PART I
TECHNICAL AND REVIEW PAPERS (Contd.)

ENQUÊTE EXPLORATOIRE SUR LA PÊCHE SPORTIVE EN BELGIQUE¹

Christiane Gilon

Institut de Zoologie, Université de Liège, Quai Van Beneden 22, 4020 Liège, Belgique

RÉSUMÉ

Cette étude socio-économique de la pêche dans la province de Liège a été réalisée par une sociologue au cours de l'année académique 1978/79. Elle répond aux préoccupations déjà anciennes de l'Institut de zoologie de l'Université de Liège et plus particulièrement, du service d'éthologie et de psychologie animales du Prof. Ruwet. Depuis une dizaine d'années en effet, les chercheurs de l'Unité de recherches piscicoles étudient les aspects fondamentaux de la biologie des rivières et des populations de poissons en Wallonie et travaillent à l'évaluation, à la conservation et à la mise en valeur rationnelle du capital halieutique de cette région. C'est donc dans un cadre interdisciplinaire qu'elle s'inscrit, apportant des éléments du point de vue sociologique et économique sur un objet multiple, un des points d'articulation du milieu naturel et du milieu humain, un des foyers du conflit actuel entre les tenants de types opposés d'utilisation des ressources naturelles: production industrielle ou loisirs, consommation ou protection de la nature. Par la force des choses, cette enquête n'est qu'une étude exploratoire: c'est grâce au cadre spécial temporaire (mise au travail des chômeurs par l'État) qu'elle a pu se réaliser; une seule personne lui a été affectée. Ces conditions matérielles ont déterminé les limites dans lesquelles elle s'est déroulée. Les sociétés de pêche y ont activement collaboré. Cette enquête exploratoire porte sur un échantillon de 700 pêcheurs, représentif des pêcheurs fédérés de la province de Liège (à Liège, la moitié des pêcheurs appartiennent à des sociétés et fédérations de pêche). Elle sera suivie d'une enquête de grande envergure (région wallonne ou si possible, ensemble du territoire). Les résultats de l'enquête préparatoire sont consignés dans un rapport intitulé: “Enquête exploratoire sur la pêche sportive en Belgique.” Le présent document reproduit ses principaux résultats: méthode de recherche, profil sociologique du pêcheur, description du coût de la pratique de la pêche, comportements, préférences, opinions, désirs.

ABSTRACT

This socio-economic study of fishing in the province of Liège was conducted by a sociologist during the academic year 1978/79. It is related to longstanding concerns of the Institute of Zoology of the University of Liège and more particularly to Prof. Ruwet's Programme in Ethology and Animal Psychology. For some ten years now, researchers of the Fisheries Research Unit have been studying the fundamental aspects of river biology and fish populations in Wallony, and have been working on the evaluation, conservation and rational utilization of the fishery resources of the region. The study is thus located in an interdisciplinary framework, bringing elements of the perspectives of sociology and economics to a complex subject, one of the points of articulation between the natural and human worlds, one of the arenas of contemporary conflicts between partisans of opposing views on the utilization of natural resources: industrial production or leisure, consumption or protection of nature. Due to the pressure of circumstances, the inquiry is no more than an exploratory step: it was only by the grace of a government-sponsored employment programme that a special temporary employee could be hired, and the programme only provided for one such person. These material conditions determined the limits within which it was carried out. The fishing associations actively cooperated. This exploration study is based on a sample of 700 fishermen, representing the members of federations of the province of Liège (in Liège, half of the fishermen belong to fishing associations and federations). It will be followed by an inquiry conducted on a larger scale (the Walloon region, or if possible the entire country). The results of the preliminary study are recorded in a report entitled: “An explorative inquiry into sport fishing in Belgium.” The present document reproduces the principal results of the study: method of research, sociological profile of the fishermen, description of the cost of fishing, attitudes, preferences, opinions and desires.

¹ Résumé d'une étude sociologique des pêcheurs fédérés de la province de Liège et aperçus économiques de la practique de la pêche comme loisir. Le rapport complet de la recherche est disponsible au service d'éthologie et de psychologie animales de l'Institut de Zooloogie de l'Université de Liège.

INTRODUCTION

Cette étude, basée sur un échantillon de sept cents pêcheurs fédérés de la province de Liège, a été réalisée par une sociologue au cours de l'année universitaire 1978/79. Elle répond aux préoccupations déjà anciennes des zoologistes de l'Unité de Recherches Piscicoles de l'Université de Liège. Ceux-ci étudient depuis une quinzaine d'années les aspects fondamentaux de la biologie des rivières et des populations de poissons en Wallonie. Ils travaillent à l'évaluation, à la conservation et à la mise en valeur du capital halieutique de cette région. Elle s'inscrit donc dans un cadre interdisciplinaire, apportant des éléments socio-économiques d'appréciation à la prise en compte de l'un des problèmes les plus graves de protection de la nature auquel notre pays soit confronté.

Historiquement, ce sont les sociétés de pêche qui, les premières, ont fait appel aux zoologistes et aux botanistes afin de mieux défendre les rivières et les poissons; ce sont elles encore qui aujourd'hui font appel aux économistes et aux sociologues afin de démontrer l'importance de la pêche comme loisir social, comme sport et comme source de revenus pour l'état ainsi que pour différents sectuers de l'économie. Ils patronnent donc directement certaines recherches et/ou en subsidient d'autres en partie par l'entremise des commissions provinciales piscicoles où ils sont représentés. (Structure de la pêche en Belgique, cfr. Annexe.)

Ils nous faut rendre ici hommage aux pêcheurs fédérés de la province de Liège qui ont assumé l'aspect matériel de cette enquête en assurant la diffusion et la récolte de notre long questionnaire avec une efficacité et un respect de l'échantillonnage souvent supérieurs à ceux des enquêteurs professionnels.

ÉCHANTILLON

L'enquête exploratoire a porté sur un échantillon prélevé sur les listes des pêcheurs fédérés de la province. Ils représentent la moitié des pêcheurs liégeois (15 000 pêcheurs sur 30 000). Il est permis d'une part d'extrapoler un certain nombre de nos premiers résultats à l'ensemble de la Belgique et, d'autre part l'on dispose ici d'une connaissance précise de ces pêcheurs affiliés volontairement à des associations de pêche (car, en Belgique, le pêcheur en eaux banales n'est pas obligé de devenir membre d'une société comme dans certains pays voisins).

Le fait qu'il s'agisse de pêcheurs, en quelque sorte, militants doit cependant nous rendre très prudents dans nos généralisations. La sociologie a montré que les members des associations volontaires se recrutent préférentiellement parmi les couches moyennes ou dites supérieures de la population. Cette constante a pu se vérifier également dans le monde des pêcheurs fédérés.

LES PÊCHEURS: SONT-ILS DIFFÉRENTS DES NON-PÊCHEURS?

Certaines catégories sociales sont très faiblement représentées parmi eux; ce sont d'ailleurs des catégories qui, quelle que soit leur importance numérique, sont minorisées dans notre société.

Les étrangers: 3,5% (principalement des italiens).

Les femmes: 2,5% (et elles diffèrent des pêcheurs asculins au point de vue types et fréquence de pêche, âge, état-civil, milieu social etc….).

Les chômeurs: 3% (en 1977, la province de Liège comptait 11,5% de chômeurs par rapport à sa population active).

