THE SHRIMP FISHERY Shrimp is and has been for 12 years the No. 1 U.S. fishery in dollar value. The investment in the fleet, the number of persons deriving livelihood and the value to the U.S. economy from shrimp fishing is important. While no State is as dependent upon fishing as is Alaska, there are entire sections and communities of the South Atlantic and Gulf States which rely heavily on the shrimp industry. Every coastal Southern Senator and Congressman is aware of these conditions in his home State. The "domestic" shrimp fleet is composed of nearly 7,000 vessels and boats. In this complex which comprises "domestic" production, the catch made by U.S.-flag vessels is roughly divided as follows: (a) Local and coastwise trawlers which fish only close to United States, accounting for approximately 80.3 percent of the catch. (b) Distant-fishing trawlers (2 to 6 weeks at sea) based in U.S. ports but fishing the western Gulf of Mexico, which account for approximately 15.5 percent of the catch. (c) U.S.-flag trawlers based in British, French, and Dutch Guiana, which account for approximately 4.2 percent of the catch. The Bureau of Commercial Fisheries reports for the year 1962 disclose the following: The fishery in the Guianas is expanding. During the period January-July 1963, French Guiana production was 549,000 pounds. Total Guiana production for 7 months was 4,799,000. Item (b) "Distant fishing" at times has accounted for as much as 27 percent of the U.S.-flag catch in years when U.S. coast production faltered. Any reduction of shrimp fishing in areas (b) and (c) inevitably results in an impossible concentration of too many U.S.-flag vessels on the home grounds, resulting in complete economic disaster. While the shrimp fishery is not regulated by international treaties to maintain the proper exploitation of available stock (such as halibut and salmon) it has achieved an almost perfect position in that available stocks are being fully taken to insure the "maximum sustainable yield" consistent with true conser vation of the resources. As an annual crop, there is a new yield each year. If our distant-fishing fleets cannot continue abroad, their return and concentration on local stocks would have dire conservation effects, as well as economic disaster. It is the larger, more efficient, bigger-net vessels which go abroad. S. 1988 AND SHRIMP The critique on any legislation made by the shrimp industry must be based on the foregoing essential elements. Protection can help the shrimp industry. Overprotection can kill it, we believe. None of the 50 or more countries which export shrimp to the United States trawl for shrimp near the U.S. territorial sea. Of these exporters, only one nation, Japan, is in any way likely to be affected by S. 1988. RELATIONS WITH MEXICO Mexico has shown great forbearance and a sophisticated approach to the problems of shrimp fishing in the western gulf. U.S. fishermen, in turn, by gentlemen's agreement, have endeavored to stay beyond the 9-nautical-mile limit asserted by Mexico, and the trawlers of these two nations fish side by side or nearby in peace and amity while the shrimp industries of these two nations combine through the Shrimp Association of the Americas jointly to develop the industry and the market and to sponsor good conservation procedures. The shrimp industry sees no danger in the application of protective measures by the Federal Government in U.S. waters. Mexico has similar laws and protects its fisheries wisely. FINE AND FORFEITS (SEC. 2(A)) The economic loss to a vessel owner of losing his catch, nets, and paying fines and being subject to delays is nominally sufficient to make it unprofitable and unwise to trespass in the territorial sea of another nation. Fines assessed against the vessel are a more satisfactory procedure than fines assessed against the crew, because the value of the vessel assures payment of the fines, else the hull forfeits. Fishermen generally go to sea for a proportion of the catch, and none get rich by it. It is likely that some owners of vessels (whether private or Government) would allow the imprisoned crew to rot in jail rather than ransom them, usually on the premise that the owner instructed the master and crew to stay out of trouble, and that the seizure is the master's (or crew's) fault. THE TERRITORIAL SEA Neither of the U.N. Geneva Conventions on Law of the Sea in 1958 or in 1960 resolved the width of the territorial sea. The writer was present at both. Under international law no unilateral declaration of one nation is binding on any other nation which wishes to reject it. These laws are made by agreement or consent. It is true that in the uncertain area of the width of the territorial sea there are various claims by various nations. Within reasonable limits there is a general tacit understanding and some respect. If the Soviets are willing to fight to preserve their claim of 12 miles it is not likely that we will invoke nuclear power to dispute it. The unreasonable claims