SOVIET FISHERY RESEARCH
EMPHASIZES THE DEVELOPMENT
OF FISHING IN THE PACIFIC OCEAN:

Soviet fishery research has been placed under the control of a new State Committee within the U.S.S.R. Council of Ministers. Some of the plans and goals of Soviet fishery research were described in a statement by the Assistant Director of the U.S.S.R. AllUnion Scientific Research Institute of Marine Fisheries and Oceanography (VNIRO), which appeared in the Soviet newspaper, Krasnaia Znamia, September 20, 1962. Following is a translation of the statement:

"All the scientific research necessary for the development of the Soviet fishing industry will be conducted more regularly and purposefully now that the scientific establishments of the fishing industry have been transferred to the State Committee. The task of increasing the total catch to 50 million metric centners (about 11 billion pounds) by 1965 has been set by the Communist Party and the

Government. This can be achieved mainly by developing ocean fishing.

"Science is faced with big tasks connected with the study of new fishing areas and new species of fish in the world ocean. The most perfect technique and latest discoveries in radio-electronics, automatics, and computing equipment must be used in research for the maximum mechanization of fishing operations and fish processing.

"The Pacific is one of the world's richest fishing areas. In the northern part of that ocean, catches have greatly increased in the last few years. The (Soviet) fishing industry of the Far East has, therefore, a particularly big chance to obtain larger catches of fish and other marine produce.

"We propose to organize several important research expeditions in the near future. One of them will be devoted to the study of invertebrates and algae. . . . In many countries, including those of Western Europe, invertebrates are more valued than fish. . . In the U.S.S.R. that branch of fishing is poorly developed as yet and must be advanced.

"The study of sea depths over 400-500 meters (1,312-1,640 feet) is another major task in fishing research. Modern trawl fishing reaches depths of 250-300 meters (820-984 feet). But we know that greater depths--300-1,000 meters (984-3,280 feet)--are very promising. Explorations conducted by the U.S.S.R. and other countries show that great quantities of valuable fish inhabit those depths-for example, some species of ocean perch and turbot.... This research will provide additional fishing facilities in old fishing areas.

"A practical step has already been taken in this direction. In the Bering Sea, good catches have been made at a depth of 400700 meters (1,312-2,296 feet) by a combined expedition of the U.S.S.R. Pacific Research Institute of Marine Fisheries and Oceanography (TINRO) and VNIRO. Trawling tests yielded a regular catch of up to 2.5 metric tons of fish per hour.

"Special attention will be paid to research on ocean fishing, especially for saury, tuna, and some other species. Besides yielding high-quality raw material, ocean fishing is important because of its regularity--differences in the catch are very small in different years.

United Kingdom

FISHERMEN FROM SOUTHWEST
ENGLAND SEEK 12-MILE
FISHERIES LIMIT:

Soviet fishing pressure has led English fishermen operating off the coast of Devon in southwest England to seek a 12-mile fisheries limit. In December 1962, a fleet of 70 Soviet trawlers was reported to have caused over £5,000 (US$14,000) damage to nets and gear used by English fishermen from Devon. The Soviet vessels were said to have destroyed hundreds of English lobster pots and crab lines while fishing just outside the three-mile limit. (Fish Trades Gazette, December 22, 1962.)

West Germany

Colombia

Curacao Island

Puerto Rico

Other

Total canned fish

Unclassified Edible

Fishery Products:

United States

Aruba and Curacao Islands
Italy.

Total Unclassified
Grand Total

1/Probably mostly frozen.

Note: Venezuela bolivares 3.35 equals US$1.00.
Source: Boletin de Commercio Exterior, December 1961.

Revisions to Title 6--Agricultural Credit- Code of Federal Regulations were published by the Farmers Home Adminstration (FHA) in the Federal Register, January 1, 1963. The new regulations affecting fish farmers and oyster planters appear in Parts 331 and 332. The new regulations (signed December 19, 1962) are part of extensive revisions to Subchapter C--Loans Primarily for Production Purposes--Chapter III, Title 6, CFR.

The revised regulations affecting fish farmers are the result of the Food and Agriculture Act of 1962 (P.L. 87-703). The Act in Section 343 provides, "As used in this title (1) the term 'farmers' shall be deemed to include persons who are engaged in or who, with assistance afforded under this title, intend to engage in fish farming, and (2) the term 'farming' shall be deemed to include fish farming. Those affecting oyster planters are the result of P.L. 87-832 which extends to them the same benefits for production disaster loans as provided for farmers and stockmen.