Les célibataires: 14,5% (la pêche serait plutôt un sport ou un loisir pour hommes mariés: 81% de notre échantillon).

Les enfants (moins de 15 ans): 1%

Les ennemis des bêtes: 75% des pêcheurs interrogés possèdent au moins un animal domestique!

Ces caractéristiques de l'échantillon des seuls pêcheurs fédérés de la province de Liège pourraient être étendues à l'ensemble du monde des pêcheurs belges si l'on accepte l'analogie avec la Hollande. L'institut hollandais de sociologie appliquée chargé d'une enquête similaire avait éliminé de son échantillon les pêcheurs de moins de quinze ans, les étrangers et les femmes (qui sont également au nombre de 2,5% en Hollande) en s'appuyant sur le fait que ces catégories sont trop peu nombreuses pour être significatives.² Cette enquête mentionnait également le nombre élevé d'hommes mariés parmi les pêcheurs.

Néanmoins, le fait qu'il s'agisse ici uniquement de membres volontaires de sociétés de pêche a du renforcer des phénomènes de ségrégation ou d'auto-élimination.

² Prinssen, J. C. C., et J. A. Kropman. 1975. De Nederlandse sportvisser. (The Dutch Angler. Survey on characteristics, behavior and wishes of sport fishermen.) Institute for Applied Sociology, Nijmegen

Caractéristiques Socio-Économiques des Pêcheurs

a) Ils sont plus agés que la moyenne de la population de la province:

³ Institut National de Statistiques, 1970.

b) Ils sont mariés pour la plupart: 81% contre 52% dans l'ensemble de la population de la province.

c) Leur niveau d'enseignement est supérieur à celui de la population. Ceci constitute certainement une spécificité de l'échantillon plutôt que du monde des pêcheurs. Seulement 15,7% des pêcheurs interrogés ont arrêté leurs études après l'école primare contre 53,5% dans la population.

d) Les pêcheurs se recrutent dans toutes les classes mais la classe moyenne est sur-représenté (dans l'échantillon, forcément-cfr. niveaux d'études). On compte parmi les pêcheurs 72% de personnes actives occupées, 14,5% de retraités, 6% d'étudiants et 3% de chômeurs.

Conclusions

Les pêcheurs interrogés se recontrent dans toutes les catégories sociales de la population masculine agée de plus de quinze ans. Ils en ont les attributs moyens, avec peut-être quelques distorsions dues au fait que l'échantillon est issu d'associations volontaires. Ceci expliquerait la sur-représentation de diplômés, d'employés, de propriétaires.

L'idée très répandue selon laquelle la sous-population des pêcheurs serait le reflet sociologiquement exact de la population dont elle est issue doit toutefois être nuancée. En effet, cette représentation s'appuie sur une présence massive de la classe moyenne qui n'est elle-même qu'une moyenne et non l'ensemble des classes dans leur diversité.

On verra par la suite que des variables telles que la profession, le diplôme, l'âge ou l'état-civil ne sont pas sans influence sur la pêche et qu'il valait la peine de les mesurer en dépit de l'opinion des pêcheurs qui pensent à 80% que “au bord de l'eau, il n'y a ni riche, ni pauvre” et que tous les belges sont égaux devant le poisson.

LE PÊCHEUR BELGE

a) À quel âge, pourquoi commence-t-on à pêcher, comment se passent les débuts du pêcheur? C'est une passion que se déclare le plus souvent dès le plus jeune âge.

Elle est patrilinéaire: elle se transmet de père en fils, d'oncle en neveu, de grand-père en petitfils et de grand frère en petit frère dans 50% des cas. Chez les femmes pêcheurs, c'est le mari qui joue le rôle d'initiateur, dans les premières années du mariage.

18% des pêcheurs ont été amenés à ce type de loisir par un voisin, un collègue ou un ami. Pour les autres, c'est le fait de vivre à proximité d'une rivière ou d'un fleuve qui a déterminé leur goût pour la pêche. Citons encore les pêcheurs sur prescription médicale (hypertension, dépression, infarctus, intoxications…) qui sont plus nombreux qu'on ne le croit.

Ils sont nombreux à ne s'être jamais interrompus (70%). S'ils renoncent à la pêche, c'est pour des raisons:

Autres raisons ayant motivé une perte momentanée d'intérêt pour la pêche: la dégradation des conditions dans lesquelles ce sport s'excerce en Belgique (pollution, grands travaux, curage et canalisation des rivières, bétonnage des abords etc…).

87,4% des pêcheurs interrogés ne pourraient pas renoncer définitivement à la pêche: 39,4% pêchent moins souvent qu'avant, 23,6% pêchent plus souvent. 60,2% ont abandonné certains coins de pêche (pollutions, travaux, tourisme).

b) Fréquences et intensités de la pratique de la pêche: parmi les pêcheurs interrogés, 7,8% pêchent tous les jours; 3% pêchent tous les jours pendant la belle saison (pensionnés et pré-pensionnés, chômeurs, travailleurs atteints d'une incapacité de travail surtout). 75% pêchent au moins une fois par semaine; en semaine, 20%; le week end, 60%. 94% pêchent au moins une fois par mois (en fonction des vacances 11%; en fonction des mouvements du poisson et de son abondance 4%; en fonction de la diminution de fréquentation des berges 5%; en fonction des activités organisées et des dates d'ouverture 24%; en fonction du temps 19%).

c) À quel moment de la journée pêchent-ils de préférence?

d) Les déplacements:

Plus son permis est cher, et plus le pêcheur a tendance à effectuer de longs déplacements: pêcheurs à la mouche, cadres supérieurs et professions libérales, indépendants et enseignants (qui sont les plus nombreux à pratiquer la pêche à l'étranger). Moyens de déplacements: la voiture, 80%; véhicule choisi au moins en partie en fonction de la pêche, 26%. 31% des pêcheurs interrogés pêchent toujours au même endroit mais dans la majorité des cas (60%), s'ils ont des préférences, ils ne s'y limitent pas.

e) Les préférences:

Le pêche en étang: beaucoup de pêcheurs la pratiquent rarement (51%) sinon jamais (32%), néanmoins ils sont 12,7% à y pêcher très souvent et 2,3% à y pêcher exclusivement (étang à truites: 44%). L'étang, c'est le lieu de pêche pour les débutants, où l'on peut emmener sa famille; il est facile d'accès, il est aménagé, on y prend beaucoup de truites, l'eau est supposée pure. On y trouve la compagnie d'autres pêcheurs et il s'y organise quantité de petites activités (concours, rencontres) dont certains pêcheurs sont friands. À l'instar des jeunes pêcheurs inexpérimentés, les vieux pêcheurs, que leur grand âge handicape, marquent une préférence un peu honteuse mais argumentée (la pêche n'est plus comme avant, les rivières sont abîmées) en faveur de l'étang.

f) Types de permis et classification des eaux: pêchent uniquement en eaux banales: 46,4%; uniquement en eaux privées: 6,4%; dans les deux: 46,0%.

⁴ Permis à 250 frs: autorise la pêche à deux lignes du bord de l'eau; à 750 frs: idem + la pêche en barque; à 1 000 frs: idem + la pêche en entrant dans l'eau.

