January 19, 1976
Page 122
Mr MAGNUSON. Mr. President the Senator from Maine has a very abiding interest in this matter, and I would suggest, if it is agreeable with my colleagues, that since he has another engagement we allow him to present his matter at this time.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank my good friend from Washington. I do appreciate this courtesy, and I also express my appreciation to the Senator from Alaska for his courtesy.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Before the Senator speaks, we have all been away for a while, but the Senator is familiar with the foreign fishing fleet digging up every lobster they can find off the coast of Maine in the last 2 weeks, is he not?
Mr. MUSKIE. I am very familiar with that.
Mr. MAGNUSON. The Senator has been up there.
Mr. MUSKIE. I have been there and examined that kind of a problem in 40-below-zero weather is especially painful, may I say.
Mr. STEVENS. May I ask, is my colleague on a fishing expedition today? I understand he was going to go on a fishing expedition tonight. [Laughter.]
Mr. MUSKIE. I do my fishing on Wednesday night. I thank my good friend from Alaska.
Mr. President, we began a discussion of this legislation as the pending business before Congress adjourned in the first session, and I thought the issues were pretty well laid out at that time and that it is most appropriate we should take this afternoon to resurface these issues for the purpose of finally resolving this legislation.
As the Senate returns again to consideration of the Magnuson Fisheries Management and Conservation Act, we have before us at long last an opportunity to provide our fishermen the minimum support which a citizen would expect from his Government — the opportunity to pursue his livelihood free from the devastating intrusion of fleets from beyond our shores which he is powerless to challenge except through his elected government.
For years, our fishermen have been asked to wait, to be patient, to allow time for international agreements to stop the plunder of our fisheries resources. The result has been 22 international agreements, none of them enforced or enforceable, and a Law of the Sea. Conference which holds little promise of even agreement, let alone implementation in the near future.
We now hear new promises from the administration of agreements to limit fishing activities by foreign fleets. But those agreements which have been reached offer no clear hope of reducing foreign fishing to levels which will permit the restoration of fish stocks. The quotas agreed to are higher than the U.S. negotiators were seeking and it is not clear that the ICNAF quotas provide real protection to the most threatened stocks in the ICNAF area.
There is little comfort for New England fishermen in quotas which permit foreign vessels to take "only" 70 percent of the fish within 200 miles of our shore.
It would be extremely optimistic to conclude that under existing agreements fish stocks in the Northwest Atlantic can be returned to the level which will produce the maximum sustainable yield, even assuming that the quotas will be observed. And this is most unlikely unless and until the United States assumes jurisdiction over the resource.
The interest of these foreign fleets in observing quotas is minimal as compared to their interest in exploiting the resource as rapidly and as completely as possible.
Each year the fleet of foreign fishing vessels off our shores increases. The Commerce Committee reported that in June of 1975 a total of 204 foreign fishing vessels were sighted off New England, an increase of 21 vessels over May 1975 and 45 over June 1974. Of the total, 160 vessels were from the Soviet. Union. My own conversations with Maine fishermen confirm that the foreign presence is increasing and that their activities are becoming increasingly intense. Maine fishermen continue to report gear and traps destroyed by intruding trawlers without any protective measures being available to the fishermen or, may I say, to their government.
In the face of this growing presence and with news of new shortages in Soviet grain production, we are asked by the opponents of this legislation to place our faith and trust for the preservation of our fisheries in voluntary compliance by nations whose past behavior, present needs and patterns of investments all indicate that they are bent on continuing to exploit these limited resources.
I do not believe this body will have to deliberate long to determine that such faith would be misplaced.
When we opened debate on this bill before Christmas, I drew my colleagues' attention to an article from the Boothbay Register of December 4, 1975. The simple logic in that article is compelling and irrefutable. To summarize it again, it points out that ICNAF quotas can only be enforced by the home country of a violating vessel. The most flagrant violators of ICNAF are the Polish and the Russians. Both countries require the maximum immediate catch. Both countries are increasing their investment in fishing fleets off our shores. In both countries the fishing vessels are government owned. In neither of those countries is it likely that a captain who violates ICNAF regulations will be punished by the government which employs him.
The final irony in the experience of some New England fishermen is that they must bear the burden of the violations by others as reduced quotas necessitated by foreign activities force curtailment of domestic fishing. Our own fishermen can look neither to government subsidies to help meet the competition nor to a benign enforcer who will look aside if these quotas are violated.
