Japan's major fish pro- ducErexpomess: Percent of total Major exported 1974 product export value Canned mackerel Whos Canned tunas 14.4 Canned salmon 6.4 Frozen tunas, marlins, and skipjack 2EO Other frozen fish Dalig jk 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 value Major export products United States 30.8 Canned tunas and mackerel, frozen tunas and other fish Netherlands Tweed: Canned salmon, whale oil and fat United Kingdom 5.4 Canned salmon and tunas Australia 4.2 Canned salmon, frozen fish Philippines Ay sul 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. 39 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. 320 APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV 1D Port facilities--$284 million--subsidizes local and prefectural government projects for the construction and rehabilitation of fishing ports and other coastal facilities. 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. International affairs--$26.2 million--includes funds transferred to the Overseas Fishery Cooperation Foundation and to the Japan Marine Resource Research Cenizerss: Vessel loss and disaster insurance--$25.2 million-- provides subsidies to insurance cooperatives for com- pensation of vessel losses and disaster damages. Price stabilization--$25.1 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. 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. 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. BZ 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 carries 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. 328 APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV MEXICO PRESENT SITUATION AND TRENDS IN THE MEXICAN FISHING INDUSTRY Mexico, although not a major fishing nation, is antici- 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 1 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 arrangements with nations which have established or may establish 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- Guile Eovcarmny lout 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 IV operate on the high seas. The high seas fleet, by fish- ery, follows: Fishery Number Shrimp i955 Finfish 261 Sardine 68 Tuna 2A Cod 2 Total DSO) 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, AND 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 @tess 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 atter “a 60—"“to 90-day, fr1shung Erp, earns, about $4,000. A tuna boat captain earns about $18,500 annually. MAJOR 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 30 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- Eaonr SIZE AND COMPOSITION OF THE HARVEST Mexico produced less than 1 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. Bi2y APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV Rencenite Or Species Quantity total harvest (million pounds) Shrimp (includes prawn) GOES 16 Herring (includes sardine, pilchard, and anchovy) 499 iS Redfish (includes snook, grouper, snapper, and mojarras) 94.8 10 Oyster 68. Tuna (includes wahoo, sierra king, mackeral, ioe) ~ and skipjack) OOo! whl Subtotal 540.0 5)/5) 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) Se falit2 50 Redfish (includes snook, grouper, Snapper, and morjarras) IMS 5 7/ We Tuna (includes wahoo, sierra king, mackerel, and skipjack) ILON9 8 Herring (includes sardine, pilchard, and anchovy) LOG 7 8 Oysters Sree Le Subtotal IIL 5 7 80 All other 290 20 Total S4Ayil . 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. PROCESSING 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. imrpd973-—supplying this posievs 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 7 percent 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. e 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 TS Sy 2 1553 Ww) 7/11 AMI EO 2 Dic ILNY2 194.0 oS 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) ISS! 74 $60.3 1970 83 TAPES m7: 93 7950 1972 102 88.6 97 3 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's 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 Emades Shl 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 eas trade surplus Rate of growth (millions) (1969 = 100) 1969 $47.8 100 1970 5 Oe 105 gy 56.7 WAL, UTZ Oir2 147 VO'AS 32) oH 11.337) 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--51l-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. 382 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 1978s 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 uot 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 focd 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 Pewoenits --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). 335 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. 336 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 1010) -Eo" 4919 27,025 434,294 5OOMEO IIS 781 494,518 Over 1,000 710 1 876),.230 37 DUG 2,804,942 Fishing support vessels (a) E27) 25, 80 55, OdaZ Total 4,043 5,610,014 2Information 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. Shey APPENDIX 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 vessels have been successful. The number of fishermen in 1974 was about the same as it was in 1913 yet the 1974 har- vest was about nine times greater than the 1913 harvest. Moreover, 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 set. NMFS projects that through 1980 the Soviet Union will continue to modify and expand its fleet, emphasizing large fishing and support fishing vessels. An indicator used by NMFS to measure the productivity of fishing fleets is the ratio between the catch and the gross registered tons of the vessels. Using this indicator, NMFS 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 Pea sgEOss com of vessel) Norway 327, 62's United States 16,645 Japan Sy 1G09 Spain 6,900 Soviet Union 2,910 Using the same productivity measure, the fishing fleets of all remaining fishing nations, as a group have a producti- vity level about nine times greater than that of the Soviet fleet. Regardless of the merit of the productivity measure used by NMFS, 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 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 ses ac leer 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 fisheries and cooperatives is not available. Data through 1968 is pro- vided below. Percent of harvest 1940 44 56 100 50 47 5S 100 1960 70 30 100 1965 HU 23 100 1968 74 26 100 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 fishing industry representing less than 1 percent of the total Soviet 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. 339 APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV Wages earned by Soviet fishermen are often two or three times higher than the average Soviet worker's salary. In 1975 deck hands could earn up to $600 a month while the average Soviet worker earned less than $200 a month. Soviet fishing vessel captains are paid over $1,000 monthly. Productivity is a basic factor used in determining the wage paid to a member of the fishing industry. Other factors, such as location and duration at sea, are also considered. There are more than 20 manuals and handbooks dealing with wage computation for fishermen. In 1972 a Soviet labor of- ficial said that the system for determining wage rates in the fishing industry is more complicated than in any other Soviet industry. MAJOR FISHING AREAS Industrial pollution and overfishing within Soviet coastal waters have necessitated fishing operations on the high seas which, according to NMFS estimates, accounted for over 90 percent of the Soviet Union's 1975 catch. In 1950 the Soviet fleet had to travel about 200 miles to reach good fishing grounds. This distance increased to over 4,000 miles in the late 1960s. The major Soviet fishing grounds include the Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific Oceans, the Azov and Black Seas, and Soviet inland waters. The primary areas are in the Atlantic and Pacific where the harvest about doubled between 1964 and 1973. The following table shows distribution of the harvest by fishing areas in 1964 and 1973. Fishing area Billions of pounds Percent of total 1964 1973 1964 1973 Atlantic Ocean 4.6 1ORe 46.4 5)3}5 IL Pacific Ocean Bie 653 B22 3822 Indian Ocean (a) One Orel ORS Inland waters, including the Caspian Sea eG ie 8) iG ORO Azov and Black Seas OVS 0.6 Baal Nee Totals 9.9 LOO 100 109 “Less than 100 million pounds. 340 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 calls 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 APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV Species grouping Pounds Percent of Total (billions) Cod (includes pollock, hake, and haddock) Thats Ane 0 Herring (includes sardines and sprat) oS 33 I. Jacks (includes jack and horse mackerel and chinchards) AS Ora5 Redfish (includes grunt, seabream, and ocean perch) IL 5) ToS) Mackerel (includes Atlantic and chub mackerel and cutlass fish) 1.4 Wane Total 1/5310 All others 4.0 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 1969 through 1973. During this period cod was consistently the major specie harvested. PROCESSING FACILITIES Large and self-sufficient fishing vessels permit the Soviet Union to process many of its fish products at sea. New trawler classes introduced in the 1970s will significantly increase the fleet's processing capability. Processing lines on newer ships are able to produce canned, frozen, salted fish, and nonfood fish products. ‘These trawlers are more automated and provide greater refrigeration and storage space. Available information concerning onshore processing facilities is outdated. It does indicate a continuing trend toward greater automation particularly for the canning and salting operations. 