Remarques: les ouvriers pêchent davantage en eaux banales que les pêcheurs des autres catégories sociales ainsi que les jeunes et les vieux pêcheurs. 14% des membres des professions libérales et cadres supérieurs pêchent uniquement en eaux privées et 55% pêchent à la fois en eaux banales et en eaux privées.

Les plus nombreux à acheter un permis à 250 frs sont les ouvriers; les plus nombreux à prendre un permis à 750 frs sont les enseignants, les cadres supérieurs et les professions libérales qui le cumulent avec un permis privé plus souvent que les autres pêcheurs; le permis à 1000 frs seul atteint son maximum chez les indépendants qui le cumulent également avec un ou plusieurs permis privés mais moins que les enseignants et beaucoup moins que les cadres supérieurs et les professions libérales.

g) Comment choisit-on son coin de pêche?

• En fonction de la qualité de l'eau: 62,7%.

• Parce que l'on connait bien les lieux: 65%.

• En fonction de la présence de l'espèce de poisson préférée: 65%.

• En fonction de la présence d'une variété de poissons: 40%.

• Parce que le paysage est beau: 52,3%.

• Pour être seul et tranquille: 38,5%.

• Parce qu'on est certain d'y trouver d'autres pêcheurs: 27,8%.

• Parce que l'on peut y emmener sa famille: 24,7%

h) Les modes de pêche:

• La pêche au coup: pratiquée par 83% des pêcheurs interrogés et préférée par 59% d'entre eux.

• La pêche à la cuillère: pratiquée par 55,2% des pêcheurs et préférée par 8%.

• La pêche au vairon: pratiquée par 60% des pêcheurs et préférée par 17,7%.

• La pêche à la mouche: pratiqué par 47,6% des pêcheurs et préférée par 19%.

• Le lancer lourd en eaux douces: 34% des pêcheurs interrogés la pratiquent et 5% la privilégient.

• Le lancer lourd en mer: pratiqué par 13% des pêcheurs et préféré par 1,5%.

• La pêche de compétition: très mal vue (1%) par les pêcheurs de cet échantillon.

i) Quels poissons pêchent-ils, préfèrent-ils, mangent-ils? Les pêcheurs pêchent autant pour le plaisir de la capture que pour la Tableau 1. Mangent leurs captures: chaque fois, 19%; souvent, 31%; rarement, 34%; jamais, 14%.

j) Les associations de pêcheurs: 58,9% des pêcheurs interrogés appartiennent à une seule société de pêche en eaux banales et 8% appartiennent à deux ou plusieurs sociétés. 18,7% sont membres d'une société banale et d'une société privée. Enfin, chose curieuse, 13,5% des pêcheurs ont déclaré n'appartenir à aucune société de pêche alors que l'échantillon provient des listes de ces sociétés! 57% des pêcheurs assistent régulièrement aux assemblées de leur société ou de leur fédération. 28,3% forment le cadre de ces sociétés (présidents, secrétaires, trésoriers). Plus on monte dans l'échelle sociale et plus l'absentéisme aux réunions augmente, exception faite pour les indépendants qui sont les plus assidus de tous. La participation à ce genre d'associations semble plutôt une caractéristique des pêcheurs les plus âgés. 60% des pêcheurs interrogés estiment que l'affiliation aux sociétés de pêche devrait être obligatoire et 50% estiment qu'une telle affiliation (voluntaire actuellement) équivaut à une affiliation syndicale. Nombreux sont-ils également à penser que sans l'action bénévole des sociétés de pêche, la dégradation des conditions de pêche en Belgique aurait atteint aujourd'hui son point de non-retour.

Tableau 1. Utilisation des poissons par les pêcheurs (%).

k) Les contrôles (permis, taille des capture) par les gardes des Eaux et Forêts: ils estiment être contrôlés souvent (5%), parfois (66,9%), rarement (3,5%); 22,4% déclarent n'avoir jamais été contrôlés tout au long de leur carrière parfois fort longue de pêcheur.

l) Le matériel de pêche: 78% des pêcheurs interrogés n'achètent jamais leur matériel de pêche dans les grands magasins—59% l'achètent toujours chez un marchand d'articles de pêche, 75% estiment qu'il est préférable que ce marchand soit pêcheur lui-même et 68% lui demandent conseil. 52% ont une ou plusieurs marques préférées et ne comparent pas les prix avant d'acheter un nouvel article. 10% sont fidèles à une seule et même marque. Une nouvelle acquisition se fait:

• sur le conseil d'un ami: 21,5%;

• sur le conseil due marchand: 22%;

• sous l'influence d'une publicité: 4%;

• après avoir lu un article: 18,2%;

• après avoir vu un autre pêcheur s'en servir: 37,2%;

• parce que le besoin s'en fait sentir: 25%.

Quelle est la valeur approximative de leur matériel?

La moyenne pondéree de cette distribution est égale à 22 000 frs. Soit un investissement de 2 300 000 000 pour la Wallonie et un investissement de 4 700 000 000 pour l'ensemble de la Belgique. Deux pêcheurs déclarent posséder un matériel d'une valeur de 200 000 frs et deux autres pêcheurs estiment leur matériel à 300 000 frs.

Inventair rapide de ce matériel:

m) Dépenses annuelles: en plus de leurs achats de matériel, les pêcheurs dépensent chaque année une certaine somme d'argent en déplacements, amorçage et autres petits frais divers qui peuvent se chiffrer très haut. Ici encore, il s'agit d'approximations: on ne peut pas considérer ces évaluations personnelles, sans méthode de calcul homogène, comme vraiment fiable (Tableau 2).

Tableau 2. Dépenses annuelles des pêcheurs.

n) Les pêcheurs et l'état belge:

Enfin, l'idée de nationaliser les rivières remporte un score d'adhésion de 70%. La question communautaire se pose également dans le domaine de la pêche, mais j'inviterais plutôt les amateurs de ce genre de problèmes à consulter le rapport complet de recherche.

La question des rempoissonnements: en général, on les trouve bien faits (17,7%), très bien faits (16%), utiles (15,7%), insuffisants (4,5%), désastreux (4,5%).

L'aménagement des berges: 72% des pêcheurs interrogés estiment que les travaux d'aménagement effectués jusqu'ici sont un désastre pour la pêche parce que, brisant la structure des rivières (vitesse d'écoulement, flore, profondeur etc.), ils les rendent “invivables” pour le poisson (les rivières belges deviendraient, selon certains, des “autoroutes à poissons”).

La pollution (“Le pot de terre contre le pot de fer”): 90% des pêcheurs pensent que l'action des sociétés de pêche en la matière est inefficace. 50% pensent que les pêcheurs sont les seuls à lutter et que l'état ne fait pas son devoir (90%), qu'on ne poursuit jamais les pollueurs (90%) alors qu'on punit facilement un pêcheur qui ne respecte pas le réglement à la lettre. En dépit de la crise de l'emploi dont its sont conscients (surtout les ouvriers), les pêcheurs pensent que la pollution est intolérable et doit être combattue à n'importe quel prix.

