48
J. A. GULLAND AND J. E. CARROZ
by fishermen tro secure the greatest share of the quota, there have
not been commensurate economic benefits (Crutchfield and Zellner,
1963).
While, as is well known, regulation of Antarctic whaling has not
been successful (see Annual Reports of the I.W.C., especially the reports
by Committee of Three Scientists and the 14th and 16th Annual
Reports; Chapman et al., 1964, 1965), this is more because of the
biological characteristics of the stock, which make the penalties for
any failure to achieve proper management very severe, than because
the International Whaling Commission has been so much less diligent
than many of the fisheries commissions. I n fact, catches of Antarctic
whales have been restricted since 1947, and this restriction has served
to slow the decline in the stocks (Gulland, 1966a). I n addition, the
more recent agreements on the division of the quota have served to
increase the economic efficiency of the industry, and hence delay the
time when the decline in the stocks would bring about the economic
collapse of the industry (though it is arguable that the latter, by
delaying effective management, may not in the long run be a good
thing).
These examples, and others where limitations of the amount of
fishing have been effected (e.g. in some salmon fisheries in the North
Pacific), have certain features in common. First, and probably most
important in determining whether restriction can be easily introduced,
is that the biological situation is comparativdy simple. Only one
species, or a group of closely related species (e.g. of whales, or of
salmon) is concerned, and it was clear to all, without the need of
detailed scientific research and analysis, that the stocks concerned
were being or could be severely affected by fishing, though there was
argument, especially for the whales, as t o the extent of the depletion.
For salnion there has also been very great argument on the details of
the effects of fishing, especially on the quantitative effects of the fishery
for them on the high seas (I.N.P.F.C., 1962a,b; Taguschi, 1961; Parker,
1963; Gulland, 1964a). The situation in most cases was also simple in
that only a few countries were concerned, and they all generally used
the same catching methods.
A second important point is that the fisheries (using the word t o
cover sealing and whaling) were isolated in the sense that the surplus
effort resulting from restriction would not, a t least clearly and immediately, be applied to some other, possibly equally heavily exploited
stock. I n the North Atlantic the realization that any restriction of
effort in a limited area, say in the Barents Sea cod fishery, would result
in a corresponding increase in effort in Iceland and other areas, with
J. A. GULLAND AND J. E. CARROZ
by fishermen tro secure the greatest share of the quota, there have
not been commensurate economic benefits (Crutchfield and Zellner,
1963).
While, as is well known, regulation of Antarctic whaling has not
been successful (see Annual Reports of the I.W.C., especially the reports
by Committee of Three Scientists and the 14th and 16th Annual
Reports; Chapman et al., 1964, 1965), this is more because of the
biological characteristics of the stock, which make the penalties for
any failure to achieve proper management very severe, than because
the International Whaling Commission has been so much less diligent
than many of the fisheries commissions. I n fact, catches of Antarctic
whales have been restricted since 1947, and this restriction has served
to slow the decline in the stocks (Gulland, 1966a). I n addition, the
more recent agreements on the division of the quota have served to
increase the economic efficiency of the industry, and hence delay the
time when the decline in the stocks would bring about the economic
collapse of the industry (though it is arguable that the latter, by
delaying effective management, may not in the long run be a good
thing).
These examples, and others where limitations of the amount of
fishing have been effected (e.g. in some salmon fisheries in the North
Pacific), have certain features in common. First, and probably most
important in determining whether restriction can be easily introduced,
is that the biological situation is comparativdy simple. Only one
species, or a group of closely related species (e.g. of whales, or of
salmon) is concerned, and it was clear to all, without the need of
detailed scientific research and analysis, that the stocks concerned
were being or could be severely affected by fishing, though there was
argument, especially for the whales, as t o the extent of the depletion.
For salnion there has also been very great argument on the details of
the effects of fishing, especially on the quantitative effects of the fishery
for them on the high seas (I.N.P.F.C., 1962a,b; Taguschi, 1961; Parker,
1963; Gulland, 1964a). The situation in most cases was also simple in
that only a few countries were concerned, and they all generally used
the same catching methods.
A second important point is that the fisheries (using the word t o
cover sealing and whaling) were isolated in the sense that the surplus
effort resulting from restriction would not, a t least clearly and immediately, be applied to some other, possibly equally heavily exploited
stock. I n the North Atlantic the realization that any restriction of
effort in a limited area, say in the Barents Sea cod fishery, would result
in a corresponding increase in effort in Iceland and other areas, with