342 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 IU) Tish 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 wholesale 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. Inata was not available on the production of herring or miscellaneous fish products (fresh or chilled). 343 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 1 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 Type of food Percent of total value Meat and dairy products 84.8 Fish products B15 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 provides 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 invest- ments. There is a trend, however, toward providing a greater portion of the investments to the processing sector. The Soviet government 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 with 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 Fishery agency The Soviet Fisheries Ministry provides policy guidance and funding to the fishing industry. The Fishery Ministry's annual budget is about $1.1 billion and the Ministry employs about 750,000 people. Although the Ministry is not located at the top level of the Soviet government, the Fisheries Minister is an alternate member of the Central Committee of the Communist party. The Ministry's importance is growing along with increases in fish product exports which supply the government with foreign currency. The functions of the Ministry include making invest- ments to increase the efficiency of the fishing fleet and shore-based facilities and controlling the activities of fishing cooperatives. Support programs The Soviet Union invests approximately $1 billion an- nually in the fishing industry. This represents about 0.5 percent of the annual Soviet budget and 1 percent of total Soviet investments. During the past 47 years the Soviet Union has consistently invested funds to expand and modernize the fishing industry. NMFS stated that total investments during this period were about $16 billion. About one-third, or $5.2 billion, of the total investment was made from 1971 through iS ss Since 1946, investments have been primarily to improve the fishing fleet rather than shore-based facilities. How- ever, a greater portion is being invested in shore-based facilities. This is illustrated in the following table show- ing selected plans of the Soviet Union. Investments Shore-based Fishing Plans facilities fleet (percent) (percent) 1929-32 91 9 1946-50 40 60 1959-65 25 a5 1966-70 30 70 A/I971=75 85 65 a/ yrs estimates that 60 to 70 percent of the 1971-75 invest- ment were for new fishing vessels. 346 APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV According to NMFS, most investments were directed to- ward the Soviet fishing fleet which is capable of processing or semiprocessing up to 90 percent of the harvest. On the other hand, onshore facilities cannot efficiently handle the Soviet harvest and this results in waste and spoilage of the harvest; idling of fishing vessels; and a general underutil- ization of fishery resources. For example, NMFS found that in 1972 large stern trawlers were not operational for over 25 percent of that year. To alleviate this situation the Soviet Union planned to increase investments in several new sea- ports and modern processing plants during the early 1970s. An NMFS official said that the Soviet Union receives no foreign assistance for capital investments in the fishing industry. Training program The Soviet training fleet is the world's largest, hav- ing been expanded from 6 vessels in 1968 to 22 vessels in 1972. Training vessels are the property of the various re- gional administrations of the Fishery Ministry. According to NMFS, the annual operating costs of the training fleet are between $27 and $40 million. These costs are offset in part by earnings obtained from selling fish harvested by the training fleet. Research programs The Soviet Union's 5-year plan for the period from 1971 through 1975 emphasized expanding oceanographic research. In 1974 there were about 200 vessels and 7,000 to 8,000 scien- tists and technicians involved in this work. The research is concerned with conserving and culti- vating sea life which is economically and nutritionally im- portant. Research areas include --the development of submersible vessels, --deep sea diving and underwater habitats, and --marine biology and aquaculture. The Soviet government has five submersible vessels which are operated by the Soviet Academy of Sciences and various regional Institutes of Marine Fisheries and Oceano- graphy. The submersible vessel program contributes to marine biology research and sampling of the ocean bottom. The pro- gram is modest in comparison to the program of the U.S. which has more than 35 manned submersible vessels. 347 APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV The Soviet Union programs dealing with deep sea diving and underwater habitats have a low priority and research is performed at depths less than 300 meters, the depth level of most continental shelf areas of the Soviet Union. Marine biology and aquaculture programs have a high priority. According to the Congressional Research Service, the Soviet aquaculture program is the largest and most com- prehensive in the world and research in this area has more than doubled since the 1950s. As a result, hundreds of mil- lions of fish are hatched each year. The Congressional Re- search Service reported that it believes Soviet emphasis in this area will continue through the 1970s. Management programs Soviet fishing regulations demonstrate a concern for conserving fish stocks. The regulations require fishing licenses and govern the size of fish which may be harvested, the season and place where fish may be harvested, and the equipment and methods used for harvesting. The Soviet Union is a member of the International Com- mission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries and several other international fishing commissions. As such, Soviet fishermen are bound by quotas and other regulations of these commissions. The Soviet government shares patrol and in- spection responsibilities with other nations to insure that the commission's regulations are enforced. There is increasing concern in the Soviet Union over water pollution and poaching problems (fishing by illegal methods). Enforcement of legislation to curb pollution has been unsuccessful. Inland waters have been polluted by in- dustrial wastes and have caused massive destruction of fish stocks but violators of antipollution laws have gone un- punished. In 1971 more than 4,000 violations were cited in the Soviet Union against poachers and other violators of fishing regulations. The Government's efforts to enforce regulations against poaching were unsuccessful and poaching continued. Efforts to enforce fishing regulations are compounded by the large number of Soviet sports fishermen, estimated to number at least 10 million people. Only limited information was available on fish proces- sing regulations or government programs to enforce these regulations. According to an NMFS official fish products pro- cessed for foreign use must meet the processing regulations of the importing country. 348 APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV Trade policies According to NMFS, the Fisheries Ministry held an Inter- national Fisheries Exhibition in 1968 and in 1975. The pur- pose of these exhibitions was to increase exports of Soviet fishery products, fishing vessels, and equipment. About $286 million in contracts were signed between the Soviet Union and other countries. NMFS concluded that while trade with the Soviet Union is complicated its fishing industry is becoming more accessible to foreign companies through such exhibitions. 