The 200-mile-limit bill would repair that situation by recognizing that the United States has the most direct interest in conserving the fisheries resources off our shores and permits us on that basis to move toward utilization of the species in a manner consistent with the best interest of our fleet and preservation of the resource.
Under this bill we would have the jurisdictional basis now lacking to make clear and timely management decisions about our fish resources. We could gather the appropriate data to make broad, long-term decisions on management problems and, more importantly, we would have the authority to monitor and enforce fishing practices consistent with those decisions.
The opponents of this legislation, Mr. President, argue that unilateral action threatens our progress in international negotiations on fisheries and jeopardizes the entire Law of the Sea Conference, but this view ignores the specific language in the bill which honors existing agreements and calls for further negotiations to achieve consistency with our proposed extended fisheries jurisdiction. That position also assumes — that position of opposition, Mr. President — incorrectly, that U.S. action would produce a reaction from other coastal nations contrary to the manner in which these nations have reacted in the past and inconsistent with their perception of their own best interests as they have stated them at the Law of the Sea Conference. Opponents argue that the same nations which agreed to 200-mile limit provisions in the single negotiating text of the Law of the Sea Conference would, in response to our unilateral assertion of similar jurisdiction, abandon all previously negotiated fisheries treaties, abandon international negotiations, and set off individually to stake disproportionate claims of sovereignty over commercial and military traffic off their shores.
Mr. President, that is ridiculous. There is no reason to expect such a response and there could be no justification for such a response should any nation take that course. S. 961 is unrelated to commercial or military transit and in no way could another coastal nation justify expanded control over such traffic based on our actions in this bill in this area.
In adopting the 200-mile fisheries management zone, Mr. President, we are not claiming a 200-mile territorial limit. There is no international threat of that kind implied by the bill. And we would not exclude other nations from our fish management zone.
But we would require other nations to abide by the rules we set up to protect our fish stocks.
We hear optimistic predictions for the upcoming Law of the Sea Conference from those opponents who argue that we should wait — delay action on this measure until another round has adjourned. I, too, am hopeful, Mr. President, that the international negotiations will succeed and without delay, but I cannot reasonably predict — and neither can those most directly involved with the talks — that we will reach agreement this year.
And while we wait, the situation for our fisheries resources and for our fishermen worsens by the day. It is cruel and irresponsible for our Government to ask American fishermen to wait any longer. We have agreed to a compromise in the legislation before us which will allow conclusion of the March meeting of the Law of the Sea Conference before the 200-mile limit bill goes into effect.
I take it that means however long it takes that March meeting to conclude its business. So that there is a real prospect to conclude agreement at the Law of the Sea Conference, whether that takes 5, 10, or 20 weeks. This bill gives them the opportunity to achieve that agreement. But if they do not, then I think we can assume, as we correctly assumed in 1975 and as we correctly assumed in 1974, that agreement is not likely in this calendar year.
If we wait another 3 years on the promise of no more than a year's delay, as we did 2 years ago, then in 1978 we will still be debating this legislation on the floor, waiting for the optimistic prediction about the Law of the Sea Conference to came true.
Mr. President, I have been a delegate to the Law of the Sea Conference — I attended the first in Caracas, Venezuela, in 1974 with my good friend from Alaska (Mr. STEVENS), and we concluded from that exposure to the conference that they would not finish that year, and we were right. We concluded from that exposure to that conference that they would not finish in 1975, and we were right.
I happen to believe that one of the strongest impulses for agreement that we could create is the enactment of this bill which says to the delegates from the Law of the Sea Conference, "As soon as you have reached agreement, the legislation the American Congress has enacted will yield to your agreement."
I think that is the strongest impulse for constructive action that we could conceivably generate.
So Mr. President, we should not delay action on this bill. Passage of the bill would be the best sign we can give the world community that we are serious about protecting a major food source for the world. And if we do not give this sign we must expect failure again at the conference and perhaps the loss of our last opportunity to save many of the species of fish which are now threatened with extinction.
May I add this thought, Mr. President, that if we should fail to take this action we will have given a signal to those foreign fishing fleets which are now exploiting our fishery resources, and who now do so in utter disregard of the rights of our fishermen and the gear which they have placed in our territorial waters, the signal that we do not care to protect through the U.S. Congress. I, for one, will not participate in the giving of any such signal.