of Peru, Ecuador, and Chile to 200 miles in the South Pacific are not seriously taken by the family of nations, least of all by the U.S. Government. As leaders of the free world and paragons of law and order, any unreasonable unilateral action taken by the United States will only lend substance to the unrealistic claims of other countries. Further, although the Department of Defense will endorse a reasonable protection of U.S. fishermen, it will rise in alarm and wrath at any suggestion of enlarging the territorial sea, as we fishermen well know. THE CONTINENTAL SHELF There is absolute danger to the shrimp industry in any interpretation of the Continental Shelf which does not completely comply with the Convention on the Continental Shelf as adopted in Geneva in 1958, and which has been ratified by 21 nations and the 22d signatory is imminent to bring it into full force as to the contracting parties. There were some glib references to this matter in the testimony before this committee, and the shrimp industry respctfully suggests that the full text of the Convention be examined thoroughly and included in the record. For clarification and emphasis, article I of the Convention states its limits to be "outside the territorial sea, to a depth of 200 meters, or beyond that limit to where the depth of the superjacent waters admits of the exploitation of the natural resources of the said areas ***." The reason the Conference did not stop at a given depth was because modern techniques are expanding to where it might be feasible to drill for oil at 2,000 fathoms. "Natural resources" is not confined to oil and minerals-but also living organisms, as very specifically defined in article 2: "organisms which, at the harvestable stage, either are immobile on or under the seabed or are unable to move except in constant physical contact with the seabed or subsoil." This quoted section is life or death to the shrimp industry. Shrimp are exempt from this careful definition, and purposely so. Emphasis is also placed on the following part of article 2(4) of the Conven tion: "The rights referred to in paragraph 1 of this article are exclusive in the sense that if the coastal State does not explore the Continental Shelf or exploit its natural resources, no one (else) may undertake these activities ***." Any unreasonable interpretation of the doctrine of the Continental Shelf could well be fallacious and injurious, for example: (1) Claiming an area and being physically unable to police it or patrol it. This is now true of the 200-mile territorial sea claim in the Southeast Pacific. (2) Claiming an area (or a resource) and then not fully exploiting the resources in it. Certain sea products cannot be sold in our markets. Certain sea products cannot economically be harvested and since we depend on private capital, they would lie fallow and unused. (3) The world is hungry for protein, and the United States cannot be placed in the position of denying unused and unneeded sea resources which it does not propose to harvest. The great difficulty in regulating fish is that the fish do not recognize latitude and longitude, nor do they care about the width of the territorial sea. In a perfect world we would have good biological information on each stock of fish, spawning, migration, mortality. Wise laws would be based upon conservation, and would vary as to species and stocks. The shrimp fishing industry's control of local stocks, from State to State, attempts to base management and conservation on the particular stocks in particular areas, and intense biological work, as well as exploitation, indicates that we have reasonably good conservation practices which should assure good annual yields forever. They could not withstand the overfishing which must result if we lost our distant fishing grounds. There is attached a reduced photocopy of Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 1009, Gulf of Mexico.1 Modern shrimp trawlers go where the shrimp may be found, and the bulk of the catch is from 10 fathoms outward to 40 or 50. No concentrations of shrimp in deep water (Royal Reds) have been discovered sufficient to be economically harvested, a process which requires large vessels, heavier cables, larger winches, and considerable other expenses. The lifeblood is in that 10-50 fathoms offshore and usually ideal trawling is in the 15-30 fathom range. In the western gulf there is a good fishing ground in this area, which commences about 9 miles off the coast, although there is much good fishing ground also inside 9 miles. U.S. shrimp fishermen by the thousands earn their living here and make a valuable contribution to the national economy. Both the United States and Mexico have fully developed shrimp fishing fleets and they jointly use much of the grounds. Mexico is also the largest exporter of shrimp to the U.S. shrimp market, which, like most domestic fisheries, requires some imports to meet consumer demands. CONCLUSION (a) The needs and requirements of the several