349 APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV UNITED KINGDOM PRESENT SITUATION AND TRENDS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM'S FISHING INDUSTRY Overfishing and increased quota restrictions have caused the fish catch from distant water fishing grounds to decline in the 1970s. However, there was a compensatory rise in the fish catch from the North Sea due to increased efforts nearer the United Kingdom. For example, some freezer trawler owners have started to fish for herring off the west coast of Scot- land. International discussions on fishing limits and the introduction of quota schemes for the Northeast Atlantic make the future unclear, but there seems little doubt that the distant water catch will continue to decline, causing the total United Kingdom whitefish catch to decrease. The British United Trawlers Association, the most power- ful producer in the United Kingdom, identified the following threats to the United Kingdom fisheries industry: --The possible total loss of the distant water catch. --Overfishing by other nations within the United King- dom's proposed exclusive economic zone but outside their present limits. Talk of non-enforced 200-mile limits increases this threat. --Shrinkage of present United Kingdom fishing re- sources (vessels, manpower, processing capacity) and lack of new investments due to the government's weak fishing policy. | | . --Declining profits stemming from the inadequacy of | quota agreements to prevent overfishing. --Increasing reliance on imports, rendering the United Kingdom more vulnerable to changes in world markets; for example, the recession in the United States and change to Alaskan pollock increased pressure of Norwegian cod on the United Kingdom market. --The continuing high rate of inflation and increases | in oil prices. | 350 APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV EFFECT OF EXTENDED JURISDICTION Industry officials in the United Kingdom are pressing the government for an exclusive fishing zone of 200 miles and an exclusive 100-mile/median fishing zone. They consider this to be the most crucial factor affecting the survival of fish stocks and the United Kingdom fisheries industry. Ac- cording to both industry and government officials consider- ation of the 200-mile limits and progress at the Law of the Sea Conference should result in the European Economic Com- munity (EEC) reviewing its common fisheries policy with re- gard to treatment of those member States most affected by international changes. Industry officials believe that the United Kingdom must take the initiative in shaping EEC fishery policies. Industry officials see the following as the principal opportunities for the United Kingdom fisheries industry: --The United Kingdom has the largest market for fish for human consumption in the EEC, and there are plans for increasing the per capita consumption of fish and fish products. In the past, the United Kingdom has consumed 50 percent more fish per capita than it does presently. A 10- or 20-percent increase would be a substantial improvement. --Using proper conservation methods, the stocks of fish and potential annual catch within the United Kingdom 200-mile/median exclusive economic zone could reach a sustainable yield of 6.6 billion pounds. --The growing world population and the need for protein is opening up export markets for protein concentrates made from fish. --Maritime traditions and fishing experience makes the United Kingdom valuable in joint ventures with nations which are trying to establish their own fisheries. STRUCTURE OF THE FISHING FLEET As of December 1974, there were 6,976 fishing vessels in United Kingdom ports. These are of a wide variety, ranging from motorized boats of less than 40 feet to large freezer- trawlers of over 140 feet. Bill APPENDIX IV APPENDIX J*’ United Kingdom fishing vessels as of December 1974 Trawlers BD AMS I Liners lS) Seiners 639 Drifters Wal Ringnetters IZ) Others, not specified 2,663 Total 6,976 Deepwater trawling vessels over 82 feet have declined over the past 10 years by about 100, whereas inshore vessels, 39 to 82 feet, have increased about 8,000. Long distance vessels continue to decline due to economic conditions. Many of the long distance vessels can no longer be used and probably will not be replaced. For example, an official from the Scottish Trawlers Federation told us that 50 of the 90 fishing vessels based in Aberdeen, Scotland, were 14 to 16 years old and in need of replacement. Whether these vessels are replaced will depend upon future prospects. The inshore fleet is in the same position having many vessels up to 40 years of age. OWNERSHIP, EMPLOYMENT, AND WAGES Vessel ownership ranges from small individual ownership to large public companies (corporations). The deep sea trawling fleet is almost entirely company owned, and postwar mergers and takeovers resulted in their control by only five or six groups. The largest groups are public companies whose shareholders are not directly involved in the fishing in- dustry. Inshore and near water vessels are mainly individual- ly owned, often by the skipper of the vessel. In 1974 the number of fishermen employed in the United Kingdom was 23,426, which is a slight decrease from 1973. About 4,900 of these fishermen are employed part-time. This decrease has been attributed to poor wages and few fringe benefits. Trawling companies involved in distant water fishing are managed through owners' associations which are located at the principal ports, and usually have permanent executive and secretarial staff. The port associations are in turn represented nationally by the British Trawlers Federation 352 APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV and the Scottish Trawlers Federation. Boat owners of inshore vessels are organized in local federations or associations that represent the views of fishermen in a particular port or coastal area; these associations may in turn be members of national associations. Although specific information regarding fishermen's wages was not readily available, we were able to find out generally how wages are determined. Officers and crews of company-owned trawlers, although employees, have a direct interest in the quantity, quality, and value -of their catch, Since a high proportion of their income comes from an agreed percentage of the first sale proceeds. The average annual wage of a crewman on a company-owned boat is $13,000. Crew members on inshore vessels are mainly shoremen whose income is derived from the net proceeds of a voyage. MAJOR FISHING GROUNDS The United Kingdom fishes predominantly in the North Sea and the North Atlantic in the areas off Iceland, Northern Norway, Bear Island, West Greenland, and Newfoundland. The North Sea is the most important fishing area, yielding 43 percent of the whitefish catch in 1973. Iceland is the second most important area, yielding 20 percent of the. white- fish catch. The total catch of herring, sprats, and other fatty fish comes from United Kingdom coastal waters. All of the United Kingdom shellfish catch is taken from inshore and near water grounds. The bulk of the United Kingdom's Norway lobster catch is taken in coastal waters around Scotland and Northern Ireland. The United Kingdom does not often fish in the waters off the U.S. Coast. In 1974, 1.5 million pounds of fish were caught off the U.S. Atlantic coast with haddock making up 1.3 million pounds of the catch. SIZE AND COMPOSITION OF THE HARVEST Total catches in 1974 for United Kingdom vessels de- creased from 1973 by about 97 million pounds. The 1974 catches were: 353 APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV United States dollar Beas, equivalent (note a) (millions) Whitefish (cod, haddock, saithe, plaice) 17 AND 1 $292,,535,,000 Herring 329710 317 5505, 0010 Other fatty fish (sprats, mackerel) 256% 2 HOFO2 SF O00 Shellfish 140.6 20250010 Totalyald, fish Ap Asie) $361,136,000 ®Recause it was our desire to present monetary data in terms of dollars, and for consistency, we selected a conversion rate of 1 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. 354 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 ali 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 ane): 7 pounds Of meat, iss pounds "Ors poullitiaya.S5 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 Pencenit Fresh, chilled 536 Frozen BU Ss Cured (salted, smoked) A) Ih Canned 5) Reduced to meal/oil US 5 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 Meats 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- i 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 Sy) 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 programs 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 Humber 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 OW AmerctraGl el9 97) 5y The long distance trawler fleet is being forced to shift from its traditional fishing grounds to new grounds as a Gesulltt Of increasing srestrvetions by ‘coasital 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 POM aa Gastelomcilen tusihumncqurcasOund is). 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. 360 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 IV 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 U5 tons (GRT) ber cent 5 Eq) © EOu A reo) I) 650 co 999 34 ANS eng 0 3 Pal 10 1FAOOO MEO IOO TS AG DAM ots aft 10 5 0 2 00). to) 2H OOS) “ALL 14.9 0 9 2 0 3770,010) co. *3, 599, 13. WAS L3, 210) 0) po) Total 74 100.0 14 22. 28 10 Percent of vessels in age groups: 13}. 6.9) DOT Siero itSho Ol 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- panies 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 emplovment 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 flleet, accounting fom 7/7 percent of (ehnat 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.L 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 1/ —’For purposes of consistency we selected a conversion rate Of 72-53) DM Eon Si) (Ot kicaale race sApisi15. i 9976) mrciGlarc) ooo eike Claeetat= 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 byttruck lon daatl. 