Civil Aeronautics Board

NEED FOR UNIFORM BILL OF LADING FOR AIR CARGO SHIPMENTS STUDIED: Shippers are invited to submit their views to the Civil Aeronautics Board (C. A. B.) on the need for a uniform bill of lading

11

for air cargo shipments. The C. A. B. is considering proposing legislation which would require the air carriers to issue such a document. At present, the air carriers are free to set their own terms for handling freight.

Department of Commerce

AREA REDEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

GRANT APPROVED TO ESTABLISH MARINE RESEARCH CENTER IN OREGON: A marine sciences research center at Yaquina Bay near Newport, Oreg., will be established as a result of a $959,590 public facilities grant from the Area Redevelopment Administration (ARA) of the U. S. Department of Commerce. The grant will enable the Oregon State Board of Education, Corvallis, Oreg., to build a marine research center which will include a causeway and dock facilities for vessels. The Board of Education will lease the facilities to the Oregon State University which will staff and operate the center.

In addition to the Federal funds, the University will furnish $245,000 to equip the research center for a total project cost of $1,204,590. The University will also provide about $650,000 annually for operating expenses from research grants and State funds.

The new research center will provide important and varied economic benefits. A total of 110 new jobs, including professional and technical positions at the center, will be created as a direct result of the work involved in the project. It is also estimated that 210 indirect jobs will be created in allied trades and services directly associated with the center. The training of scientists, engineers, and industrial personnel at the center will aid the development of marine-oriented industries in the West Coast States. In addition, the center's marine life displays are expected to attract many tourists. A similar research center--the Scripps Institute of Oceanography at La Jolla, Calif. attracts 250,000 visitors each year.

The Community Facilities Administration of the U. S. Housing and Home Finance Agency investigated the project and made recommendations which led to ARA's approval. The U. S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, the Coast and Geodetic Survey, and the Department of the Navy, all reviewed the project and made favorable recommendations.

Yaquina Bay is located in Lincoln County, Oreg., which was designated as eligible to participate in the Area Redevelopment program because of long-term and heavy unemployment. Lincoln County was also declared eligible because of its previous participation in the Rural Areas Development program of the U. S. Department of Agriculture.

increased from some 267,000 pounds in 1956 to more than 7 million pounds in 1962. There is evidence that new concentrations of halibut have been found recently as the fleet has expanded, the Secretary said.

He also noted that the Commissioners were assisted in their discussions on this matter by high-level industry and government representatives in their deliberations on the halibut question.

Dear Governor Egan:

President Kennedy has requested that I supply a further answer to your letter of December 21 in which you support your criticism of recent action on the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission with detailed quotations and facts. I have looked into this matter in some detail. I find the problem both complicated and serious.

It is true that, if the President approves the recommendation which the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission made at its 1962 annual meeting, the Japanese may develop a halibut fishery in competition with our own fishery in the eastern Bering Sea. We have no idea yet of the kind or size of this fishery.

As you know, there will be a meeting of the Commission in Tokyo this coming February, and at that time the conservation measures for the eastern Bering Sea halibut will be thoroughly reviewed. The primary purpose of this meeting will be to develop a conservation program which will assure the maximum productivity of the halibut resources of the eastern Bering Sea in view of the expected entry of the Japanese into this fishery. At the same time I am hopeful that the resultant agreement will still allow a continued expansion of the United States fishery in this area.

On reviewing the action of the North Pacific Commission, I do not find that this decision was arrived at in either a hasty or a haphazard fashion. It is perfectly obvious from the record that the U.S. and Canadian Governments have requested the Halibut Commission over the past 6 or 7 years to prepare for presentation to the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission scientific evidence regarding the extent of the utilization of the halibut stocks of the eastern Bering Sea, It is also evident that there has been close cooperation between scientists of the Halibut Commission and scientists of the Governments of Canada and the United States.