U.S. fisheries vary, but they have common ground and can survive only by concert and agreement. In devising measures which strengthen or protect one fishery, they should not coincidentally destroy another. (b) The basic effort to protect domestic fisheries against foreign encroachment, as in S. 1988, deserves the support of all segments of the domestic fishing industry. (c) No unilateral extension of the territorial sea is proper under international law, and is contrary to the defense interests of the United States. (d) A moderate extension of the fishing zone to protect specific stocks or species of fish historically or customarily fished by U.S. fishing vessels, and essential to the domestic market, is a reasonable exercise of the power of local government when based upon sound scientific premise and when kept within those limits favored by a majority of nations at the U.S. Conference on Law of the Sea, Geneva, 1960, limited to 12 miles from shore. (e) Legislation should not connect the Continental Shelf doctrine to fisheries, unless it is to reaffirm the criteria expressed in the Convention on the Continental Shelf, the United States being a signatory to this Convention. [Attachment A] CHAPTER 63-202 HOUSE BILL NO. 942 AN ACT relating to territorial waters of the state of Florida; prohibiting the licensing of certain alien-owned commercial fishing vessels; making certain operations unlawful when conducted by such vessels in Florida waters; providing for enforcement by harbor masters, sheriffs, agents of the department of conservation and others; providing penalties and effective date. WHEREAS, it is the sense of the legislature to protect the vital State resources contained within the territorial waters of Florida in order to conserve 1 The chart was placed in the committee files. the same and secure to the citizens of the State the full benefits of their patrimony, and WHEREAS, the legislature intends to deny, within limitations imposed by the Constitution of the United States, to nationals of alien neutral and hostile powers the right to draw upon the resources of waters long considered by the immemorial usages of all civilized peoples a part of our State and Nation, NOW, THEREFORE, Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida: Section 1. This act may be known and cited as the Florida territorial waters act. Section 2. It is the purpose of this act to exercise and exert full sovereignty and control of the territorial waters of the State of Florida. Section 3. No license shall be issued by the board of conservation under section 370.06, Florida Statutes, to any vessel owned in whole or in part by any alien power, which subscribes to the doctrine of international communism, or any subject or national thereof, who subscribes to the doctrine of international communism, or any individual who subscribes to the doctrine of international communism, or who shall have signed a treaty of trade, friendship and alliance or a nonaggression pact with any communist power. The board shall grant or withhold said licenses where other alien vessels are involved on the basis of reciprocity and retortion, unless the nation concerned shall be designated as a friendly ally or neutral by a formal suggestion transmitted to the governor of Florida by the secretary of state of the United States. Upon the receipt of such suggestion licenses shall be granted under section 370.06, Florida Statutes, without regard to reciprocity and retortion, to vessels of such nations. Section 4. It is unlawful for any unlicensed alien vessel to take by any means whatsoever, attempt to take, or having so taken to possess, any natural resource of the state's territorial waters, as such waters are described by article I of the Constitution of Florida. Section 5. It is the duty of all harbor masters of the state of Florida to prevent the use of any port facility in a manner which they reasonable suspect may assist in the violation of this act. Harbor masters shall endeavor by all reasonable means, which may include the inspection of nautical logs, to ascertain from masters of newly arrived vessels of all types other than warships of the United States, the presence of alien commercial fishing vessels within the territorial waters of the State of Florida, and shall transmit such information promptly to the state department of conservation, and such law enforcement agencies of the State as the situation may indicate. Harbor masters shall request assistance from the United States coast guard in appropriate cases to prevent unauthorized departure from any port facility. Section 6. All licensed harbor pilots are required to promptly transmit any knowledge coming to their attention regarding possible violations of this act to the harbor master of the port or the appropriate law enforcement officials. Section 7. All law enforcement agencies of the state, including but not limited to sheriffs and agents of the department of conservation are empowered and directed to arrest the masters