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 Cuxhaven 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 1 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, less than one-nalf of this was actually consumed on the domestic market. Some 110.2 million pounds were used fox 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 factorv. The price obtained from the fishmeal 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 Germanv 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 125 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) p25 35 Iced and frozen herring 7,671 if Other WIL ABS 16 Total S855 00 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 1 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 f£lshery products in) 1974e West Germany - 1974 Trade in Fishery Products Fishmeal, Edible fish von 15, and fish and solubles fish products Total (000 omitted) Exports $ 46,740 $111,864 $158,604 Imports PANT SSO. 309 5 USS LG py VALS) Balance —=S 160,810 =O 305 -9 358 ,qeL5 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 and 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- ables ins its—e1 974. fiscalsyear- aitotal of: S17 2) midijaion; which was used as follows: 368 APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV Loans for the small deep-sea and coastal fisheries Silky Saks} 59) 7/ 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 72S) 5 DS)7/ 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 i323 Total i /290,906 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- servation, citing itsS 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. 370 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. Sue 32,899 25,79 674 190,563 152,890 5,34u 7, 1u2 9,890 2 22,195 24,247 x = = oo 666 > 58 965,684 955,589 1,060,578 1,016,698 268,509 406,714 488,993 _u51,480 351,420 aGte220 1.925.520 1.976.660 2121018 1,804,098 1026.50 12 Be 200 . “73,800 } -- 2,800 2,600 4,600 7,600 6,251 =- = -- -— 5,300 1,246 9,118 1,492,800 1,270,200 1,479,500 1,058,900 1,170,688 == i 23,500 34,500 52,100 50,900 90,951 886,200 1,002,433 709,700 615,200 639,700 637,900 659,379 8,900 25,600 767,800 657,900 882,100 517,900 723,500 1,029,000 900,700 1,037,151 2,996,600 2,580,400 3,058,000 2,278,500 2,652,015 1370 i971 1972 BUTE 1a 7,338 44,092 39,775 107,291 29,548 52,238 72,956 57,041 59,799 68,438 so 1,150 1,557 == -- 53,386 106,885 139,775 156,153 96,729 ited == 803 4,923 3,832 92,842 59,961 32,888 38,280 26,760 aS = “,000 4,915 4,680 1,532,569 1,310,691 1,513,119 1,095,199 1,205,604 170,621 254,367 258,774 241,463 243,841 2,720 8,714 5,344 7,142 9,890 8,163 13,416 20,002 22,195 24,247 — -- -— -_ 666 2,711,304 2,769,384 2,545,689 2,584,678 2,678,510 5,667,490 5,718,230 6,063,660 5,300,218 5,493,265 ALL REGIONS 372 ee r+ i ‘ka pian , b “big ey tole y, At Pa tates i « ord laAtlon Oe Opies tel) Pas owetd. SEBY ‘ nee ting a Seb aniege i} @aet Sa ¥ r ie Seat bred ! cies ANS ‘ener MAY ie fotues of @ aru : x IC-SOUTH AND GULF APPENDIX V TOTAL FISH CATCH BY SPECIES OFF 1.5. COASTLINE = (METRIC TONS) — = ATLANTIC-NORTH SPECIES 1570 1571 1972 PELE 573 PERLE Salmon 2,375 3,505 19 vot -- - - Tuna 3,583 3,651 1,900 1,655 1,178 1,700 1,300 Capelin co = oD 2 a - -- Smelts 1,433 7,352 32,739 2,554 19,726 -- - Herring 348,519 355,637 243,934 243,078 204,424 3,400 6,000 Spanish Sardine — —o ss a = 200 8,900 Calif. Sardine Menhaden K. Pac. Anchovy Halibut Sole/Flounder Cod Hake Haddock Pollack Alaska Pollock Marine Catfish Groupers Snappers Grunts Croakers Atl. Redfish Pac. Rockfish “Mackerel Sablefish Mullets Crabs Lobster Shrimp Oyster Scallops Clams Squid Subtotal Other 2/ TOTAL 223;426° 240,751 329,773 60,864 257,378 245 141 110 89 76 63,546 58,780 61,928 52,309 41,867 35,241 37,509 33,661 36,871 36,826 68,528 157,370 194,852 206,085 167,425 12,852 12.168 6,670 5,892 5,121 7,659 14,633 13,013 13,076 12,393 6,135 4,603 4,605 5,975 4,772 -- -- -- 65 I 3,092 788 6,100 7,505 7,198 15,958 20,034 19,102 17,383 10,611 610,400 774,900 2,500 2,100 200 100 3,900 +700 5,100 6,100 300 1,700 204,978 (349,544 387,737 381,238 294,962 8,500 7,300 -- -- 11 93 279 14,100 13,900 --1/ --1/ 40,005 33,516 37,362 29,700 29,700 --1/ 15,498 11,393 10,511 11,330 4,600 3,900 --1/ 13,542 11,016 9,706 8,615 113,400 116,500 --Y/ --1/ 183,277 196,274 199,808 135,900 143,300 55,772 54,031 56,822 55,912 76,197 10,900 11,600 =-1/ --1/ 170,712 248,856 = 289,719 5,800 1,800 == __22,210 _ 48,510 56,771 55,878 =~ -- 1,053,342 1,371,747 1,857,989 1,646,291 1,743,145 = 591,048 53,783 474,727 __60,954 964,100 1,149,000 62,400 63,300 10,700 9,700 548,600 300 4,100 5,200 53,700 21,700 14,900 28,600 55400 115,000 122,300 10,600 2,000 962,800 66,200 1,644,390 1,925,530 2,121,018 1,804,099 1 Veatch classified as “other shellfish, etc." during 1970 and 1971. 2/ 1,026,500 1,212,300 Refers to all species caught that were not included in the GAO list of fish species. Note: Exclusive of Portugal, Republic of China ('aiwan) and Republic of Korea (South Korea) Source: FAO 5,200 300 525,500 100 3,400 5,000 8,200 22,600 15,100 30,900 5,100 93,600 105,100 10,800 2,500 844,200 56,500 PACIFIC A ep 9 ae 8h F Peas © rk ea tb i 96,900 228,100 104,000 12,300 167,000 32,100 163,500 689,800 200 146,400 200 116,600 20,900 43,300 40,900 100 65,400 26,100 3,500 3,200 4,300 2,081,600 186,200 151,000 105,500 289 243,800 211,300 244,200 =D 900 1,000 1,100 3,036 152,300 59,800 77,300 300 -- -- - mi 200 100 200 648,722 -- -- = <= 87,500 40,800 68,000 <- 33,000 27,900 33,500 5,031 233,900 265,700 210,200 = 109,000 101,300 64,500 -- 171,300 183,100 119,600 -- 1,098,000 943,800 1,430,800 92 =< = med 3,585 oo oS == 4,777 100 100 =a 24,100 94,000 3,100 65,600 28,034 300 200 200 — 135,100 137,900 145,200 7,102 33,300 42,800 34,000 -- 50,100 47,700 59,400 15,690 -- - - 30,776 62,500 58,800 57,500 5,739 100 100 200 95,767 42,100 48,900 49,300 92,243 32,100 32,600 33,700 5,579 5,100 3,300 4,100 2,397 1,400 1,400 2,500 eee bs 11,200 14,300 9,300 973,306 2,783,500 2,377,000 2,816,100 63,845 213,100 203,400 241,900 2,996,600 2,580,400 3,058,000 2,278,500 88,821 232,354 1,000 47,261 6 115,041 21,598 171,889 58,562 205,773 1,155,955 93,609 29,124 37,124 63,262 14,683 1,780 3,496 10,822 2,424,334 2,652,015 APPENDIX V 188,575 154,505 105,519 96,911 88,821 249,083 216,251 246,300 230,055 233,821 ae: ee = 2 a 2,333 8,352 33,839 3,554 20,726 $04,219 421,437 331,934 343.378 254,721 200 8,900 9,700 300 300 200 100 200 100 6 833,826 1,015,651 878,373 586,364 906,100 87,500 40,800 68,000 104,000 115,041 33,245 28,041 33,610 12,389 21,674 299,946 326,580 242,609 218,787 144,241 = 138,809 98,161 68,971 95,388 239,828 340,470 314,452 369,585 373,198 12,852 12,168 6,670 5,892 5,121 7,659 14,633 13,013 13,076 12,393 1,098,000 943,800 1,430,800 689,800 1,155,955 200 100 300 100 92 10,045 8,303 8,705 9,375 8,357 5,200 6,200 5,200 5,200 4,922 94,300 4,800 119,500 154,665 43,811 16,892 17,188 28,000 30,305 35,465 15,958 20,034 19,102 17,383 10,611 135,100 137,900 145,200 116,600 93,609 246,778 399,644 428,637 409,338 331,188 50,100 47,700 59,400 43,300 37,124 14,100 13,900 15,011 15,193 15,969 92,200 €8,500 126,105 105,316 120,142 4,700 19,498 16,993 15,711 17,160 155,500 178,942 175,316 168,706 167,644 168,000 175,900 339,277 327,474 306,734 71,772 68,931 71,522 70,212 83,556 7,200 3,200 175,212 254,556 295,612 33,200 __36;510, __57,810 __ 61,671 66,747 4,800,942 4,897,747 5,636,889 4,572,091 5,140,785 —BU6.540 020,483 426,771 728127 _ 392,400 373 V 4iGWsed4 " aA. TB e- ea = ‘ - 43 - Ccles ee) FOEEE OV Thea. Se (2eo tet,i syaua OMe od SRD BEENE, DOD TRUS CDE RE > OR a - My, p22,¢ SEF.C29Oe LEE,L FPO CCN te RE, Fee Ed temee ATO PES) FEGMeRG) TRO eLormeet 7 — Uw OOF Oy lee “- - ‘ - - = and we tbges avlregs . - = - . - es as = re smfiecs tuo Y LUM 1 tL LT ee ee Lt iin ne ome oo ond = mel) ee —'' fe = see —~ 000 yee Se oe r : “ - wo : ei >,0 Gat >? oem 296 35 908 1), wedhine i fo Ce eS oe iw ste.o RAE, mee COULTE FOP 106 08.0 m,- © | P1s.'3h POReGe. cee TeLFOr BTQWal Sceleeeet-— FRE) iio = we Caer eai.ts oe0.t2 : -— (2,41 4.0r~ Lin — Baa ene = = _ -« - -_ trtet 6 —~o0t 008 5 -ee ee RATA shusia -m as - ~~ -_ -- ° tre ees an (7) feet FIT. ee E.G et 108,F —— «6068.5 ai ~ aera On hd eae, 45 715 «= £9 = ‘= = th 4 a ot) dew O82 em fae +,ory 4) 2h,bhe + 4/0) =~ 808 == 0908 ie etree ee OOCW ree 06).07, 005 O42, 00 81,0 208 OT if@ gee.) i ae) - - Ale 10.0 291,01 — HOt e20,.25 = Saft eA) boa ~~) << e me = & oom inieg! Sadr ie hig ae ee et et ae Sy) wweeosy -- ° ~ - > — ee — 47,708 a Deter Ob Veen ce ee 6 ee es ee 4s = . weoed iad Pet B00. Ge ood TOE 14,068 etd om Po) 200.05, )00\1~ 14, Oa BR as wee oY a ee ee Varsesed fared esrb hits £12.07. cee 008 1 NT 08d 84) 190 S02 Beet 08 et qeione fda OPELMET IGG OCR eR fies Pe cenzies 8 Ck, CLI — 20,0 POT) | cere 1 et Rech POC ee ee A ee se (ited AP4 EE eek EAT Atte OTe eel Eftetriee Ne ce | DENNY CRLPANTESY Ahi jticaED STUROR RENE CDETICE Fee FIR HOrG ads Ste taan SEY Tiamagmee ee eee — a Seo f MGlss matenescte someones Sungitiiws Santerdes 1a 10) See a001 Qnined “ose .