Mr. President, it is our responsibility to act on behalf of our citizens to protect this great resource. The foreign nations which fish off our shores have shown no indication that they will assume the responsibility if we do not.
May I add, Mr. President, that they could, knowing of the great concern in the Congress in behalf of our citizens, voluntarily restrict the activities of their fishing fleets in our waters to conform — to conform — to the conservation objectives which we are seeking to establish. They do not. And why not? Because they are going to exploit these resources as long as they can — as long as they can — and if they can persuade us to suspend action until the Law of the Sea Conference finally concludes an agreement on that wide range of issues far beyond the 200-mile limit which stands in the way of agreement, then what they will have done is create a field day for themselves for as many years as it takes to resolve the Law of the Sea Conference into a comprehensive agreement.
Mr. President, S. 961, a bill to create a 200-mile fishery conservation zone off the coasts of the United States, will shortly be before the Senate for a vote.
Support for this legislation continues to grow throughout the Nation. But the bill is urgently needed to turn around the depressed economic situation in many of our coastal communities. This bill will provide a very real opportunity for many of our fishermen to continue their livelihood in these troublesome financial times. Instead of going on unemployment or even welfare, fishermen will be able to continue their livelihood without Federal assistance.
In October of this year, the AFL-CIO Maritime Trades Department adopted a resolution supporting legislation creating a 200-mile fishery conservation zone. It should be noted that the Senate bill does exclude tuna from its coverage.
I believe the position of labor on S. 961 is of considerable interest to my colleagues. I ask unanimous consent that the letter signed by Mr. O. William Moody of the AFL-CIO and the attached resolution be printed at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
MARITIME TRADES DEPARTMENT,
Washington, D.C.,
November 19, 1975.
Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON,
Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee,
Russell Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: At its recent convention, the AFL-CIO Maritime Trades Department adopted a resolution on national fisheries policy issues. Included in this resolution was a policy statement by the Maritime Trades Department on the proposed 200-mile fisheries jurisdiction legislation now pending before the Senate, which will affect many members of MTD affiliated unions. I am forwarding a copy of this resolution to you so that you may be aware of the MTD's position.
The MTD's resolution strongly supports the 200-mile limit concept for the United States. However, the MTD is concerned that any such legislation passed by the Senate should exclude U.S. distant waters fishermen who catch highly migratory species off the coasts of other nations. This will enable U.S. distant waters fishermen to continue to operate under the protection of the Fishermen's Protective Act.
Sincerely,
O. WILLIAM MOODY, Jr.
RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE AFL-CIO MARITIME TRADES DEPARTMENT AT ITS CONVENTION IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., OCTOBER 1975
RESOLUTION NO. 12 — NATIONAL FISHERIES POLICY
The United States fishing industry continues to be plagued by fleets of foreign vessels overfishing American coastal fisheries. Some fish species have been seriously depleted, and American fishermen have suffered heavy losses and the damage of gear due to this growing foreign incursion.
While the United States government controls the fish take of U.S. fishermen, the foreign fleets remain unregulated as to catch, vessels, and gear. Employing larger vessels and massive nets, foreign fishermen have drastically reduced both Atlantic and Pacific Coast stocks.
The subsidized fishing fleets of foreign countries, particularly the Soviet Union, have diminished the best fish from many regions, including the Outer Banks off New England. Off the Pacific Coast, tuna stocks are threatened by foreign fishermen who violate international fish conservation conventions in fishing for already depleted tuna stocks.
Foreign incursions into U.S. coastal waters plus other problems facing the fishing industry have reduced the U.S. catch and increased U.S. dependence upon imported fish. Today, the United States imports more than 60 percent of all its fish, contributing a billion dollar drain to the balance of payments.
The United States, which was once the world's second leading fishing nation, is now sixth, behind Peru, the People's Republic of China, Japan, Norway, and the Soviet Union. The number of American fishing vessels has declined. The remaining fleet is largely obsolete: 60 percent of the vessels are over 16 years old, and 27 percent are over 26 years old.
Coming at a time when the United States fishing fleet should be growing rapidly, these developments are particularly disconcerting. Inflation and the resulting high cost of food have made fish more attractive than ever as a meat substitute. Last year, fish consumption in the U.S. rose 7.1 percent — faster than in any other country. The market is there, but the U.S. fishing industry has been unable to capitalize upon it.