CONCLUSION

De cette dissection sociologique, il ressort que le monde des pêcheurs, reproduisant les déterminismes de la société dont il est issu, avec ses variétés d'individus, ses différences et ses inégalités, en est la copie spécifique quasi conforme. Même la question linguistique s'y trouve posée. Il n'existe donc pas Le Pêcheur, taillé selon un modèle unique, mais des pêcheurs formant un groupe social différencié en fonction de l'âge, du sexe, de l'état-civil, des charges familiales, de la profession et du niveau d'études. Toutes ces variables définissent les motivations, les choix, les pratiques, les opinions et l'“activisme” des pêcheurs. Il en va de même dans tous les secteurs de la vie sociale.

La pêche peut être vraiment considérée comme un délassement, voire un sport, accessible à tous (mais différemment), très apprécié dans toutes les catégories sociales, où elle se répand de plus en plus (moins qu'elle ne le pourrait si les conditions étaient plus favorables) conformément aux caractéristiques de ces catégories.

De plus, elle constitue une source appréciable de revenus pour différentes branches de notre économie et influence favorablement le tourisme, l'industrie hôtellière et l'industrie des loisirs. Nous étudions cet aspect de manière plus réfléchie cette année.

Après avoir insisté sur ce qui différencie les pêcheurs les uns des autres, nous voudrions conclure en soulignant ce qui les unit: leur angoisse devant les menaces qui pèsent sur leur commune passion, à commencer par la pollution. À cet égard, les pêcheurs forment un bloc homogène animé par un intérêt collectif qu'ils voudraient à juste titre faire partager par les non-pêcheurs. Nombreux sont ceux qui craignent que la pêche devienne rapidement impracticable en Wallonie.

Mais ce jour-là, il n'y aura pas que les pêcheurs pour pleurer…

ANNEXE 1. ORGANISATION DE LA PÊCHE AU PLAN LEGAL EN BELGIQUE

Modifications Recentes

Le conseil supérieur de la pêche est dissous. Du côté des néérlandophones, un conseil supérieur de la pêche est déjà remis sur pied (octobre 1979). Il regroupera dix pêcheurs, deux par province flamande et dix représentants des administrations et experts divers.

Du côté des francophones, aucune structure de remplacement n'a été proposée.

ORIGINS OF RECREATIONAL AND COMMERCIAL FISHING POLICIES IN THE UNITED STATES

Raymond E. Johnson

National Wildlife Federation, 1412 Sixteenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 USA

ABSTRACT

This article describes the roots of the system for regulation of fishing in the United States. In contrast with other countries outside the Western Hemisphere, public waters are much more extensive in the United States, and the limited private waters are distinct legally and physically from public areas. The fisheries are considered to be held in trust by the governments of the respective states for the common benefit. In America, the doctrine of public trust was first applied in 1639 within two decades of the first permanent English settlement to prevent excessive harvest of fish stocks used as food supply. The colonial 17th and 18th centuries saw a partial application of England's common law to the problem of protecting New England's bounty of anadromous and fresh water fisheries and their spawning streams. England's common law, apparently derived from earlier civil laws of feudal Europe, modified from the 5th through the 15th centuries by decrees of kings, the Magna Carta, and parliaments. Colonial Americans in effect replaced the royal trust and prerogatives with state trusteeship. The 19th century strengthened the state ownership doctrine and saw the emergence of recreational fishing as a universal popular activity, sometimes in conflict with traditional commercial interests. Recently, federal law has assumed a greater role in regulation of international and coastal fish harvests.

RÉSUMÉ

Cet article décrit les origines du système de réglementation de la pêche aux États-Unis. Dans ce pays, les eaux sous juridiction publique sont beaucoup plus étendues que les eaux privées, qui couvrent des surfaces limitées, et sont séparées matériellement et juridiquement des zones publiques. Le patrimoine halieutique est placé sous la tutelle des divers États dans l'intérêt public. En Amérique, la doctrine de la “tutelle” publique a été appliquée pour la première fois en 1639, c'est-à-dire moins de 20 ans après le premier établissement anglais permanent, afin de prévenir la surexploitation des stocks de poisson pour la consommation humaine. Au dix-septième et au dix-huitième siècle, durant la colonisation, on appliqua partiellement le droit coutumier anglais dans le but de protéger les précieuses ressources de poissons anadromes et d'eau douce en Nouvelle Angleterre et les cours d'eau où ils frayent. Le droit coutumier anglais, apparemment dérivé du droit civil de l'Europe féodale, a été modifié entre le cinquième et le quinzième siècle par des décrets royaux, la Grande Charte, et les parlements. Les américains de l'époque coloniale ont en effet remplacé la gestion et les prérogatives royales par un régime de tutelle des états. Au dix-neuvième siècle, la doctrine de la propriété des Etats fut renforcée et le goût de la pêche récréative se généralisa entrant parfois en conflit avec les intérêts traditionnels de la pêche commerciale. Depuis peu, le droit fédéral joue un plus grand rôle dans la réglementation de l'exploitation des stocks internationaux et côtiers.

An understanding of how fishery resources of the U.S. are, or might best be, allocated among competing users must be based in part on the historical background. The history of exploitation of renewable natural resources in the U.S. is so recent, the changes are so rapid, and the written record is so complete that the influences leading to development of present resource conditions and management policies are easily discerned. However, the great variety of fishery resources and the differences among user groups have ruled out the formation of a single, uncomplicated, unified policy of resource allocation for the present time. Concern for the welfare of these renewable resources plus ability to achieve optimum use are still balanced, as they have been for almost 500 years, against various economic, social, and political perceptions held in the public mind.

The skills and pleasures engendered by both commercial and recreational fishing were well developed long before North America was discovered and settled by European man (Dill 1977). Regulations and laws governing the use of fishery resources also were in effect in Europe and Asia long before they were applied in North America. In spite of these traditions, the unique conditions in the New World put a distinctive stamp on the policies developed here over the past three and one-half centuries. These policies have grown from a mix of ancient traditions with an unparalleled richness of New World aquatic habitats, diversity of fish species, abundant stocks, and economic conditions peculiar to a young and developing society.

Centuries of English tradition, under which wildlife belonged to the Crown, led to the American concept that wildlife belonged to the American equivalent of the Crown, the sovereign people (Dasmann 1971). Even farther back in history, England's common law apparently came from earlier civil laws of feudal Europe, modified from the 5th through the 15th Centuries by decrees of kings, the Magna Charta, and many parliaments. Fishing for food and subsistence probably was an everyday necessity in those times. Fishing for enjoyment was incidental. Preservation of fishing places and fishery stocks for royal use and entertainment took precedence. The allocation system in Europe and England apparently was simple and strict, although it did have its clever evaders.

The abundance of fishery resources discovered off American shores shortly after the voyages of Columbus made allocation and regulation of catch there completely unnecessary (Trefethen 1975). The catches by fishermen from a dozen European nations off Labrador, Nova Scotia, and New England between 1497 and 1639, when dried, salted, or pickled, contributed substantially to European diets. The King of Portugal even levied an import tax on the fish brought from the Northwest Atlantic banks and shoals to protect his local fishing industry (Morison 1971).

Only a few decades after the first permanent English settlement was made, however, colonial complaints were being sent back to the homeland about scarcity of fish for food and the depletion of coastal stocks caused by heavy commercial catches. In 1639, the doctrine of sovereign trust and public regulation of catch was revived, modified to fit a kingless society, and sternly applied in the Massachusetts Bay Colony to remedy an excessive harvest and precipitous decline of food supplies. The colonial ordinance compiled from 1641 to 1647 in that Colony was the result of a long struggle by colonists to gain individual liberties from their original charter, gained from James I (Frankel 1969). “Every inhabitant that is a householder shall have free fishing… in great ponds, bays, coves and rivers so far as tidal rivers come.” Navigation also was to remain unimpeded, trespassers were not to come in, and the common great ponds were open to all in the colony. These were local laws applicable only in the Massachusetts and Maine areas but not in the charter of the Plymouth Colony farther to the south.