#ertelene rmar® i aghoneh felt te J44L OAD its 9h Wetedoal seh o¥ew Jans Hipwas ptioepe Lae os | Peidseed seach Yo sltseqel sew (nweiet? ented Je siidengod . iseeryet > : f ‘) 5) ile . : . Bip APPENDIX V APPENDIX V FISH CATCH BY BULGARIA OFF U.S. COASTLINE METRIC 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 Salmon == Poca = ba eh ae ba wae a a a ans are =s = = = = ar Tuna os aD a cr == == aa a aS a Capelin cee =e Smelts =e = ae = om oe or re cD oe a oe a as a a == =e me =5 Herring 1,058 5,590 2,872 2,569 2,546 es = oo = ao =S ie = = <= 1,058 5,590 2,872 2,569 2,546 Span. Sardine -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- te ee ee NO FISH CAUGHT IN THIS AREA-------- -- -- -- -- -- Calif. Sardine -- -- -= Menhaden ingth } vtietenS - Das st vio else ' ifve# Gilssons ' ieareidvan . se 17 ahead . - oealipa . asez3 \ 20 Stef) queset | 2420q0 at epoiiass APPENDIX V SPECIES Salmon Tuna Capelin Smelts Herring Spanish Sardine Calif. Sardine Menhaden North Pacific Anchovy Halibut Sole/ Flounder Cod Hake Haddock Pollack Alaska Pollock Marine Catfish Groupers Snappers Grunts Croakers Atlantic Redfish Pacific Rockfish Mackerel Sablefish Mullets Crabs Lobster Shrimp Oyster Scallops Clams Squid Subtotal other! Total lrefers to all specics caught that were not FISH CATCHES F U.S. BY EAST GERMANY TLINE METRIC TONS) ATLANTIC NORTH 37,008 29,083 52,793 _ ee 138 2: 97 265 -- -- 5 -- 6,849 4,802 -- 1 127 4,999 69,973 80,539 42,007 106,003 138,669 11,379 282 1,106 53,386 106,885 139,775 60,240 40 76,758 313 138,622 12,231 150,853 ATLANTIC SOUTH AND GULF 42 -- -- -- -- 6 -- En: a 35,197 - == = hie? =e oS i ----NO PISH CAUGHT IN THIS 67 -- -- mee 2 38 -- ad = 2 - -< -- BS 123 -- = a} iz 59,977 -- a ao Ra EE 8s (0 FISH CAUGHT IN THIS 95,452 en 31 95,483 included in the GAO list of fish species. PACIFIC 1972 APPENDIX V TOTAL ALL REGIONS 1971 6,849 69,973 1972 52,793 127 138,669 1,106 139,775 80 500 76,758 376 6 35,197 123 - Te1,t% 064 ,0— aet_,t2— « _ — o— - - -— — - ~~ — — - — —~ in * — 7 —_- - = — .* _— — ~ —_—o hdl a - - — — in = . — -_ — = —_ * « ao - - a a i on -— eee bya o ete _, ae: a i=” id + —_ = — — " - ma ron ie 7 By ~ = - = - = — = (hope ome -tstépakiccyoe—— orf — i= : ~ ad - — nm * is = == > = ~~ = 7 = > — - pe ad _ ate A ae ere 1 - —- “52000 — areal * eaa,eed APPENDIX V APPENDIX V FISH CATCHES BY WEST GERMANY OFF U.S. COASTLINE (METRIC TONS) ATLANTIC NORTH ATLANTIC SOUTH AND GULF PACIFIC TOTAL ALL REGIONS SPECIES 13970 371 1972 1973 1974 1370 1971 972 1973 1975 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1970 1971 1972 1973 1375 Salmon == -- -- = -- = — — went Tuna -- 1 6 2 -- -- == == oS 25 -- -- -- -- 1 6 2 -- Capelin -- -- -- -- —— I —— oe — — -- -- -- -- - - —_ a = os Smelts = =- -- =5) a = == =o a == -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- a a Herring 88,577 56,467 30,746 32,685 26,153 ne a Be ai = => = ao ae 88,577 56,467 30,746 i. 32,685 26,153 Spanish Sardine == — = == <= a as = == aoe -- -- -- -- -- -- -- es = — Calif. Sardine ao = — 2S == = en =S ie as -- -- =< -- -- -- -- —— -- -- Menhaden a = a ae North Pacific Anchovy == =S == -- -- -- == =~ -- -- = == = < a= — <= == = od Halibut -- -- -- -- a= wenn nana = NO FISH CAUGHT IN THIS AREA------------ -_-_----_- NO FISH CAUGHT IN THIS AREA------------ =e = = = ae Sole/ Flounder -- =o == 1 == oe == -- -- == Cod 14 4 7 5 1 -- -- -- -- -- 14 4 17 5 "1 Hake 25 =S 357 30 49 =2 = = == +> -- 357 30 49 Haddock -- 4 -- 1 -- -- = am ie ee Pollack 3,156 63 467 1,085 31 a = ae ey — 3,156 63 467 1,085 33 Alaska Pollock 3 =r. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Marine Catfish = = == -- -- -- -- -- -- -- = a Sz = mee oe — a ra -- Groupers — == -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Se. ae, —— a oe, ae a —— - — Snappers ce = == -- -- -- -- -- -- =a = oe = == == -- = -- -- Grunts es =o, —S -- -- = = — == petens -- -- -- =< Find =e —= ard Le Croakers —— == -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- <5 =e =. a == <= = == = = Atlantic y Redfish 2 == 3 -- 4 -- -- -- == -- an a ee ia = 2 == 3 -- 4 Pacific Rockfish -- as =3 a Re, Mackerel 1,049 2,795 770 1,527 483 == =o -- =a -- —— = == == -- 1,049 2,795 770 1,527 483 Sablefish -- = = aS i: Se aed a ae fc St a te : < 1 a Mullets -- == — a= a S 2 a a ye - -- = == Crabs -- S- <> =s, ke = st Se ey == — — -- -- == = a Lobster -- -- == a =p ee a Py eh a ap ary = mS a= -- -- == == — Shrimp -- -- == nee as = —a a a ae =m oo =o — == -- -- -- = == Oyster Sea! -- eS we. — Ee = me oe es am a te Et -- -- -- -- -- Scallops -- -- — aa 5s . a is a ae = -- -- -- a ao a Clams -- -- as ae a = a a a ad = == -- -- -- — = = ES Squid == =e 463 1,641 -- == a5 3S on =5 = =~ = es == == x j 463 1,641 == Subtotal 92,798 59,334 32,829 36,977 26,731 -- -- = -- -- ; A a ae a= a 92,798 59,334 32,829 36,977 26,731 ofher oe el 59 1,303 29 en as 4 ay 5 os a, 2e has is - a a et 4 TOTAL 92,842 59,961 32,888 38,280 26,760 = = = m2 —et = == aS aS = 92,842 59,961 32,888 38,280 26,760 1 Refers to all species caught that were not included in the GAO list of fish species. 377 APPEND1X V SPECIES Salmon Tuna Capelin Smelts Herring Spanish Sardine Calif. Sardine Menhaden North Pacific Anchovy Halibut Sole/ Plounder Cod Hake Haddock Pollack Alaska Pollock Marine Catfish Groupers Snappers Grunts Croakers Atlantic Redfish Pacific Rockfish Mackerel Sablefish Mullets Crabs Lobster Shrimp Oyster Scallops Clams Squid Subtotal other? TOTAL APPENDIX V FISH CATCHES BY JAPAN OFF U.S. COASTLINE {METRIC TONS) ATLANTIC NORTH ATLANTIC SOUTH AND GULF paciric! TOTAL ALL REGIONS 1970 1371 1972 973 1974 7970 1971 972 1973 1975 i370 1971 1972 1973 1974 1970 73971 1972 1973 1375 == = == == = 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 52,488 369 5,398 97 90 -- -- -- -- -- == -- -- -- -- -- 369 5,398 97 90 -- 1,421 2,466 1,161 1,722 2,442 =« -- ee == == 24,900 25,000 13,300 19,000 5,305 26,321 27,466 14,461 ,722 7,797 18 = =5 == = -- -- -- -- 1,600 2,100 1,300 400 2,209 1,618 2,100 1,300 400 2,209 uo) oe el 65 73 == ae a == a2 105,000 120,000 148,600 163,800 120,089 105,164 120,084 148,618 163,865 120,162 bid zy 00 3 or < ss ae == 58,000 27,000 29,200 25,000 35,691 58,016 27,020 29,300 25,003 35,691 cel Bad OB 463 107 a = Be =- -- == 1,600 400 2,800 960 489 2,023 1,481 3,263 1,067 1 10 -- -- =e = = BE Be = Be os oe us a, A eS on ee 1 5 4 14 -- -- = = 3s a a x = as =e 1 5 4 a 7 cas By = == = == -- -- -- 1,073,300 884,700 1,039,600 625,600 793,908 1,073,300 884,700 1,039,600 625,600 = 793,908 = = 65 -- -- oo em. =e = = a a =m oe =4 = a- — -_ ae i a as == a -- -- =- -- = -- a] -- -- -- 65 1 19 4 15 30 1 -- == — —— =o ae = — -- -- 19 4 1s 30 1 2 ay ay sae 3 == = ao -- == 55,100 64,800 73,200 81,900 57,208 55,100 64,800 73,200 81,900 57,208 a nnze Bute) alt 70 ae =n -- 6 -- 100 =~ -- 33 1,500 1,125 1,108 446 109 a ia a3 =< == == =a -- -- 40,600 40,300 50,700 38,300 31,324 40,600 40,300 50,700 38,300 31,324 a . pa a a == ae =o -- =-- 4,800 1,600 1,600 400 == 4,800 1,600 1,600 400 -- == 27 W 7 -- as =, = Ee we = a ae Po es ae 27 "1 egea -- 10,602 F < 2 £5 a e ae = = + 32 = ea SESE BOKER = £31 es 167820 = -- -- = = -- Ss 200 400 Aa se 10,602 18,891 15,926 __17,071 ay were rea 18,431 19,513 1,700 1,200 200 300 295 7,429,100 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 SoRETE Saad wae wet 6,285 8,500 11,400 4,600 3,100 8,823 63,700 48,400 55,200 36,000 71,500 __ 97,771 67,667 66,337 53,568 86,608 L B 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 1 4 ? eneanaee catch off Canadian coast, which could not be separately identified in source data Refers to all species caught that were not included in the GAO list of fish species 378 APPENDIX V APPENDIX V FISH CATCHES BY POLAND F U.S. COASTLINE METRI y 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 -- 2 7 74 3 = Cs = = =r ees == = ae — = 2 z 74 3 Capelin = 4 Smelts a5 Ss =< Herring 70,734 90,550 43,112 52,537 40,503 “aac =x — ns == 100 ot 70,734 90,550 43,112 52,637 40,503 Spanish Sardine — = =" =F — Calif. Sardine = a icles om al a & ae) —_ om. ad a aS Pa ax = ~~ Sy Menhaden -- -- -- -- -- = == a= = == == == = =- == -- -- -- -- -- North Pacific Anchovy == = 2a) —— | SSShES sess) ‘NO FISH CAUGHT IN THIS AREA---------- = = —_— -- 94 -- -- -- _ a4 Halibut 1 -- -- -- -- =- =- == = =s == = = == a= 1 = -- -- -- Sole/Flounder 8 2 2 -- -- -- -- -- -- == = =e == — = 8 2 2 -- -- Cod 784 101 271 430 566 = -- = = = -- -- -- -- 93 784 10L 271 430 659 Hake is 148 -- 501 140 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1,900 44,354 15 148 -- 2,401 44,494 Haddock 15 1 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 15 L 1 -- -- Pollack -- 1 8 20 4 -- =-- -- -- -- = = == = == = 1 a 20 4 Alaska Pollock = == = == — -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - <= — — Marine Catfish -_— -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- == — - -- -- a — = Groupers == = — -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- - = = == == = = Snappers =- -- -- -- — Ss = — == =: se = == =o = = = = Grunts = -- -- -- -- -- -- = == == == = == a ==. = == = Croakers Sy —> - -- -- -- -- -- — == = = == — -- — — a = a Atlantic Redfish 30 84 5 28 2 =- = — as = “= — — ze == 30 B4 5 28 2 Pacific Rockfish = -- -- -- -- == St — = = =e —— se. a= 120 ie == a= oa 120 Mackerel 68,140 112,294 142,359 117,254 96,103 -- -- -- -- -= -- -- -- -- 117 68,140 112,294 142,359 117,254 96,220 Sablefish -- -- -- == == os oa 2S = = = = = == pos = = = — = Mullets : =. -— -- -- -- —— —_ a a= — ae a5 =" = -- -- == =< = £5 ee = = eS ==} — a <= = = — -- Oyster as a = -- -- ao ==, — — = oo a — <= = —_ == -- -- -- Scallops = = -- -- -- = —— == Se oS aa — — -- Clams bar os = = Pe > — ==. Squid = = 5,248 9,199 7,109 == == = -- a= = -- == -- -- -- -- 5,248 9,199 7,109 Subtotal 139,727 203,183 191,013 180,043 144,430 -- ==, int — <—_ =e —— = 2,000 44,778 139,727 203,183 191,013 182,043 189,208 30,894 51,184 67,761 59,420 54,633 254,367 258,774 241,463 243,841 7,394 16,684 15,661 10,520 8,460 == -- -- -- =- 23,500 34,500 52,100 48,900 — 