Lack of United States government support for the U.S. fishing fleet has been one of the primary obstacles to the fishing industry overcoming the excessive foreign competition for U.S. coastal stocks.
Rather than take unilateral action to preserve U.S. fish stocks, the United States has been committed to waiting for the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference to work out a new international fisheries policy. Thus far, there have been no definitive results from that conference due to the overwhelming variety of conflicting national interests and problems.
The United States Department of State refuses to impose sanctions against those nations which harass, fire upon, seize, and fine U.S. tuna vessels fishing in international waters. The State Department ignores foreign violations of international fishing conventions and treaties signed by the U.S. and other nations to conserve tuna.
Considering these multiple problems and the continuing refusal of the federal government to seek any solution, it is imperative that Congress now mandate the new loan and assistance programs and the fishery controls essential to restoring the U.S. fishing fleet to competitive capacity.
It is imperative that the United States act to preserve the U.S. fisheries and the U.S. fishing fleet before both are demolished by foreign fishing fleets.
Therefore, be it
Resolved: That the AFL-CIO Maritime Trades Department urges the prompt passage of H.R. 200, a bill establishing a 200-mile fishing conservation zone around the United States that would protect U.S. coastal fisheries and leave U.S. distant water fishermen free to fish off other nations' coasts for tuna and other migratory species and be it further
Resolved: By the AFL-CIO Maritime Trades Department that a program should be established to provide assistance to U.S. fishing operators enabling them to modernize and upgrade their fleets and to obtain insurance and other protection on a commercially viable basis.
Mr. MUSKIE. I hope, Mr. President, that my colleagues will join me and my good friend from Washington (Mr. MAGNUSON), whose name is on this bill and who has led the fight for it for so many years, and my good friend from Alaska (Mr. STEVENS), with whom I have been happy to be associated in fighting this battle in supporting this legislation, in moving it quickly through the final stages of the legislative process.
May I express my appreciation to my good friends for yielding to me at this time.
Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his continued assistance in this matter. I enjoyed very much being able to accompany him to the Caracas meeting, and to the meetings that we had with the ambassadors from Russia, from Japan, and the others who were involved.
The staff has just called my attention to an article from the Journal of Commerce for Tuesday, January 6, entitled "U.S. Mackerel Stocks Seen Lower This Year." It quotes Charles Philbrook, the enforcement officer of the National Marine Service's Northeast Fisheries Center in Massachusetts.
I did not have any prior knowledge of this, but I just wanted to show how correct the Senator is in his assessment of these foreign fishing operations and what they are doing.
This report indicates one of the major reasons that mackerel stocks are down compared to prior years. But the interesting thing is Mr. Philbrook "estimated the Soviet fleet had overfished its 1975 mackerel quota by about 70,000 metric tons, based on reports from fishery service observers posted on U.S. Coast Guard vessels and on aircraft."
The fishery service has no enforcement powers over foreign vessels fishing beyond the U.S. 12-mile fishing limit, so it must report quota violations to the State Department and to ICNAF.
"We took documentation of the Soviet quota violations before the ICNAF meeting in Scotland last winter." said Mr. Philbrook. "The Russians were embarrassed and said their overfishing was due to a computer error. They admitted they may have overcaught their mackerel by as much as 100,000 tons."
We had documentation that they overfished 70,000 and they admitted 100,000.
The Soviet quota for mackerel in 1975 was101,000 metric tons.
In other words, they have admitted 100 percent overfishing in 1 year alone. One or 2 more years like that, and if those Soviet computers get screwed up again, we will really be in trouble.
That is why I say to my friend from Maine I think he has made a very good point. I do not know of anyone who has been more stalwart in his support for our objectives of fisheries conservation in the meetings that we have attended on the international scene. On behalf of all of our fishermen from Alaska I thank the Senator for his support of this bill and for his call for its quick passage. Because of things like that, 1 or 2 more years like that and the mackerel off the eastern coast will go the way of the herring off the State of California. I am sure my friend knows that story well. It was overfishing and lack of good management concepts that destroyed that fishing area. I would hate to see the other fisheries of the country go in the same direction. I am sure my colleague from Washington joins me in thanking the Senator for his support.
Mr. MUSKIE I thank the Senator.