Presumably these statutes were most effective in coastal bays and estuaries, and in streams and headwater ponds, where the anadromous species of shad, sturgeon, alewives, and Atlantic salmon ascended until blocked by falls or dams. The fish populations of inland river systems, and the undreamed of abundance of Pacific salmon and steelhead runs into West Coast streams would remain almost unknown for 150 years, utilized only by aborigines fishing in their usual and accustomed places without allocation or regulation. Similarly, the tremendous concentration of whitefish in the St. Marys River between Lake Superior and Lake Huron in the chain of freshwater Great Lakes was heavily used by native Americans and the first explorers from France. Sharing the bounty was easy when there was plenty for all.

During the two centuries before independence when American settlements huddled on the Atlantic seaboard in small and isolated clusters, English, Dutch, German, and Swedish immigrants remained closely tied by commerce and custom to their homeland nations. English law usually prevailed. Local regulations of fishing activities were imposed often to protect food supplies in seasons and places when vulnerable concentrations of several species would form. In contrast, the French and Spanish settlements to the north and south of the central area were less constrained in their customs and apparently had their goals set on objectives farther inland, such as exploring for gold and furs.

For two reasons, the initial period of fish abundance came quickly to an end. Human population growth and need for food escalated beyond the capacity of local fish stocks to support a heavy sustained harvest. Also, beginning in the early 1800's, the pristine character of local streams and ponds was so altered by lumbering, farming and early industry that fish reproduction was hardly possible. Dams to create ponds for mill wheels, channels for easier navigation, and contamination with wastes all had their negative effects. Common or sovereign ownership of the streams and the fish did not stop or correct the public disregard and wanton destruction of the time. A new philosophy and additional policies clearly were needed to meet the economic and social developments of the time.

It should be emphasized again, however, that the idea of laws governing the use of fish should favor one class or group over another never took root on the American continent. When the Revolution transferred the sovereignty of the Crown to the states, the right of the public to fish (“the common piscary”) was paramount to the landowners' claimed property rights (Bean 1977). This idea was finally affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1842.

Fortunately, American reliance on fish for meat in the diet lessened as grain and livestock farming practices were rapidly developed, first in the eastern states and then almost explosively in the fertile lands of the Ohio and Mississippi river valleys. This circumstance still holds, as fish today make up hardly 5% of the American meat diet.

At the same time, beginning in the mid-1800's, Americans began to achieve increasing affluence, more leisure time, and greater travel mobility. There was time to enjoy the wilderness without feeling compelled to destroy it. The endless diversity of scenery, intriguing areas of virgin forests, grasslands, and water, and rewarding abundance of fishery resources in the lightly settled hinterlands attracted people to sample nature's bounty for fun and education. For the first time, fish and wildlife were looked upon as something other than things to eat (Trefethen 1975). Recreational angling became popular. The first anglers' clubs were formed in eastern cities beginning in 1832. The earliest enforcement of state laws protecting fishery resources began in Maine in 1852.

For decades, things went well, but as recreational angling pressures increased, fishing tackle became more efficient, and access to previously untouched waters became available, recreational angling became an imposition on native stocks of fish. Augmentation of those stocks by planting domestically reared fish was begun, but the story of fish population decline began to unfold again. It was accelerated by a continuing abuse of streams and lakes by contamination and by the appearance of unwanted “weed species” of fishes, both native and imported.

This time around, beginning shortly after the Civil War in the 1860's, exercise of the states' affirmative duty to protect the public trust was not only accepted but was even demanded by those who would be regulated. Recreational fishermen, through the democratic law-making process, imposed restrictions upon themselves beginning in Massachusetts in 1865 and in California and New Hampshire shortly thereafter. They also assessed fees upon themselves to pay for the protection and enhancement of the resources they intended to use, beginning about 1895. Some states, particularly Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin, employed the first salaried game wardens in 1887 to protect the fish and wildlife of their areas. When contestants of this trend appeared, the U.S. Supreme Court again affirmed this “regulation of the use by people of their common property… for the common benefit” and approved the state role “as a trust for the benefit of the people.”

The role of the state as a soveriegn and as an owner of common property, and the promulgation of regulations and laws for the management of such property, has given legal status to several public concepts about fishing. In most states, commercial fishing (emphasizing the selling of fish for food purposes) and recreational fishing (fishing for fun, with some food value also recognized) are regulated by different statutes. In many cases the desirable fish species are separated into commercial and recreational categories, one to be sold and the other not. Often, third and fourth categories appear-fish desired by neither party, and fish of the small, forage type which are ignored by both parties except for local use as bait.

There is little uniformity in this type of allocation of fishes across the nation, although some agreement has been achieved among states on the species classification by use. Contention still exists between different user groups. In the 20th Century, three major challenges have emerged to complicate the formulation of uniform policies on fish allocation. One is the rise of a body of basic federal law, originally sought by the states but now sometimes feared, covering fundamental environmental protection, or protection of natural resources common to many states (migratory species), or covering management of land areas not under state jurisdiction of any kind. Standing on the Constitution's treaty-making, commerce, and property clauses, the federal laws had their beginning in 1871 at the insistence of a private organization of fishermen, both recreational and commercial, who sought a national program of fish restoration and management. The environmental movement of the 1960's and 1970's has enlarged this category of law immensely.

Another challenge is the growing success of American Indian tribal groups in gaining recognition of their treaty rights of a century and more ago. Rights to use of important species of fish, most often for commercial purposes, cannot be ignored in any allocation process. The third challenge is the growing conflict between recreational and commercial fishermen seeking the same fish species, sometimes but not always on the same common fishing ground. Both types of harvesters now have the capability, through more efficient gear and greater numbers, of overharvesting even marine species of fish.

Thus, in the U.S., we have passed through nearly 500 years of fishing history, evolving different fishery management methods and policies along the way to meet different conditions. We have gone from the practice of unallocated, unregulated harvest of marine and anadromous food fish species, to complex regulations imposed by individual states and the federal government upon the catches of commercial and recreational fisheries alike. The mantle of sovereignty has passed from kings to states to an uneasy partnership between states, federal government, and Indian tribal councils. This may be a natural consequence of more user groups and greater demands impinging on renewable but fragile resources. Agreement on how to share the resources and still assure their perpetuation in useful quantities has not appeared.

An American writer (Allen 1962) summed up our situation quite well: “Americans don't like control… but recently there are so many of them they are having to divide things; and that, too, was long beneath their dignity. Now they are discovering that there is a point where indepence becomes irresponsibility and liberty becomes license. Even freedom of the personal kind must be abridged somewhat in order that others can enjoy it in equal measure.” We are still trying to decide how to impose controls on ourselves before our common resources are lost.

LITERATURE CITED

Allen, Durward L. 1962 Our wildlife legacy. New York, Funk & Wagnalls. 422p.

Bean, Michael J. 1977 The evolution of national wildlife law. Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office. 485 p.

