Page images
PDF
EPUB

greatest in need of investigation in that area, while it does not exclude the other tuna and tuna-like fishes.

This difference in emphasis of species illustrates one of the reasons why two conventions were necessary in the area of the eastern Pacific tuna fisheries.

Albacore are tuna of temperate waters. The fishery for them exists from Guadalupe Island off northern Mexico to British Columbia. The species is not found in Costa Rican waters nor in the tropical waters to the south of Costa Rica.

Bluefin tuna also are not found in tropical waters. The fishery for them extends only along the coasts of northern Mexico and southern California.

The bonitos and yellowtails which form the basis of important fisheries in southern California and northern Mexico are thought to be much more localized than the tunas; and, therefore, these populations of fishes are not of concern to the countries to the south of Mexico.

The kinds of fish used for bait in the tuna fisheries off northern Mexico and off southern California are entirely different from those found and used in tropical waters.

Because of these biological factors, there exist a number of important fisheries problems between the United States and Mexico which are of no concern whatever to the countries to the south of Mexico, and of little practical interest to hem.

On the other hand, southern Mexico, and to a considerable degree central Mexico, is included within the tropical area and has the same types of fish as the waters off Costa Rica and off the other countries to the south. Consequently, Mexico has a strong interest in the investigations of the yellowfin and skipjack tunas and the anchovettas, in the same degree as Costa Rica and the United States. It is hoped that Mexico will at a later date adhere to the Costa Rican convention. Provision is made for such adherence.

If this proves to be acceptable to Mexico, then there will be a Commission available for the handling of the specialized problems concerning only Mexico and the United States and a second Commission for the handling of those problems of joint concern to the United States, Mexico, Costa Rica, and the other countries in the tropical area to the south of Costa Rica.

Adherence by other nations

The Mexican convention is purely bilateral. The Costa Rican convention contains a provision that any government whose nationals participate in the fisheries covered by the convention may adhere, with the unanimous consent of the parties, to the convention, whereupon the adhering government shall acquire the same rights and obligations as the original signatories. Composition of the Commissions

The administrative pattern which has proven to be particularly suitable to handling the domestic United States factors in relation to international fisheries matters consists of three men-one from the Federal Government, one from the State Government, and ond from the public at large.

The Mexicans, however, wished to have four men in each national section in order that it might have represented on its section the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Economy, Treasury and Public Credit, and Marine. Recognition was given to the specialized Mexican conditions and the Mexican Convention therefore provides for two national sections of four members each.

The Costa Ricans had no desire for so large a number of commissioners from their side and, if only from the standpoint of economy, may want a lesser number. The same considerations may motivate the countries to the south of Costa Rica. The same factors, States, and industry in the United States that are interested in the Mexican Convention are equally interested in the Costa Rican Convention. Furthermore, from the standpoint of administrative efficiency and economy it is ́highly desirable that the United States commissioners for the Mexican Convention be the same persons as those for the Costa Rican Convention.

Consequently, the Costa Rican Convention provides that the national sections will consist of from one to four members-each nation can choose within this range the number best suited to its needs. In the working of the Commission this will have no effect, for each national section will have only one vote regardless of the numbers comprising it.

Voting

In both conventions, each national section has one vote and decisions must be unanimous. The result will be, in the event other nations adhere to the Costa

C

Rican Convention, that no nation can be outvoted and forced to support projec which it does not consider desirable.

Commission director and staff personnel

The Mexican Convention provides that there shall be both a director and a assistant director of investigations, one of whom shall be a national of the Unite States and the other a national of Mexico. It also provides that appointments personnel on the Commission staff shall, except in special instances, be distribute equitably between nationals of the United States and Mexico. No similar prov sion appears in the Costa Rican Convention. Cosa Rica has at the present tim relatively few citizens trained in fishery research.

Officers of the Commission

Each convention provides that the offices of chairman and secretary shall alter nate annually between the two national sections, one to be chosen from each sec tion each year, so that no two nationals of the same country hold those offices during any 1 year.

Advisory committees

The Costa Rican Convention provides that advisory committees shall be invited to attend all nonexecutive sessions of the Commission. This is the provision which the United States would have preferred to insert in the Mexican Convention also. However, the Mexicans are not at the present time greatly in favor of mandatory participation by advisory committees and accordingly the pertinent section in the Mexican Convention is permissive and not mandatory, so advisers may attend meetings of that Commission only upon invitation. The implementing legislation now pending in the Congress provides that the United States section shall appoint an advisory committee which shall be entitled to attend all nonexecutive meetings of the section and be heard on all matters.