I remind the Senator of a conversa tion we had with one of the Russian delegates at the conference in Caracas. He had taken vigorous exception to our support of this 200-mile legislation. I suggested to him, "You can take the step to avoid our taking unilateral action of this kind by simply voluntarily restricting your activities in our waters."
His answer to that was a very strong negative. He said, "We have ICNAF. That is policing the thing."
He, of course, understood, as we do now, according to the figures the Senator has just given, that ICNAF is not being effectively enforced. So, of course, he is happy to lean on ICNAF as an excuse to do what they wanted to do and they have done exactly what they wanted to do all this time.
One thing that is particularly offensive is that these fleets come over to our shores and their draggers get right down to rock bottom. Then they go full speed ahead, whatever speed they need, and they just rip the bottom apart, fishing gear, lobster traps, whatever.
Sure, we have some legislation which says the U.S. Government will help the fishermen prosecute a claim. How in Heaven's name is a fisherman going to make a claim when these fleets come and operate in the dead of night? They have come and gone before anybody knows the damage which has been done. The fisherman arrives out there to tend his gear or his traps and they are gone. How will he identify the offender to place a claim?
Then he comes down here to talk to the Government agents about recovering in some way: "We are helpless. Give us the facts."
"I have no facts."
Last year the Senator will remember that Congress enacted legislation requiring the government to reimburse the fisherman until the Government, which is in a better position to prosecute a claim, does so and recovers. If the Government is unsuccessful, the fisherman still gets his money. The President of the United States vetoed that. He said the U.S. Government has no basis to prosecute such a claim.
If the great U.S. Government does not have a basis for prosecuting the claim to a successful conclusion, how do these little fishermen, who have to mortgage everything in the world they own in order to buy the boat and net, prosecute a claim of this kind?
Then they ask us to establish the 200-mile limit to give that kind of protection and the President of the United States says to them, "Wait until we conclude an international agreement."
I cannot blame them when they get the idea, the sneaking suspicion, that their Government does not really care about what happens.
So, Mr. President, I say to my good friends we are going to pass this 200-mile-limit legislation. I believe that is the best signal we can give to the world that although we are interested in their welfare, we are also interested in the welfare of our people; that we intend to exercise the authority and the responsibility of our Government to do so until they will join us in an effective, enforceable way to protect these stocks, to protect our fishermen, as well as to advance the cause of international law and order.
I do not think pursuing the latter objective means that we just sit on our hands and ignore the injury which is being done to American citizens while their Government stands helplessly by. I thank my good friend for yielding.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article from which I quoted be printed in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[From The Journal of Commerce, Jan. 6, 1976]
SOVIET TRAWLERS MONITORED — U.S. MACKEREL STOCKS SEEN LOWER THIS YEAR
(By Peter T. Leach)
The Soviet fishing fleet is gathering off Montauk Point, in the mackerel fishery southwest of Nantucket Island, the National Marine Fisheries Service said Monday.
About 30 to 40 large stern-trawlers have arrived in the area in the last few days and more are coming every day, said Charles Philbrook, an enforcement officer at the National Marine Fisheries Service's Northeast Fisheries Center in Gloucester, Mass.
In addition, there are about 25 Polish trawlers, 20 from East Germany and 10 from Bulgaria, bringing to 100 to 125 the number of East European trawlers fishing in a zone from 15 to 40 miles off the United States East Coast from Nantucket to Northern New Jersey, Mr. Philbrook said.
In the three winter months from January through March, when the U.S. coastal mackerel fishery is at its teeming peak, there may be as many as 300 foreign vessels fishing off the East Coast, but the catch may be down this year because of overfishing last year, which appears to have sharply reduced the mackerel stocks.
A 20 PERCENT REDUCTION
"Some of the vessels we have already boarded say the mackerel fishing is down this year," Mr. Philbrook said, adding, "we are going to have to monitor the Soviets even more closely this year, since they agreed to a 20 per cent reduction in their 1978 mackerel quota."
The catch quotas on individual species of fish in the rich North Atlantic fisheries are set each year by the nations of the International Conference on North Atlantic Fisheries, which is universally known as ICNAF.
The National Marine Fisheries Service is responsible for monitoring the fishing fleets in U.S. coastal waters to make sure the ICNAF nations are abiding by the catch quotas.
Mr. Philbrook estimated that the Soviet fleet had overfished its 1975 mackerel quota by about 70,000 metric tons, based on reports from Fisheries Service observers posted on U.S. Coast Guard vessels and aircraft.