Dasmann, Raymond F. 1971 Environmental conservation. New York, John Wiley & Sons. 733 p.

Dill, William A. 1978 Patterns of change in recreational fisheries: their determinants. Pages 1–22 in Recreational freshwater fisheries: their conservation, management and development. Stevenage, Herts., England, Water Research Centre, Stevenage Lab.

Frankel, Moses M. 1969 Law of seashore, waters, and water courses, Maine and Massachusetts. Forge Village, Mass., Murray Printing Co. 196 p.

Morison, Samuel Eliot. 1971 The European discovery of America. New York, Oxford University Press. 712 p.

Trefethen, James B. 1975 An American crusade for wildlife. New York, Winchester Press. 409 p.

CONCEPTUAL AND PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES OF ALLOCATION IN MIXED COMMERCIAL/RECREATIONAL FISHERIES IN THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

Edwin B. Joseph

Marine Resources Division, South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, Post Office Box 12559, Charleston, South Carolina 29412 USA

ABSTRACT

The problem of allocation between recreational and commercial fishermen in the southeastern United States has proven conceptually difficult and politically sensitive. Three mixed recreational/commercial fisheries (billfish, including swordfish, the Spanish and king mackerel fishery, and the snapper-grouper fishery) illustrate the range of conceptual difficulties. Although each presents certain unique features, there are common problems to most such mixed fisheries. One common feature of these mixed fisheries is that the market place does not influence allocation by itself. In the commercial segment, values are those of the product, in the recreational sector, values are of the experience. These two value systems appear too dissimilar to be balanced by market place allocation. The billfish fishery is largely a traditional recreational fishery of great economic value in the United States. With increasing harvest by both user groups, in this fishery, some form of allocation will soon be vital. This problem has not yet been addressed. The Spanish and king mackerel fisheries are important both as commercial and recreational fisheries. As resource approaches full utilization and fishing pressure increases, allocation tends to be based on the traditional ratio of harvest. This approach maintains a temporary equity between commercial and recreational users, but does not address the question of what kind of allocation would best meet the needs and desires of society. The snapper-grouper fishery presents a special set of problems because of biological characteristics. These stocks appear fully exploited and in some localities overexploited. However, because of localized concentrations and non-migratory nature of the stocks, effective quota and allocation systems have been exceptionally difficult to devise. Certain generalizations are obvious. First, any allocation system must meet the social and economic needs of the region in question. Any allocation system must be politically and socially acceptable at some minimal level. Recreational fisheries are largely a pursuit of pleasure, thus, any allocation scheme that inhibits the pleasure of the fishery will diminish its social and economic value.

RÉSUMÉ

Le problème de l'allocation des ressources entre la pêche récréative et la pêche commerciale dans le sud-est des États-Unis est à la fois compliqué sur le plan théorique et délicat sur le plan politique. Trois pêcheries mixtes récréatives/commerciales (le marlin, y compris l'espadon, le maquereau bonite et le thasard, et les lutjanidés) illustrent la gamme de difficultés théoriques qui se posent. Si chacune a ses caractéristiques propres, il y a aussi des problèmes communs à la plupart d'entre elles. L'un de ces problèmes communs est que l'allocation des ressources n'est pas influencée par des considérations de marché proprement dites. Pour ce qui est de la pêche commerciale, le critère est la valeur du produit, et pour la pêche récréative, c'est le plaisir de pêcher. Ces deux systèmes de valeurs sont trop différents pour pouvoir être mis en balance dans une répartition en fonction des considérations de marché. Aux États-Unis, la pêche au marlin est essentiellement une pêche traditionnellement récréative de grande valeur économique. L'augmentation des prises des deux types de pêche imposera bientôt d'opérer une certaine répartition des ressources. C'est un problème que l'on n'a pas encore envisagé. Le maquereau bonite et le thasard sont importants pour les deux types de pêche, récréative et commerciale. À mesure que l'utilisation des ressources approche du potentiel et que l'intensité de la pêche augmente, l'allocation tend à se faire en fonction de la proportion historique des prises. Cette approche maintient temporairement un partage équitable, mais ne résout pas la question du type d'allocation qui répondrait le mieux aux besoins et aux voeux de la société. La pêche aux lutjanidés présente une série de problèmes particuliers en raison de facteurs biologiques. Ces stocks semblent pleinement exploités et dans certaines localités surexploités. Toutefois, comme ils sont concentrés et qu'ils ne migrent pas, il a été particulièrement difficile de fixer des contingents et de mettre en place des systèmes d'allocation. Certaines considérations générales sont évidentes. Tout d'abord, tout système d'allocation doit répondre aux besoins sociaux et économiques de la région en cause et doit recueillir un minimum de consensus politique et social. La pêche récréative étant essentiellement une activité d'agrément, tout système de répartition qui réduit le plaisir de la pêche diminuera sa valeur sociale et économique.

INTRODUCTION

The waters of the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of the southeastern U.S. have not been noted for commercial production of food fish. There are, of course, commercial fisheries which are quite important in local areas, but these have not been impressive on a world scale of production. In contrast, these same waters support marine recreational fisheries which do rank in economic importance with most any in the world. The economic dependence of several states on coastal tourism is closely tied to these recreational fisheries. The state of Florida is one prime example.

In this region, many stocks of fish are commonly used by both commercial and recreational users. Until recently, most fishery scientists did not feel that these stocks were being stressed by the dual use, thus little consideration was given to any idea of allocation between user groups. However, over the past several decades, rapid increases in fishing pressure by both groups has at least raised the question of full exploitation and in some cases suggestion of over-exploitation. As there is no reason to expect fishing effort to decline over any long term trend, the problems of devising fair allocation schemes are upon us and in my opinion will occupy much of the attention of fishery managers over the decade of the 1980's.

The present paper examines three mixed commercial/recreational fisheries. The billfishes (including swordfish), the Spanish and king mackerel, and the snapper-grouper complex of reef fishes illustrate the range of conceptual difficulties in considerations of allocation. Although each of these fisheries presents certain unique differences, there are problems common to most such mixed fisheries.

In a partially free market economy such as exists with fisheries in the U.S., it would generally be considered desirable to allow market forces to perform the allocation rather than have allocation decisions by government edict. In those purely commercial fisheries, whenever actual or potential demand meets or exceeds supply, market forces do an adequate job of allocation. For example, the penaeid shrimp of the southern U.S. would constitute a perfectly acceptible raw material for the production of a variety of low-value products such as shrimp meal, or pet food. However, the high value that society places on fresh shrimp as human food insures that virtually all the production flows to that use. The market place has very effectively made the allocation decisions without any help from government. Similar allocation has not occurred in most fisheries which are of a mixed nature, that is when part of the harvest is extracted by recreational fisheries and part by a commercial food fishery.