Duration of the conventions

The Costa Rican Convention provides for a term of 10 years, continuing thereafter from year to year. This is considered the minimum period desirable for a convention dealing with scientific investigation which must of necessity take years to accomplish. The Mexicans, however, were unwilling to bind themselves for such a length of time even though they recognized that the work might not show conclusive results in a shorter period. Accordingly, the Mexican Convention provides for an initial term of 4 years only, continuing thereafter from year to year. Costs to the United States

The annual costs of the commissions themselves to the United States will be nominal. It is not expected that such costs will much exceed $5,000 per annum. The costs of the investigations to be undertaken by the tuna commissions, however, necessarily will be large. The area of investigation is, in total, 5,000 miles long, nearly twice the breadth of the United States. It takes just as much money to keep a vessel to sea for research as for fishing. Tuna vessels cost upward of $400,000. Outfitting such a vessel for one trip costs upward of $15,000. The problems involved are difficult and will be expensive to solve.

This expense is justified by the great value of the tuna fisheries to the United States. Last year the wholesale value of the tuna canned in the United States was in excess of $125,000,000. Also involved are the friendly relations of the United States with no fewer than 10 of its neighboring countries to the south. With each of these there have been, from time to time, incidents arising out of the tuna fisheries of a nature which the commissions are designed to provide information to settle and, in time, to avoid.

The studies to be undertaken by the commissions (which must of necessity work closely together) will parallel in extent those now being carried on by the Fish and Wildlife Service out of Hawaii in the central and south Pacific (P. L. 329, 80th Cong.). The initial cost of that work was about $1,000,000 a year for the first 2 years, and is estimated to be approximately half that amount for succeeding years.

During the first year, the commissions will be engaged largely in the work of organization, planning, and assembling data on past fishing operations. Expenses for this year probably will not exceed $90,000. During the following 2 years capital expenditures will be required which will raise the annual figure to an estimated $750,000. Normal operations in the succeeding years may be expected to

cost $400,000 a year.

Both conventions provide that the joint expenses of the commissions shall be paid in the form and proportion recommended by the commissions and approved

by the two governments. While that recommendation cannot be forecast at this time, it may be anticipated that the United States will bear by far the greater part of the expense since contributions will be related to interest in the fisheries and at the present time the United States takes about 95 percent of the tuna catch in the entire area. (Tuna landings are shown in appendix III.)

Probable program for beginning operations

It is likely that the Mexican and Costa Rican Governments will have ratified the respective conventions by September or October of this year. The Mexican Congress will not be in session until some date in September. Thereafter, there appears to be no reason why ratifications should not be promptly exchanged and the conventions would come into effect.

The next step would be the appointment by the President of the four commissioners to serve on behalf of the United States, and similar action by the appropriate officials of Mexico and Costa Rica.

No effort will be spared by the Department of State to facilitate the functioning of the commissions at the earliest date possible. It would seem reasonable to expect that the first meetings could be held before the end of this calendar year. Thereafter, the commissions will have their own identities and must proceed to set up their organizations. It is to be hoped that one Director of Investigations would serve them both and that, to some extent at least, they would share the same staff. This would be the United States recommendation, in order to provide close correlation in the work and avoid duplication of effort.

The commissions would, presumably, first set about assembling all available data regarding past operations in the fisheries and, at the same time, begin to plan the programs of investigation. It is not likely that much work on the high seas would take place until the following year.

Preliminary discussion has indicated agreement that the Mexican Commission will have headquarters in southern California, which is the center of the tuna industry, and the recommendation will be made that the Costa Rican headquarters be established in the same locality. The commissions may also find it desirable to maintain branch headquarters in Costa Rica and Mexico. Consultation with States, industry, labor, etc.

In developing the tuna treaties the Department of State has worked closely with the California Fisheries Committee. This is a group of representatives of unions, management, and vessel owners' associations involved in the production of tuna; and officials of the Attorney General's office and the division of fish and game of the State of California. It was formally organized in 1944 to provide effective liaison between the west coast tuna interests and the Department of State. The membership of the committee was carefully chosen to represent every faction in California engaged in the production of tuna, as follows:

Lower California Fisheries Association.

American Fishermen's Tuna Boat Association.
California Fish Canners Association.

Fishermen's Cooperative Association.

International Fishermen's and Allied Workers of America (CIO).
Fish Cannery Workers' Union of the Pacific (AFL).

Chairman of this committee is Mr. Richard S. Croker, chief, California Bureau of Marine Fisheries. Mr. Croker is also the chairman of the Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission, created by authority of the Congress and the legislatures of the States of Washington, Oregon, and California, to provide machinery for joint action by these three States on fisheries problems of common concern. Thus Mr. Croker is a focal point for full exchange of views between the Department and the west coast on tuna fisheries matters.

During the past 2 years the Columbia River Packers Association, located at Astoria, Oreg., has also become substantially interested in tuna operations. This organization through its executive vice president, Mr. Tom Sandoz, has maintained close liaison with the California Fisheries Committee and also with the Department, as has the responsible fishery official of Oregon, Mr. Arnie J. Suomela.

When arrangements were made for the negotiation of the tuna convention with Mexico, three west coast representatives were appointed to the formal United States delegation. These were:

Mr. Richard S. Croker, Chief, California Bureau of Marine Fisheries; Chairman, California Fisheries Committee; and Chairman, Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission;

Mr. Arnie J. Suomela, Master Fish Warden, State of Oregon; and

[ocr errors][merged small]

Dr. Richard Van Cleve, Acting Director, School of Fisheries, University
Washington.