23,500 34 500 $2,100 50,900 TOTAL 147,121 219 B67 206,674 190,563 152 890 Vefers 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 SHeU LE as76) i971 is72 1973 1974 1970 971 197 Wine late TOTAL ALL REGIONS SPECIES 2976 eas awe ve a — — seks exe eed ets —_ aor ot Im 1971 1972 1973 974 Salmon ar323)) 928308 2 1 pa - Bs a - ee 186,200 151,000 105,500 96,900 88,821 188,575 154,505 105,519 96,911 88,821 pane 2 yet) Tee mange Hse ca ie a na 175,500 154,300 173,500 155,500 174,084 177,923 156,934 175,222 156,926 175,114 Capelin == cS ai Be aaa = 2 a = a a ae = in oo -- -- — ve Sea) BS gu 32 a? ot a a me ~ ies 900 1,000 1,100 1,000 1,000 965 1,061 1,132 1,042 1,031 Herring 63,356 49,560 43,882 38,308 45,174 3,400 6,000 10,700 5,200 3,036 EKG 5 kod Aen roan pyar ABE eaten 63,482 62,508 10,366 Spanish Sardine -- -- -- -- -- 200 100 -- 100 200 ee i a ag = ors 100 = 100 200 Calif. Sardine 2 = = == ae = oo == Ey 200 100 200 100 6 200 100 200 100 6 Menhaden 223,426 240,751 329,767 60,864 257,288 610,400 774,900 548,600 525,500 648,722 my or ae = os PETG: TbErCEN 878,367 586,364 906,010 BAS CIO of ee = ee cz z iz < ie 87,500 40,800 68,000 104,000 +=—«-:114, 947 87,500 40,800 68,000 104,000 + =—«:114,947 Feu tue E rea 3 se er i ae ae atte aaa 4 = aoe Me 15,600 12,800 11,600 10,900 8,289 15,652 12,881 11,663 10,951 8,335 Sole/Plounder 57,879 49,830 ’ ' ' , ‘ , 7300 5,031 20,800 19,700 24,000 21,700 21,700 81,179 71,630 76,984 73,924 67,632 Cod 23,263 24,341 21,098 23,492 27,232 == -- -- <= =o Tao Snob Apa Ran are Ve ata 25,898 27,792 31,310 Hake TH SS et ILE) 27203 20;51¢ Be g % 3 = 4,100 4,800 1,900 1,100 13 32,512 27,506 15,675 28,303 21,227 Haddock 9,872 8,500 4,779 3,289 3,018 -- -- i oa 3 fs i 9,872 8,500 4,779 3,289 3,018 Pollack 3,592 4,732 5,243 5,731 8,050 -- -- -- -- -- I ‘2 ag = =e 3,592 4,732 5,243 5,731 8,050 Alaska Foutock = == rats re a = aS -- - -- 200 100 100 eS a7 200 100 100 -- 47 Marine Catfish -- = == => == 200 100 300 100 92 a eae itd fh as 200 100 300 100 92 Groupers 6,135 4,603 4,605 5,975 4,772 3,900 3,700 3,700 3,400 3,585 Be a af a a 10,035 8,303 8,305 9,375 8,357 Snappers -— == — —— -— 5,100 6,100 5,200 5,000 4,777 100 100 aes. 200 135 5,200 6,200 5,200 5,200 4,912 Grunts =a = = oS 300 300 200 300 300 a = _ = = 300 300 200 300 300 Croakers 3,092 788 6,100 7,505 7,198 13,500 16,200 21,700 22,600 28,034 a6 300 mh pan aaa 16,892 17,188 28,000 30,305 35,465 Atl. Redfish 15,534 16,267 13,158 11,954 8,677 -- =- = =e ot ea = a x ce 15,534 16,267 13,158 11,954 8,677 Pac. Rockfi = = = =e = as a = — ae ra ‘ sh ee pre ies Tite oe An 19,400 16,500 ly, 200 18,400 14,581 19,400 16,500 19,200 18,400 14,581 ickere , ’ , , , : Pgs Uo Tuage nego 71088 22,000 27,300 23,200 8,000 10,074 34,549 37,006 32,317 167610 zee282 Sablefish — -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 00 4,600 5,500 2,900 2,700 5,500 4,600 5,500 2,900 2,700 5.5 5 / Mullets -- 111 93 279 14,100 13,900 14,900 15,100 15,690 Se ma ee se = 14,100 13,900 15,011 15,193 15,969 Crab oe on a s 40,005 33,515 37,362 29,700 29,700 28,600 30,900 30,776 SpkcK Ene “008 race ovacd 80,200 81,000 124,505 104,915 120,142 is ster se 15,370 11,170 10,276 11,152 4,600 3,900 5,400 5,100 5,739 aA 100 anh doo 91 4,700 19,370 16,770 15,476 16,982 rim = 13,542 ' ' , , ied 154 11,008 9,706 8,615 113,400 116,500 115,000 93,600 95,767 42,100 48,900 49,300 65,400 63,262 155,500 178,942 175,308 168,706 167,644 -- 183,277 196,274 199,808 135,900 143,300 122,300 105,100 92,243 32,100 32,600 33,700 26,100 14,683 168,000 175,900 339,277 327,474 306,734 Scallops 21,766 21,597 22,152 20,857 25,263 10,900 11,600 10,600 10,800 5,579 Ay aa0a ASE 3,500 1,780 37,766 36,497 36,852 35,157 32,622 a on ie F, ‘ '’ ’ , ' Clams 170,712 248,856 289,719 5,800 1,800 2,000 2,500 2,397 mean Redon 2,500 3,200 3,496 7,200 3,200 175,212 254,556 295,612 iki = 4.382 aoe a 1 11,200 14,300 9,100 4,500 10,571 11,200 15,482 10,297 6,135 13,040 Subtotal 465,291 482,356 é SS ene ———— Pea 936,176 757,397 999,630 962,400 1,137,600 899,000 835,800 949,111 Tha to. Creo 509,200 $12,251 2,117,391 2,212,656 2,437,676 2,182,397 2,560,992 z Seu) CEB ae 19,413 303,161 __17,068 53,900 50,900 51,400 50,400 53,322 20,000 _22,500 37,200 48,700 47,128 _593,923 _556,728 __108,013 __402,281 __117,518 TOTAL 2Baa104 263,684 955.582 1.060.578 016.699 1,016,300 1s288.500 250400 © 886,200 4,002,427 202,709 © GAS200 © 394700 GALA SSMAIT? | AuLL Ok DEES tte? 4,678 2,678,510 V/ fs ~ Refers to all species caught that were not included in the GAO list of fish species. 380 PACIFIC ITU aaanis Lian 072 eel 72 mac aga APPENDIX V FISH CATCHES BY THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS OFF U.S. COASTLINE (METRIC TONS) ATLANTIC NORTH ATLANTIC SOUTH AND GULF SPECIES i970 PLee eee == a a = = a a3 po AS a Salmon — ao 34 ae = ae ae ay ed al se a Tuna —— =. me is ir oe a = aa =. 4 SF Capelin = fa ae a aioe co -- -- -- 15,800 13,000 Sole/Flounder 4,550 7,895 10,807 3,152 794 2 7 -- -- -- 108,100 126,000 Cod 364 1,270 1,889 2,977 476 <= aD -- -- -- 49,700 71,500 Hake 39,390 128,601 173,218 175,585 142,753 == = -- -- -- 167,200 176,700 Haddock 103 374 141 602 111 -- -- -- = a5 a <= Pollack 51 1,163 1,043 2,752 47 -- -- == a = = ae Alaska Pollock = == == == -- -- -- -- =) so 24,500 59,000 Marine Catfish mS == os oe -- -- -- -- == a5 -- -- Groupers =o a —— oP => -—- - 400 -~ aie -- -- Snappers oi ae mare — -- -- -- -- as eis -- -- Grunts = a7 a ao == == 1,400 53,500 7,900 23,800 94,000 3,100 Croakers sh = SS c= ae -- -- -- eo or -- -- Atlantic Redfish a 3,394 5,641 5,263 1,745 -- -- = =e = <= o= Pacific Rockfish -- oo > -- -- -- -- =n ae ze 60,600 56,600 Mackerel 124,483 127,828 134,057 145,796 109,141 == -- -- -- -- 11,300 15,400 Sablefish == —— es = > 2S -- -- -- -- 6,600 4,700 Mullets =—— 1 oS a= == -- -- -- on aes - -- Crabs a -- -- -- -- -- -- -- o- -- 7,200 5,900 Lobster So —— -- -- -- a we = eo Se Shrimp = me 98 == -- -- -- -- ape ise = -- -- Oyster a -- -- -- -- = Sime z= rs a, aa ma Scallops == -- -- -- -- cis =e = re a tae as Clams -- = ee = 2 ze S Ee Ra s Re Za Squid == 6,138 6,976 8,977 8,495 -- -- -- mack == ==. em ee ak Sate Saiaouaeaeae nes TOTAL 268,509 406.714 488,999 451.480 : = _1,000 10,200 = _goo =_1,700 _105,600 __97, 800 498.993 451,480 351,420 4g 200 13.209 2.209 23.500 162.800 657,000 1 — Includes catch off Canadian coast, wnich could not be separately identified in source data 2/ -Refers to all species caught that were not included in the GAO list of fish species 20,600 37,600 30,500 117,300 391,100 65,800 784,800 97,300 ERP eeN TF -7 1,000 1,500 2,800 152,900 11,100 30,100 18,700 158,500 21,700 18,900 660,800 62,700 alors) 999 15,800 112,650 50,064 206,590 103 94,000 60,600 135,783 6,600 7,200 912,808 _ 123,501 peur rete 1,893 120,747 8,800 13,000 133,895 72,770 305,301 374 1,163 59,000 4,500 3,394 56,600 143,228 4,700 5,900 6,138 941,403 134,411 peUrE rE ye APPENDIX V TOTAL ALL REGIONS 32,610 110,121 9,700 20,600 48,407 32,389 290,518 141 1,043 391,100 119,300 5,641 52,800 144,857 3,200 6,976 1,269,803 175,090 2,444,893 1,000 4,652 5,777 328,485 602 2,752 64,200 154,300 5,263 15,800 158,696 400 8,977 853,033 125,247 228.280 381 19,688 61,912 100 11,100 30,894 19,176 301,253 lll 47 362,000 43,500 1,745 21,700 128,041 8,495 1,010,062 90,458 4.200.329 ae APPENDIX V CUBA Sole/Flounder Cod Hake Mackerel Squid Other Total FRANCE Herring Cod Pollack Lobster Squid Other Total ITALY Mackerel Squid Other Total ROMANIA Herring Balibut Sole/Flounder Cod Hake Haddock Atlantic Redfish Mackerel Squid Other Total SPAIN Balibut Sole/Flounder Cod Bake Haddock Pollack Mackerel Lobster Squid Other Total UNITED KINGDOM Sole/Flounder Cod Haddock Pollack Other Total TOTAL Note: The other category refers to all Species APPENDIX V TOTAL ALL REGIONS 10,883 ss ATLANTIC SOUTH AND GULF PACIFIC (Hue a LE 1973 1974 1970 1971 1972 1973. +~=31974 +«# 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 == 118 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ae -- = -- 2 == -- -- =< oe rat = = aa — = mE. Fee = 265 ANA ES =a x = =e a, = =~ -- -- -- 265 828 -- -- 145 9 aa = x a2 = Za = -- -- -- 145 9 -- -- & a =e = ae = eS = -- -- -- -- 14 -- -- peek {i} —_586 ae z= == ss woe = = == == -- 740 586 -- = 1,150 1,557 -- Sa ace -- = == = ao eee Ss So == == 1,150 1,557 SS is ae -- 500 2,784 3,765 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 500 2,784 3,765 -- -- -- 45 -- -- -- -- -- == -- -- -- -- -- -- 45 -- -- -- 9 -- -- -- -- -- =o -- -- -- -- -- -- 9 -- 7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- == -- -- -- -- 7 -- -- -- 296 820 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- — => == 296 820 Sa -- -- 19 13 -- -- -- 1,200 -- -- -- -- == = = a2 == 1,219 13 -- 803 3,623 3,832 -- -- -- 1,200 -- = == -- -- -- -- -- 803 4,823 3,832 -- 800 375 420 -- -- -- = = =e <= = <= -- -- -- 800 375 420 -- 3,200 3,165 4,260 -- == 25 ao = -- -- -- -- 3,200 3,165 4,260 -- -- 375 -- -- -- -- 1,000 -- == -- -- -- == == == = 1,375 ses -- 4,000 3,915 4,680 -- -- == ae s ze == = -- -- -- -- 4,000 3,915 4,680 993 2,156 536 2,271 -- -- == = et = = ze = == 685 993 2,156 536 2,271 22 -- -- -- -- -- = == == = = -- 107 22 -- -- -- 499 74 -- -- -- -- = = aS == == -- 688 499 74 -- 6 a = 3 == a -- -- == = == = -- -- 129 6 -- -- 3 432 212 49 529 -- -- = as == == = a5 = = 113 432 212 49 529 225 14 -- -- == -- = a