A number of studies of economic value of various recreational fisheries have been conducted in recent years. While there is still considerable disagreement over the most appropriate methodology to arrive at an estimated value, there is no doubt that the values are exceptionally high in relation to values created by commercial users of the same resource in many mixed fisheries. The expenditures on the part of recreational fishermen may reach many dollars per pound of fish caught when the same fish on the commercial food market may be valued at less than $1 per pound. This is such a common situation that one might wonder why natural market forces do not naturally divert more of the product to the higher valued use. As a biologist, I will not attempt to provide a full or detailed answer to this apparent contradiction, but there are certain aspects that appear obvious even to the non-economist. While some of these observations are far from original, I believe they bear repeating. The basic problem is that market values are acting on two entirely different products when we have a mixed commercial and recreational fishery utilizing the same stocks. On the food fish or commercial side, society or the market place is establishing a value on the fish itself in competition with a wide variety of other food products. The buyer has no interest in how the fish was harvested so long as a product is in good condition at the time of purchase. The marine angler, on the other hand, is paying for a wide variety of goods and services that provide the opportunity to catch, or at least attempt to catch the fish in question. His willingness to pay is obviously for the experience of catching the fish and not a willingness to pay for the fish itself. A simple hypothetical mixed fishery could illustrate the point. Assume a mixed fishery in which the commercial fishery places a value of $1 per pound on the product and the marine angler spends an average of $10 a pound to catch the same fish. This would not be an unusual value ratio in American mixed commercial/recreational fisheries. In such a case, one might say that both angler and consumer are willing to pay $1 per pound for fish, but in addition the marine angler is willing to pay $9 per pound for the experience of catching it. With such a dissimilarity in the two value systems, it is not surprising that free market forces do not perform the allocation.

This concept will be examined with each of the three mixed fisheries to be described.

THE BILLFISH FISHERY

This fishery, as defined in this paper, is based on the blue marlin, the white marlin, the sailfish and broadbill swordfish. In the waters of the Atlantic Ocean adjacent to the continental U.S., the billfish fishery has been by tradition a recreational fishery for the first three named species and a commercial fishery in the case of the latter species. At least, such is the case in terms of domestic harvest.

Several significant events have occurred over the last decade which changed the traditional patterns. The dominant event of course was the rapid development of the Japanese long-line fishery for tuna which takes a significant incidental catch of marlin, sailfish and swordfish, both in the Gulf of Mexico and on the Atlantic coast. The fairly recent development of the domestic long-line fishery for swordfish has dramatically influenced and changed the pattern of commercial exploitation of swordfish and added another source of incidental catch for the other billfishes. Beginning about 1966, the development of new fishing techniques led to the establishment of a significant hook and line recreational fishery for swordfish in the U.S.

Fishery management plans are being developed for the billfishes by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council in conjunction with other councils. One plan covers the marlins and sailfish and a separate plan deals only with swordfish. This Council is one of eight regional councils created in the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976. This is the act that also created the 370-km extension of jurisidiction or what is generally referred to as the Fishery Conservation Zone or the FCZ.

Several kinds of allocation issues are raised in each of these plans. First there is the judgement of whether or not a surplus over U.S. needs and harvest capacity exists, so that a foreign allocation is called for. The preliminary management plan which is now in force carries the determination that no surplus exists and no directed foreign harvest is allowed within the U.S. Fishery Conservation Zone. It is highly unlikely that the final fishery management plans will change that determination. What appears to be a complete allocation turns out not to be so simple. It was mentioned earlier that the Japanese longline tuna fishery involves a significant incidental catch on both blue and white marlin and swordfish. Since tuna was explicity exempted from the U.S. Act, this incidental catch continues. Retention of billfish is strictly prohibited by foreign fleets, however, a significant mortality, perhaps as high as 60%, is imposed on the released fish.

More to the direct theme of this meeting is the allocation problem between recreational and commercial users. At this point, we must separate the swordfish from the other billfishes as is being done in the separation of plans.

The billfish fishery has from its inception been a recreational hook and line fishery and is considered by many to be the ultimate in offshore sport. To my knowledge, there has never been a directed commercial fishery for billfish at least in the continental U.S.

In the draft fishery management plan for billfish (marlin and sailfish) now being considered, the recreational nature of the fishery is being retained. This is not the result of a direct allocation but rather the result of fishing gear limitations. The draft plan limits the harvest to the type of rod and reel assemblages traditionally used in the offshore recreational fishery. Speaking only as one individual resource manager and council member, I believe this action is entirely justified. This fishery is considered by many to represent the ultimate in marine recreational fishery experience. Consequently, marine anglers have shown a willingness to pay more to participate in this fishery than in any other American fishery. It is unlikely that without the billfish and sailfish, the extremely important and economically valuable charter boat fishery of the U.S. could exist. The net result is that the harvest of a relatively small tonnage of fish leads to an enormous economic input to the adjacent coastal areas.

This limitation to traditional rod and reel harvest may not prevail in the waters of the Caribbean adjacent to Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Here a somewhat different set of social needs, values and priorities exist. The marlins are considered more important as a food resource and the use of the resource has not yet been finally determined.

An entirely different history and present set of circumstances are apparent with swordfish. This has been a traditional food fishery and only recently has a significant recreational component been added. Although this recreational fishery has added an important new dimension to the offshore fishery scene, the harvest is currently insignificant compared to the current commercial harvest. Further recreational trends are difficult to predict but I would not expect the swordfish fishery to ever achieve the popularity of the other billfishes. The fishery is conducted almost entirely at night and from a drifting boat. Both of these aspects will serve to reduce the appeal to many anglers.

It appears that the management problems with this fishery will not be allocation problems but to maintain the stocks in such condition that a profitable commercial fishery remains a possibility.

SPANISH AND KING MACKEREL FISHERY

Two species of mackerels, the Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus maculatus) and the king mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla) contribute significantly to the commercial food fishery and the recreational fishery of the Southeastern and Gulf coasts of the U.S. Estimated total landings in 1975 were 15000 metric metric tons for king mackerel and 10 000 metric tons for Spanish mackerel.

The commercial fishery has several separate gear components and several areas of potential conflict. The commercial harvest for Spanish mackerel is largely made by gill nets. King mackerel are caught not only by gill nets but also by hook and line from the so-called “Troll Boat Fleet.” In recent years, there has been considerable conflict in some geographic areas between the “Troll Boats” and the gill-netters. The recreational fishermen perceive the growing gillnet activity as a threat to their future fishing. Several companies have considered the possibility of introducing the purse seine into the mackerel fishery. Although this has not occurred as yet, virtually all existing elements of the fishery perceive large-scale purse seining of mackerel as a threat to their future.

The recreational fishery, unlike the commercial fishery, is widely distributed throughout the southeastern U.S. and the Gulf of Mexico. The king mackerel, in particular, is considered one of the mainstays of the offshore charter boat industry. Both king and Spanish mackerel are sought by the large private boat fleet in addition to the charter fleet. Even the headboats in some areas account for significant catches of king mackerel. There does not appear to be any significant level of conflict among the several components of the recreational fishery.

In the preliminary planning for these fisheries, the councils have made the judgement that U.S. capacity is adequate to harvest the entire optimum yield. In this case, an attempt is being made or at least proposed to allocate the OY between the recreational and to the commercial sectors. The basis for the allocation is the ratio that is believed to exist in harvest between the two sectors at the present time. Thus, we have an allocation based on tradition alone, and one which has little or nothing to do with economic values. This is perhaps as equitable a distribution as could be achieved with our present state of knowledge of the fishery. The estimates of the magnitude of the commercial harvest are thought to be reasonably accurate. However, the same could not be said for the recreational harvest. Likewise, the values of the commercial fishery are well documented but estimates of the number of participants and expenditures on the recreational side are highly speculative and not likely to improve in quality until a plan is in place. I believe in this arena of uncertainty one can defend the type of allocation that has been proposed.