In addition, an invitation was extended to all interested industry representati
to be present in Mexico City and available for consultation after the form
meetings of the delegation. The industry sent two representatives who met ea
evening with the United States delegation, discussed the day's developments, a
consulted at intervals by telephone with their principals in the United States.
An identical procedure was followed in the negotiation of the Costa Ric
Convention except that Dr. Van Cleve was not able to be present.

(The reports of the United States delegations, which negotiated the two tur
conventions are attached to this statement as appendices V and VI.)

Officers of the Department of State have met with the California Fisheri
Committee periodically during the past 5 years, and frequent communication
have been exchanged. Particularly during the past year, no step of any degree
importance to the tuna industry has been taken by the Department without fu
advance consultation.

Of particular value, also, have been the presence in Washington of the head
quarters of the National Fisheries Institute and National Canners Association
whose officials have worked closely with the Department on all fisheries matters
As a result of this continuing consultation, the Department is entirely satisfied
that the two tuna conventions have the complete approval of all segments of th
tuna industry, including labor, boat owners, and cannery operators, and of the
interested State governments. (See appendix II.)

APPENDIX I.—Pacific halibut catch since 1914 (in millions of pounds)

[blocks in formation]

I. Northwest Atlantic Convention:

A. Organizations which have expressed themselves favoring ratification:
Atlantic Fisherman's Union (A. F. L.).

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.

Federated Fishing Boats of New England and New York, Inc.
Gloucester Fisheries Association.

Massachusetts Fisheries Association.

New Bedford Sea Food Producers Association.

B. State and industry membership on United States delegation which
negotiated the convention:

Thomas Fulham, president, Federated Fishing Boats of New Eng-
land and New York, Inc., Boston, Mass.

Wayne D. Heydecker, secretary-treasurer, Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission, New York, N. Y.

Patrick McHugh, secretary-treasurer, Atlantic Fishermen's Union
(A. F. L.), Boston, Mass.

Richard Reed, commissioner, Sea and Shore Fisheries, State of
Maine, Augusta, Maine.

C. Industry representatives acting as unofficial advisers to United States
delegation:

Charles R. Carry, director, Fishery Products Division, National
Canners Association, Washington, D. C.

John A. Fulham, Fulham and Herbert Fish Co., Boston, Mass.
Lawrence J. Hart, executive secretary, Gloucester Fisheries Asso-
ciation, Gloucester, Mass.

Charles Jackson, general manager, National Fisheries Institute,
Washington, D. C.

Edmund O'Neil, Seafood Producers Association, Inc., New Bed-
ford, Mass.

Thomas D. Rice, executive secretary, Massachusetts Fisheries
Association, Inc., Boston, Mass.

H. Wise, counsel, Atlantic Fishermen's Union (A. F. L.), Boston,
Mass.

II. United States-Mexican Tuna Convention:

A. Organizations which have expressed themselves favoring ratification:
Fish Commission of Oregon.

California Division of Fish and Game.

Office of the Attorney General, State of California.
Lower California Fisheries Association.

American Tunaboat Association.

Fishermen's Cooperative Association.
California Fish Canners Association.

Columbia River Packers Association.

International Fishermen and Allied Workers of America (CIO).
Fish Cannery Workers' Union of the Pacific (AFL).

National Canners Association.

National Fisheries Institute.

Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission.

CIO Maritime Committee.

B. State and industry membership on United States Delegation which negotiated the convention:

Richard S. Croker, chairman, California Bureau of Marine Fish-
eries, San Francisco, Calif.

Arnie J. Suomela, master fish warden, State of Oregon, Portland,
Oreg.

Dr. Richard Van Cleve, acting director, School of Fisheries, Uni-
versity of Washington, Seattle, Wash.

C. Industry representatives acting as unofficial advisers to United States
delegation:

Charles R. Carry, director, Fishery Products Division, National
Canners Association, Washington, D. C.

Harold Cary, general manager, American Tunaboat Association,
San Diego, Calif.

Herbert C. Davis, president, Terminal Island Sea Foods, Inc.,
Terminal Island, Calif.

III. United States-Costa Rica Tuna Convention

A. Organizations which have expressed themselves favoring ratification:
Fish Commission of Oregon.

California Division of Fish and Game.

Office of the Attorney General, State of California.

Lower California Fisheries Association.

American Tunaboat Association.

Fishermen's Cooperative Association.

California Fish Canners Association.

Columbia River Packers Association.

International Fishermen and Allied Workers of America (CIO).
Fish Cannery Workers' Union of the Pacific (AFL).

National Canners Association.

National Fisheries Institute.

Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission.

CIO Maritime Committee.

B. State and industry membership on United States delegation which

negotiated the convention:

Richard S. Croker, chairman, California Bureau of Marine Fisheries, San Francisco, Calif.

Arnie J. Suomela, master fish warden, State of Oregon, Portland,

Oreg.

« PreviousContinue »