aa =a <= = -- -- 225 14 -- -- a P 14 -- -- os “<= a =e = aS a = 35 -- 14 -- -- 4,52 7519 5,876 6,966 -- -- = eu = = = — -- 758 4,521 2,519 5,876 6,966 66 150 9 -- -- es aay == a =— = == = = 66 150 9 289 531 112 =o == Ss = ee a =e zs = 205 2,016 289 531 112 8,714 5,344 7,142 9,890 = -- ae a Je = ae aS = == 2,720 8,714 5,344 7,142 9,890 = = == 1 == -- z= a = as a = a = == = = == 1 =e == == 36 -- -- = =e. LS aS =e =e = == =-- -- 36 Hla) org 04 5,980 6,374 -- -- = 35 aa ee a = 7,249 7,619 6,704 5,980 6,374 Rae Wenge 5 57 -- -- = = = == == -- 63 -- 19 5 57 ee Doe 386 764 -- -- = es =e 23 = = 845 1,336 1,098 386 764 =] 799 664 -- -- a == ois = = = == 6 184 80 799 664 6 -- os = a = an . aa = 2 Ba =e = -- -- 50 6 -- = -- Be ae 23 a me es = zs se ae) 1 = nie wae ereben 14,932 16,144 = -- = = =a ae = Be = 4,197 11,860 14,932 16,144 93 207 -- -- = ae a =2 ce == -- 30 234 93 207 13,416 = 20,002 22,195 24,247 ao =. om = Be is = = ae = 8,163 13,416 20,002 22,195 24,247 ze; os a 20 -- -- a= =e & es ae 7 ss = = 3s zs Ze 2 a Se =o 43 =5 -- aes aS 2 = == -- == == = = 43 = os =5 Ba) oe -- = = == -- aa BS a aa a2 a! ae es 47 = 7 _ ease ios? ‘ fos APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI THE EFFECT OF EXTENDED FISHERY JURISDICTION BY THE UNITED STATES ON INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES CONVENTIONS AND AGREEMENTS by 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.O. 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. 383 APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI TABLE OF CONTENTS [See GAO note.] Page SUMMARY 2, Ose tie 4 eeiceraes fence (oe 8G. Te: Seas et Us Ul omen ets | skh fees vi INTRODUCTION 2h Ge 6 iv) dG ceases + RO ofa 1 THE, (PROBUEM) (5. vier i viene: ter deh hh oe ee ge 2 co tes oe a 2 THE BEPECTIS) OF ROREMGN IPISHERTES MM -ulo Meme emerEnen) oc) Ge 7 Overfishing .. 5 Oo OS & Oo at 7 PEeces ot Paraten peneaiee Genes Te Overfishing canines pd, shel bicep ea youy SMEG so ys) se le 8 THE FISHERIES CONVENTIONS AND THEIR PURPOSE ......... 19 TRE RE XE CUMING BIEGATERAT AGREE MENS! lenient wie): ies mena n | None 31 A REGIONAL ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF INTERNATIONAL PESHERLES TREAMEES AND VP EXECULIVE (AGREEMENT Stremmeemetmc! er sts oe 31 Alaskal-and the Bering::Sea 2 sa ea me cuRNen @ 4) dae 34 THniey Iesvertaetiel Cocisie Siete g G6 Go 6 Oa 0 6 6 6 Ge a 6 6 36 ioe (Meuicimenie. Comics Sass) 5 ol ol uo o 6 6 6 @ 6 oO 6 6 0 37 HHnsEMCUcmOnG: eS GHClonPAL ty Woke ce allo Glow Go 6. of Gnica eeieute 38 DISTANT WATER OR WORLD-WIDE FISHERIES AND MARINE MAMMAL TREATIES! 0% 2 u5- gin tm fe stata st Meee eee ee ee GR CMe ite oe 38 The United States-Brazil Shrimp Agreement ....... 38 Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission ... eA yall gat are 39 International Convention for the Conservation oF jiareilke houesixey: URNIASISWNS | Quuice toe cE CuuceeOmno |G. Dede o 10. oo SDIMGMNO .C 39 International Whaling Commission . ....5...- . .=- 40 BROADPEPEECTS OER (Ay 20.0 =MdlelhEnmna SEER Viae ON ENN ttl: i Menmmentmerin sy mec ue Nhe 41 THE WAW OF WHE SEA” ics: is Gee cits eke rel Mist Me) ted o) MOC Rat. Ment wr. 41 THOS) JAIND SEHIE! VE CMIAU" 5) sa) ep! Fenansr ee Meyiyeu ies ee), doa ps ako SC MCRMCRERSTEL’s) “rel Sten ues 42 heen Porcenentt, semob Mem! (Mt) kee, erect emt USMS) Co tet ven fee 43 SSAA aS, Wey MES ANID) Mists; OWMMINAES ZANE) 5 6 o 6 6 0 5 6 a 5 44 (CHONMCIMOSIMON [Sy ae tpl medida So NodmOe NO! Bed tec aueke oa o fo ico oli 5 48 BEBLTOGRAPHY 5 0's 2 Jel cet a0 SbdO, Geicl ey SSReen ASN oa ysis oa 50 334 APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI aby Page INDO oe Of Gen TOMNOMNONEC o- oO: 0 6 OF OP 4 fo 16" fayRoND Oo M07 S20 56 Ifa International Regulatory Fishery Agreements to which the United States is Party .....+-- '- 58 II. Bilateral Regulatory Fishery Agreements to which the United) Sttatess vsibaritye Ve be tl nel tnae 18 NAAR I" So OC fo somo MOMOMO Oo 16.0 0 0 Oo o.c GO ONO ORONO Go 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 iv LIST OF TABLES Number Page 1 Wordd Fish) Productdompyy) cece enucueils) Memamnsii el fol Ye /ieline 4 2 International Bodies Concerned with Fishery Management of Which the United States is etlulmolsve Ge A tpe Ou SO OD edo oO do 0 o 0 o jOmONO ED © 20 3 Other Regional Fasheny Bodies iyi iter te tlie) oe) one 24 4 Bilateral Agreements Dealing with Fishery MEELIS MEN Eia: rewire n oftell obteh, Rr ei MsitoMasis cp MCMC MMciat sf ov. ioqile 32 APPENDIX TABLE i Catches of Yellowfin and Skipjack from CYRA by Flag of Vessel, in Terms of Percent of the TotalGateh eM crs) aeieka | sue ilen ofits ue MaMMoMRARol nel ie) jel cenice 64 386 APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI LIST OF FIGURES Number Page 1 Historic World and U.S. landings of fish and SRE UES 5. °.. UMMam mc eamG STM. VEU neta = eM aa 3 2 U.S. landings, imports, and consumption of edible FUSNORY “PROGUCES | SEMA OE Is, Gm tgts hi cass hom. ut Bikes Mon cake 5 3 Estimated U.S. and foreign landings of Groundfish and Herring off Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and Cal EOrN ay 9 sas, as. Peetommmiogt ete ve Cumceiet eile en Pm Eun, eae 6 4 Total catch of Pollock in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Region combined in thousand metric tons round weight, USB SUE ie veiove «lo GT SeMmOemoE Reuniel vey sy cet aise tel seht Tuer opiate meee 9 5 Total catch of Pacific dalibut 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 iEonsgroundsweilrhitr, sMO5e—7Ha i) lh ea mn wears ci enil auicenc eae 11 7 Total Catch of Shrimp in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Region combined in thousand metric tons pound Welghtapyl SOS 74: 4 sah Pen big ce on bhi coi, ee cae ea ebee 12 8 Total Catch of Pacific Ocean Perch in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Region combined in thousand metric tons Pound swearphits LOSS a7 Umemecs sm cfucnie beits. wines cnicuimn: Emeince ¢ 13 is) Total Catch of Pacific Ocean Perch in the Gulf of Alaska and off Pacific Northwest Combined in thousand Metriewtons round) wesehit 4(VOG62—74) 5. seu cohsee ls ie) el encase 14 10 Total Catch. Yellowfin Sole in Eastern Bering Sea sol rel sinel jMeieiaae! reemme!, WORNATM 55 5 5 4 be 5 o 8 o 6 15 dt Total Catch of Flatfishes in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Region combined in thousand metric tons moundywerishits PLI5SB=74) ey fates ou 7 ean ee &. esl key batyorktehaeed cutee 16 al Total Catch of Herring in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Region combined in thousand metric tons round weight, BOS BUD vows Gupearlieg %, oP sy CANCE Oe Eu teWtee Woe ciace? ie er tema io® kee 17 387 APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI 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, UT 2. At the present time there are about 400 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. 5. 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 APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI 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. ll. 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 Law 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 389 APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI vili this case will be 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 94-265 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 be 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 APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI ix period until there is general acceptance of the United States 200-mile 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 draft 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 200 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. 3911 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 bill 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 3g2 APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI nN of these conventions. The study is not intended to be a final, defin- 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 inherent 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.! 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 1). 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. 393 APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI Figure 1. Historic World and U.S. landings of fish and shellfish. 209 a co 150 3 uu & 3 o) Mu o v7 e = World a landings ew ° n i= a 100 ce a) cS w fu 1) vw q u a q 3 Cc S < 5 U.S. landings 0 1949 1960 1970 From: National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Department of Commerce. National Plan for Marine Tisheries, "Final Draft." Washington, D.C.: Dept. of Commerce. October 1976, cr. §. 394 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. 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 levél, particularly in light of a rapidly increasing domestic demand (Fig. 2)? Table 1 nn World Fish Production Catch in millions Year of metric tons (mmt) 1850 May = DELS 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 mmt, 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 cf 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.2 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 5 Figure 2. U.S. landings, imports, and consumption of edible fishery products. Total Consumption Imports Billions of pounds (round weirht) Use) Gaten Te 1950 1660 1570 From: National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Department of Commerce. National Plan for Marine Fisheries, ' Fina] Draft." Washington, D.C.: Department of Commerce, October 1975, p. 12. 