and crews of vessels who are reasonably believed to be in violation of this law, and to seize and detain such vessels, their equipment and catch. Such arresting officers shall take the offending crews or property before the court having jurisdiction of such offenses. All such agencies are directed to request assistance from the United States coast guard in the enforcement of this act when having knowledge of vessels operating in violation or probable violation of this act within their jurisdictions when such agencies are without means to effectuate arrest and restraint of vessels and their crews. Section 8. The fine or imprisonment of persons and confiscation proceedings against vessels, gear and catch prescribed for violations of chapter 370, Florida Statutes, shall be imposed for violation of this act; provided that nothing herein shall authorize the repurchase of property for a nominal sum by the owner upon proof of lack of complicity in the violation or undertaking. Section 9. No crew member or master seeking bona fide political asylum shall be fined or imprisoned hereunder. Section 10. Harbor masters and law enforcement agencies are authorized to request assistance from the civil air patrol in the surveillance of suspect vessels. Aircraft of the state forestry department or other state or county agencies which are conveniently located and not otherwise occupied may be similarly utilized. Section 11. This act shall be liberally construed to effectuate its purposes. Section 12. It is declared to be the legislative intent that if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or provision of this act is held invalid, the remainder of the act shall not be affected. Section 13. This act shall take effect immediately upon becoming law. Approved by the Governor May 29, 1963. Filed in Office Secretary of State May 29, 1963. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am writing today with reference to S. 1988, which would prohibit fishing in the territorial waters of the United States and certain other areas by persons other than nationals or inhabitants of the United States. I am very pleased that hearings are being held on this legislation at the present time. It is my conviction that this bill would provide much-needed procedures for the apprehension, prosecution, and punishment of those who trespass in our territorial waters or illegally take the Continental Shelf resources claimed by the United States. It was my privilege to support vigorously the above provisions of the bill, both in committee and on the floor of the Senate, and I favor this legislation as a whole. I am, however, deeply concerned over a committee amendment to S. 1988 which would authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to issue permits to foreign vessels to engage in fishing within our territorial seas and land their catches in U.S. ports. I have been in close contact with the leaders of the Massachusetts fishing industry, and it is their firm conviction that this amendment could severely injure our American fisheries. As you know, our domestic fishing industry has been hard hit by imports. In my own State of Massachusetts the Tariff Commission has twice in the past made comprehensive findings confirming this distress. I do not believe that we should further aggravate the condition of our domestic industry by permitting foreigners to fish in our territorial waters. I think that it would be most unfortunate if in an effort to insure full utilization of our fishery resources we were to encourage foreign commercial exploitation of our territorial fisheries. This provision in the legislation now being considered by your committee could also lead to friction between domestic and foreign vessels within our territorial waters and have regrettable effects due to the lack of familiarity of foreign fishermen with the laws of the various States. The States have a deep concern with conservation in their respective fisheries and have significant powers to carry out programs to conserve and regulate their fisheries. These objections have been most forcefully raised with me by leaders of the Massachusetts fishing industry. In view of these comments I would like to ask the committee to consider carefully the elimination or substantial modification of this provision to meet such objections and express my strong support for such action. Again, let me thank you for the initiative you have taken in behalf of legislation which is of such great concern to all of us who are involved in the domestic fishing industry and for your vigorous leadership in this field. Sincerely, EDWARD M. KENNEDY. Juneau, February 18, 1964. Hon. HERBERT C. BONNER, Chairman, Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. BONNER: The statement which follows is to record the support of the State of Alaska for the provisions of S. 1988. I would appreciate it if it could be brought to the attention of your committee and be made a part of the record during consideration of this measure. |