The Fisheries Service has no enforcement powers over foreign vessels fishing beyond the U.S. 12-mile fishing limit, so it must report quota violations to the State Department and to ICNAF.
"We took documentation of Soviet quota violations before the ICNAF meeting in Scotland last year," said Mr. Philbrook.
"The Russians were embarrassed and said their overfishing was due to a computer error. They admitted that they may have over-caught their mackerel quota by as much as 100,000 tons," he said.
The Soviet quota on mackerel for 1975 was 101,000 metric tons. Partly because they were caught with evidence of their own violations, the Soviets agreed to a mackerel quota of 80,000 tons for 1976.
PRESSURE FOR EXTENSION
The difficulty of enforcing catch quotas in the North Atlantic fisheries is one of the reasons that pressure is building within the U.S. to extend the fisheries limit to 200 miles.
The House of Representatives has already passed a bill extending the fishing limit from 12 to 200 miles, and the Senate will begin deliberations on its version of the bill when it reconvenes following the Christmas recess.
The National Marine Fisheries Service, which already has enforcement officers aboard some 80 per cent of the U.S. Coast Guard vessels and aircraft, would be responsible for enforcing the 200-mile fishing zone. Although the 200-mile zone sounds huge and impossible to police, the best fishing grounds are within certain well-defined areas and the Fisheries Service is familiar with the patterns followed by foreign trawlers in these areas.
Because overfishing by the highly mechanized fleets of foreign trawlers has reduced the stocks of many species of fish in the North Atlantic fisheries, ICNAF has been reducing the fishing quotas from year to year and has closed some areas altogether to fishing at certain seasons.
The last meeting of ICNAF in Montreal in September decided to reduce the total quotas on all species of fish to be caught in 1976 by 34 per cent.
Despite the ICNAF quotas, the total number of fish of all species in the North Atlantic fisheries has declined sharply in recent years, and some species have fallen below what is called the maximum sustainable yield, i.e. the level at which they can replenish their numbers through reproduction at the end of each year's fishing catch.
"It's not a matter of biological extinction, but of economic survival," said William Gordon, the regional director of the Northeast Fisheries Center of the National Marine Fisheries Service.
"My own feeling is that the sooner it (the 200-mile limit) is administered, the better," Mr. Gordon said.
The intensification of foreign fishing within the U.S. 200-mile coastal zone has occurred since 1961, when the Soviet Union's fleet of mechanized trawlers and refrigeration ships first appeared off the East Coast.
Before 1961, the only people fishing the North American coastal waters were fishermen from the U.S. and Canada. In subsequent years, the Russian ships were joined by trawler fleets from other East European countries, from Western Europe and from Japan.
DECLINE IN BIOMASS
Until 1968 there appeared to be little change in the overall size of the fish stocks, but since then, the decline in the total biomass, or weight, of all fish and of individual species has been obvious.
Stocks of yellowtail flounder, haddock, herring and of the category known as other flounders have all declined below maximum sustainable yield.
In the fisheries from George's Bank, off Cape Cod, to Cape Hatteras the total biomass of the 10 most frequently netted species of fish was estimated at 14.2 billion pounds in the 1963-1965 period, according to Mr. Gordon of the Fisheries Service.
By the 1972-1974 period, the total biomass of these 10 species had declined to an estimated 8.8 billion pounds, a drop of some 38 per cent.
In 1966, the total landings of all species of fish by all nations in the George's Bank to Cape Hatteras fisheries was about one million metric tons, which was three times the average annual U.S. catch in the 1950s.
Between 1966 and 1974, the total landings of all species averaged about one million metric tons a year, while the U.S. share of the total catch declined to 20 per cent.
The decline in the total stocks of all fish was so marked by 1973 that the nations of ICNAF held a special meeting in October of that year to establish catch quotas, which were set at a total of 924,000 metric tons by all nations during 1974.
Subsequent meetings of ICNAF set an annual quota for all nations of 850,000 tons for 1975. For 1976, the total quota has been reduced 34 per cent to 650,000 metric tons.
Mr. Gordon expressed his hope that the latest catch quotas will result in a revival of the stocks of the most depleted species.
If the current catch quotas are observed, he said, it will take five years for the total biomass of all species to build up again and it will take seven years for the stocks of the most badly depleted species to revive.