396 APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI 6 Figure 3. Estimated U.S. and foreign landings of Groundfish and Herring off Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and California. Foreign Catch Billion pounds (round weight) 1963 1573 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 depletion” 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 overfishing® 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 Plan® lists species of fish they consider to be depleted as of August, 1975. The following species were listed:’ 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 sole 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. SOverfishing 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. 7Tbid. 8Personal knowledge of the author and statistical reports of the NMFS. 398 APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI been declining since (figure 4). For 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 cher suieumer Other species have also 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.? That is, even though the total Published and unpublished reports of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Commission (ICNAF) and United States section of that Commission. 399 APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI figure 4.) lotal catch of Pollock in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Region combined in thousand metric tons round weight, 1958-74. 1906) 180 170 160 150) 140 120 Thousand metric tons round weight 60 506 406 O — "sp "99 "ho "OL ‘C2 "63 "eh "es "be "ey helt@a 70 "Fn '72 "4a "74 95 Scurce of staristics: Low, Loh Lee. Status of “ajor Demersal Fishery Pesources of the Northeastern Pacific: Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. “Nerthwest Fisheries Center Processed Seport;™ Sk Seattle, WA: Northwest Fisheries Center (NMFS), April 1976, p. 75. 400 APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI Thousand metric tons round weight 10 Figure 5. Total catch of Pacific Halibut in the Gulf of Alaska and off Pacific Northwest combined in thousand metric tons round weight, 1962-74, 35 "62 ‘63 "64 "65 "66 "67 = '68 "69 "70 mt ma2 U 7/3} "74 "75 Source of statistics: Low, Loh Lee. Status of Major Demersal Fishery Resources Center Processed Report;" Seattle, WA: Northwest Fisheries Center (NMFS), April 1976, Pee FANE 401 APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI Ey Total catch of Pacific Halibut in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Figure 6. Region combined in thousand metric tons round weight, 1958-74. 10 Thousand metric tons round weight wn a N ao wo > w i oO “58 "59 “60 “el 62) “63! 64 265) “W66 67) “agmtes: 870 “772s tye 4S Source of Statistics: Low, Loh Lee. Status of Major Demersal Fishery Resources of the Northeastern Pacific: Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. "Northwest Fisheries veneer Processed Report," Seattle, WA: Northwest Fisheries Center (NFS) April 1976, Dp. . 402 APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI 12 Total Catch of Shrimp in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Region combined in thousand metric tons pound weight, 1958-74. Figure 7. 25 15 Thousand Metric tons round weight USS weS OP GOM ee Glla62) » UESeOL ODN NOGms Lee or Ue Gey Baa Wied Miss ae Bers) --No data + Small catch Source of statistics: Low, Loh Lee. Status of Major Demersal Tishery 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= ?o 403 APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI 13 Figure 8. Total Catch of Pacific Ocean Perch in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Region combined in thousand metric tons round weight, 1958-74. 130 120 100 90 &0 70 60 50 40 30 Thousand metric tons round weight 20 10 + + Y58) 59 "60! V6 Y62, 863) Y64 65) 166." "67 6869) 70) W772 U7 Siena + 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 (NFS), April 1976, Dy S35: 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, 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. Interview, 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. 500 400 v=) S i=) wiltousand Metric tons S o 100 -koiddy 154 "55> "56 '57) 258, "59. 60) “Gi ~"'62)"63) “64 "65. “6out67 oG8 169) Y700 U7let2 uae Source of statistics: Low, Loh Lee. Status of Major Demersal Fishery Resources of the Northeastern Pacific: Bering. Sea and Aleutian Jslands. "Northwest Fisheries Center Processed Report,” Seattle, WA: Northwest Fisheries Center (NMFS) April 1976, p. 33. 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. 700 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 206 Thousand metric tons round weight 150 100 U5 559 60M G1 162 Source of statistics: the Northeastern Pacifi "63 ‘64 '65 Low, Loh Lee. c: Bering Sea N66) T6/E268 GOP ei Ole M72 Toe Tes 75 Status of Major Demersal Fishery Resources of and Aleutian Islands. "Northwest Fisheries Center Processed Report p. 75. Seattle, VAS Northwest Fisheries Center (NIFS), April 1976, 407 AFPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI 17 Figure 12. Total catch of Herring in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Region combined in thousand metric tons round weight, 1958-74. Thousand metric tons round weight "58) "59. "60 Wel, “62 163) "64 N65) \66) 1G7meuGS, 69. 07.0) U7 72a er Ge? IO 408 APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI 18 fishing effort by the United States and foreign fishermen has not in all cases been so great as to reduce the productivity of the stocks, still the catch by foreign fishermen has been of such a magnitude so as to significantly inerease the cost of fishing to United States-flag vessels and thus decrease the net return to domestic fishermen. That appears to be the case in several of the New England groundfish fisheries. Also, foreign fishermen physically interfere with American fishermen on fishing grounds off the United States coast traditionally fished by coastal fishermen. In the early years of the expansion of foreign fisheries on Georges Bank in New England, foreign fleets, fishing virtu- ally in formation, drove the smaller United States coastal vessels off the traditional fishing grounds. Picture a 3,000 ton factory trawler cf the Soviet Union--or mors often ten such vessels--trawling side by side across the fishing grounds and bearing down on a single 200 ton United 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. }? 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. 10 vidence submitted by Coast Guard, NMFS, and substantiated reports by fishermen to Department of State over 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. 410 APPENDIX VI H > < H Qa a isa] A, A cities Oe -t s enn 2 n bv Ape Oar + taved Bia” sn darhand{ eds! AeGT, Vege Letra ae Oise Dy (vind Ma ola t : botieal *Svte? AL ee f2ub DR at i ; > erm hAety Si tie t Oe Berry: Al ie vie. / Wa 1 =) iia ea, Toe tie Tay 5 a) ‘oFfar 1 PY) 1, ee i fer > Hei Agree sh Jomo hae hue i ade high Pa) 4 4 w= SeFinil J cf iret a yer pit ' YA ee anola qui. eldé ‘mesds 9 Va yiwald (ear amy ia) 4 » ) Sire “ : 4 , ie ~~ “at : s 7 (uo pect y hy e we : Fi , i ' 4 i 7“ q’ yy ; ! Wile | ; . ‘ j A { iii Gia a « pant Ce 3 low Le ‘ 1 j toe ‘ ig?) j i § “ L v1 5 11?) ereanliieny) (ete eee +@y vi i ; iwi ag i a , a oui he ial oh i ole (Or Se 8 ’ i +P G (vy Lest » ee ald; Til i] tye) 4 =-g ga Beh al i ee 5 Ww 4 r i our ‘ mr ‘eqn Gre é the sapael sh oe ) ne ody dint | | ‘ais a) 25 re teil’ inoeer 9 ric goemiy ) Go Oe peat @ of CP eke, OD i ‘ - ‘ if ® =f] a ie i ; ii ny 7 2 al i nF os a oT ‘ + we i\ nM 1 . fy ) air i ‘ y i Copies of GAO reports are available to the general public at a cost of $1.00 a copy. There is no charge for reports furnished to Members of Congress and congressional committee staff members. Officials of Federal, State, and local governments may receive up to 10 copies free of charge. Members of the press; college libraries, faculty members, and students; non-profit organizations; and representa- tives of foreign governments may receive up to 2 copies free of charge. Requests for larger quantities should be accompanied by payment. Requesters entitled to reports without charge should address their requests to: U.S. General Accounting Office Distribution Section, Room 4522 441 G Street , NW. Washington, D.C. 20548 Requesters who are required to pay for reports should send their requests with checks or money orders to: U.S. General Accounting Office Distribution Section P.O. Box 1020 Washington, D.C. 20013 Checks or money orders should be made payable to the U.S. General Accounting Office. Stamps or Superintendent of Documents coupons will not be accepted. Please do not send cash. To expedite filling your order, use the report number in the lower left corner and the date in the lower right corner of the front cover. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER UNITED STATES GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20548 OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE,$300 . GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE POSTAGE AND FEES PAID SPECIAL FOURTH CLAS BOOK