An additional complication in this allocation scheme is caused by the fact that an unknown but significant quantity of recreationally caught mackerel end up in commercial channels. It is not at all unusual for buyers to be waiting at the docks to purchase the surplus over that portion of the catch the recreational anglers choose to retain. The method of treating those has been the subject of much debate. The trend thus far in council discussion is to treat any fish that is sold as a component of the commercial landings. In my opinion, this tends to obscure the true relationship between the two segments of the fishery. However we choose to treat this crossover in future allocations, we must measure it and account for it.

THE REEF-FISH FISHERY

The last fishery to be dealt with in this discussion is based upon a mixed assemblage of at least 35 species. It is an extremely complex fishery, not only because of its mixed resource base but also because of the variety of users. It might just as easily and accurately be considered a collection of separate fisheries all operating simultaneously on a mixed stock of fish.

The species are members of four families: the snappers, members of the Lutjanidae, the sea basses and groupers of the family Serranidae, porgies of the family Sparidae and several species of grunts of the family Pomadasyidae. There are a few incidental species belonging to other families. What these fishes have in common is they are all tropical and subtropical species that are largely restricted to the reef or live bottom habitats.

The fisheries are just as mixed and complex as the resource base. First, the fishery has important commercial and recreational components. Although our estimates are based on an extremely poor data base, we believe the recreational fishery accounts for over half the landings in weight and without doubt the overwhelming percentage of the harvest in numbers of individual fish.

Neither the commercial nor the recreational fisheries are internally uniform. The commercial fishery has three principal components within the region under discussion. The most traditional component is the hook and line fishery. The effectiveness of this fleet has been considerably enhanced in recent years by the addition of more accurate electronic navigation and sounding gear and by the widespread adoption of improved electric fishing reels. This hook and line fishery operates throughout the Southeast region and still accounts for the bulk of the landings in the commercial fishery although precise estimates are lacking. Within the last few years, there has occurred a large scale introduction of traps especially in southern Florida and in the Florida keys. This introduction of a new gear type has engendered considerable controversy from the traditional hook and line fishery, from the recreational fishery and from the environmental community as well. How well grounded these fears are is yet to be fully substantiated. At the other extreme of the region, particularly in the Carolinas, another controversy is being generated but this one has attracted far less attention and publicity. This controversy results from increasing attempts to introduce roller-rigged trawls into the fishery. This move is being resisted by the traditional hook and line commercial fishermen, by the recreational fishermen and by some components of the environmental community. The fears are almost identical to those expressed over the introduction of traps. That is, additional effort in a fully exploited fishery, destruction of undersized and incidental species and lastly, the fear of destruction of the live bottom habitat by the trawls. Again, the degree to which these fears are justified is not fully documented.

The recreational fishery is like the commercial in not being internally uniform but is made up of several separate components. The fishery consists of a head-boat component, a charter boat component and a private boat fishery. Little of the fishery is conducted directly from shore, pier or bridge.

The head boats are vessels generally in excess of 20 m length which take out large parties of 40–60 patrons for bottom fishing. These occur over the entire region but are most concentrated in areas of high tourist activity such as south Florida.

Many charter boats offer reef fishing as an alternative to other forms of fishing but few specialize in this endeavor. We have little reliable information on the magnitude of the catch of this component of the fishery but it is generally believed to be significant.

The private boat reef fishery is concentrated in the southern portion of the region because the reef habitats are closer inshore and more accessible to smaller boats. This component is increasing in the upper states of the region, however, because of the development of artificial reefs in the near shore environment. This private boat fishery is the most difficult to assess but we believe that because of the large numbers involved, it accounts for the major component of the recreational harvest.

In addition to the mixed nature of the stocks, there is an additional biological complexity that adds considerable difficulties to managing this fishery and in making allocation decisions. This group of species, because of their sedentary or essentially non-migratory nature, do not behave as unit stocks. This forces a much more localized approach which is just what we are trying to avoid in regional management.

With the complexity of the fishery and some of the biological difficulties described and with the state of ignorance with which we face this fishery, it should not be difficult to see why allocation decisions do not come easily. In fact, the councils which are attempting to deal with this fishery in the several regions are not proposing any forms of allocation in the first generation of management plans.

The South Atlantic Council and the Gulf of Mexico Council which are developing plans for the two regions seem to be approaching this fishery with some commonality of understanding. Both councils seem to agree that the reef fish stocks on the average in their respective regions are fairly exploited. Both appear to agree that in certain high use areas, the stocks appear to be over-exploited and that in some deep water areas, the harvest could be increased. Both appear to want to hold the total harvest at approximately the current level, at least until a better understanding of these fisheries is achieved. Neither council is inclined to attempt allocation between commercial and recreational components or among the several sub-units of each component.

Since the stocks do appear to be fully utilized and since effort is continuing to grow, I am convinced that we must eventually make allocation decisions. If we do not, then I see no way to insure that this common property resource will be used in ways that pay the greatest dividends to society at large. For reasons that have been detailed in earlier sections of this paper, I do not believe natural market forces will perform the allocation for us. I also believe that if we attempt to force allocation decisions at our present state of ignorance, we are more likely to make bad decisions that would be better left unmade.

SUMMARY DISCUSSION

In the three fisheries described, specific allocation is attempted in only one, the mackerel fishery. It appears that it will occur to some degree naturally, aided by gear limitations, in the billfish/swordfish fishery. In the snapper-grouper fishery no allocation is even attempted, largely because of the complexity of the fishery and the extremely weak information base available on the fishery.

Each of these fisheries has unique features that make allocation difficult, but there are additional common features that add additional complexities to devising allocation schemes.

All three of these fisheries are very poorly known and documented. The biological information is weak in all three and our understanding of the social and economic aspects, is the weakest of all. This is especially critical in allocation designs since the basis for allocation is almost entirely social and economic.

The only real basis for allocation is the hope and goal of achieving some common good for the owners of the resource who are the public at large. These are all common property resources. But is there a concensus on the part of the public as to how they want their resources used? Unfortunately, there is not. Most sectors of the public have not been aware that the question has been even raised. Most sectors of the public which are concerned are those who have a personal stake in the resource and naturally want to see their personal interests preserved.

It is obvious that an allocation between several user groups cannot be evaluated or enforced unless the management authority is able to measure the harvest of each of the user groups with a minimum time delay. The present effort to gather commercial catch and effort data, with some improvements, can and will measure the commercial harvest adequately. No comparable mechanism is going to represent the recreational harvest. To document this will be a task of great magnitude, especially in those fisheries, I have described where the recreational harvest exceeds the commercial harvest by a significant margin. Adding to the difficulties in measuring the harvest in the snapper-grouper fishery is that most anglers do not recognize most of the species they harvest in the fishery.

Despite all the difficulties cited in this paper, I remain convinced that over the decade of the eighties and beyond, society will not achieve the best use of its mixed recreational/commercial fishery resources without intelligent allocations. I also remain convinced that in most cases, a free market will not make the difficult decisions for us.

This general conclusion has as an underlying assumption that fishery effort will not decrease but is likely to follow the long term trend of increase. At this point in world events, perhaps even that assumption is open to question. Can fishing effort in energy intensive fisheries continue to increase? This may turn out to be a dominant question in all sectors of the fishery.