Recently the Halibut Commission prepared a draft report of their investigations in the Bering Sea. This document, which has been studied thoroughly by the scientists of both Governments, has clearly shown the gaps in our knowledge of the eastern Bering Sea halibut resources. This in no way should be taken as critical of the Halibut Commission, With limited funds, they have extended their investigations into the Bering Sea in about the same proportion to the extent of our fishery in that area, This report makes the statement quoted in your letter to the effect that tagging experiments in the Bering Sea have demonstrated a high degree of utilization of halibut found in the area where the U.S. and Canadian fleets concentrate and, further, that some of the Commission's first or preliminary quantitative estimates of fishing mortality give rates higher than those found in other sections of the coast. The report further states: although this does

It is obvious to me that the Bering Sea halibut stocks have only recently been extensively fished by Canadian and United States fishermen, and the fishery is still expanding. The catch in 1962 was the greatest on record and over 25 times that of 1956.

You have indicated in your letter that because of the statements of the Halibut Commission to the effect that utilization of the concentrations of halibut now being fished is high, and that there seems to be a relationship between the stocks in the Bering Sea and those south and east of the Alaska Peninsula, the action of the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission was beyond understanding. I would refer you to the International North Pacific Fisheries Convention itself. Article III of this Convention requires that after 5 years the Commission study annually whether or not stocks under abstention continue to qualify under the provisions of Article IV of the Convention. Article III goes on to state that if the Commission determines that a stock does not reasonably meet the provisions of Article IV, then the Commission shall recommend that it be removed from the Annex. Article IV of the Convention requires that for any stock of fish to qualify for abstention, the Commission must find that: "(1) evidence based upon scientific research indicates that more intensive exploitation of the stock will not provide a substantial increase in yield which can be sustained year after year." As I interpret this section of the Convention, there is no latitude left to the Commission if the United States and Canada cannot show that more intensive fishing will not substantially increase the sustainable yield. The record of the fishery during the past several years has clearly demonstrated that the yield has increased with increased fishing.

There are two other criteria, but in the present instance the United States and Canada, with the help of the Halibut Commission and in spite of its long and serious study of the problem, are unable to provide evidence that more intensive exploitation of the stock will not provide a substantial increase which can be sustained year after year. Thus, if we were to live up to our commitments under the Convention, the only course left, in the face of the record, was to recognize that this proof was not available for Bering Sea halibut and, therefore, that these halibut no longer qualify for abstention. It seems to me that the protection given the North Pacific salmon and halibut fisheries under the present Convention is adequate evidence that this Convention has operated in such a manner as to provide for the conservation of these resources and for the preservation of our own valuable fisheries.

With respect to the Commission's action concerning herring off the west coast of Queen Charlotte Island of British Columbia, the Canadian Section of the Commission again was called upon to prove that these stocks were being fully utilized. Since at the present time, for all practical purposes, there is no Canadian fishery on these particular stocks, it could not be proved. Therefore, again the only action possible that could be taken under the present Convention was to recommend to the signatory governments that these stocks be removed from the abstention list.

It had not occurred to me that the Commission was, in fact, benevolent. On the contrary, it seemed only to be doing what was required. At the same time it must be remembered that, for all practical purposes, the Convention has resulted in almost complete protection of halibut and salmon of the eastern North Pacific Ocean. There remains, of course, the special problem of the sockeye salmon of the Bering Sea. Thus, it appears to me that the results brought about by the present Convention have been very advantageous to American fishermen. It is our objective to see that the situation continues to be favorable to the American fishermen, and we see continuation of the Convention as a means to that end. If the United States is to have it continue, we must abide by its terms. If both you and I do not like some of the terms of the Convention then we should seek to have these altered in various ways more suitable to us. I do not believe, however, that we can criticize the Commission for carrying out the clear mandate which the Convention places on it.

One must remember that this Convention is a very stringent one with respect to the nations involved. On one hand, Japan is prevented from fishing freely on the high seas by virtue of the fact that Japan is obligated to observe abstention with respect to salmon and halibut in the eastern North Pacific Ocean. The Convention limits this severe restriction on the Japanese by imposing demanding scientific criteria on the nations requesting abstention. These limitations are intended to prevent arbitrary and capricious actions which affect the right of nations to fish on the high seas beyond the territorial limits of coastal countries.

After reviewing thoroughly the results of the 1962 meeting and the courses of action open to the Commission under the terms of this treaty, I find nothing irresponsible or haphazard about the action of the Commission. It seems to me that if the United States does not carry out its obligations under the terms of the treaty, the future of our North Pacific fisheries is in jeopardy. As a minimum loss we will share these resources which traditionally have been fished exclusively by Canadian and U.S. fishermen. The resources might well be overfished and depleted by the unregulated fishing of several nations, leaving the halibut stocks in the same pitiable condition they were in before the present Halibut Convention.