UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The Eastern Pacific halibut fishery 1888-1972 : an evolutionary study of the spatial structure of a resource-based… Dean, Leslie James 1973

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1973_A8 D42.pdf [ 8.46MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0101448.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0101448-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0101448-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0101448-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0101448-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0101448-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0101448-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0101448-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0101448.ris

Full Text

THE EASTERN PACIFIC HALIBUT FISHERY 1888-1972: AN EVOLUTIONARY STUDY OF THE SPATIAL STRUCTURE OF A RESOURCE-BASED COMPLEX by LESLIE JAMES DEAN B.A. (Ed.), B.A. (Honours), Memorial Un i ve r s i t y of Newfoundland 1970,1971 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in the Department o f Geography We accept th i s thes is as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l , 1973 In present ing t h i s thes is in pa r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the r e -quirements fo r an advanced degree at the Un i ve rs i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L ib ra ry sha l l make i t f r e e l y a va i l ab l e fo r reference and study. I fu r ther agree that permission fo r extensive copying of t h i s thes i s fo r s cho l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representa t i ves . It i s understood that copying or pub l i c a t i on o f t h i s thes is fo r f i n a n c i a l gain sha l l not be allowed without my wr i t ten permiss ion. Department of Geography The Un i ve r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada A p r i l , 1973 i i i Abst rac t This study examines the spa t i a l evo lu t ion of the Eastern P a c i f i c ha l i bu t f i s h e r y over the per iod 1888-1972 in terms of resource ex-p l o i t a t i o n and vesse l-port i n t e r a c t i on and attempts to de l inea te the f ac to rs which brought about the observed pat te rns . Four d i s t i n c t stages of development are i d e n t i f i e d : (1) a stage o f spa t i a l confinement and resource dep le t ion charac te r ized by corporate involvement and r e s t r i c t e d vessel range, (2) a stage o f spa t i a l ex tens ion , company f l e e t d e c l i n e , and independent f l e e t expansion, (3) a stage of spa t i a l adjustment, quota c o n t r o l , and extreme compet i t ion , (4) a stage o f fu r ther spa t i a l ex tens ion , f l e e t d e c l i n e , and maximum susta ined y i e l d s . The spa t i a l s t ruc ture o f the indust ry at each stage o f deve lop-ment i s shown to be a func t ion of resource a v a i l a b i l i t y , f i s h i n g c o s t s , and changes in ha l i bu t f l e e t behavior . The t ime-cost-distance f a c to r between producing grounds and the landing/process ing sec tor o f the indust ry proved to be a c r i t i c a l f a c to r in a f i s h e r y that was charac te r i zed by increased compet i t ion fo r annual quotas. Conceptual models o f the i ndus t r y ' s spa t i a l s t ruc ture have been developed to portray the major changes which occurred from one stage to the next. These in turn are fu r the r developed to conceptua l ize the evo lu t ion of the ha l i bu t f i s h e r y over the 1888-1972 pe r iod . i v TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I INTRODUCTION 1 II THE HALIBUT RESOURCE AND FISHERY CHARACTERISTICS.... 14 Catching of Ha l ibut 17 Management and -Exploitat ion 23 Processing and Marketing 26 H i s t o r i c a l Development 28 III SPATIAL CONFINEMENT AND RESOURCE DEPLETION 1888-1912 32 Spa t i a l S t ructure 32 Functional S t ructure 43 Factors A f f e c t i ng I n i t i a l Development 46 Extent of F i sh ing 50 IV SHIFT TO WESTERN GROUNDS AND FLEET EXPANSION 1913-1931 56 Spat ia l S t ructure 57 Funct ional S t ruc ture 68 Factors Cont r ibut ing to Westward Expansion 70 F leet T r ans i t i on 76 The Ha l ibut Convention of 1923 81 V SPATIAL ADJUSTMENT, COMMISSION QUOTA CONTROL, AND EXTREME COMPETITION 1932-1951 87 Spa t i a l S t ructure 88 Funct ional S t ructure 99 Commission Quota Control Impl icat ions 101 Shortened F ish ing Season Impl icat ions 106 Unres t r i c ted Entry 112 VI SPATIAL ENCOMPASSMENT, FLEET DECLINE AND SUSTAINED YIELDS 1952-1972 119 Spa t i a l S t ructure 120 Functional S t ructure 136 Industry Control 137 The Small Boat Sector 144 The Bering Sea F ishery 147 VII SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. 155 BIBLIOGRAPHY 172 V LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE I Trends in Y i e l d , Landings, E f f o r t 1907-1912 52 II Average Annual Ha l ibut Landings by Port Area During the 1888-1912 and 1913-1931 Periods 61 III Ha l ibut Landings at Major Ports 1913-1931 67 IV Number o f Steamers Operating Each Year 1913-1931 77 V Number o f Vessels >10 Tons With Home Port at the Major Ports and Tota l Gear Fished 1912-1931 79 VI Average Annual Ha l ibut Landings by Port Area 1888-1912, 1913-1931, 1932-1951 95 VII Ha l ibut Landings by Port 1932-1951 98 VIII V e s s e l , Manpower, and Catch Trends 1943-1951 110 IX Number of Vesse ls and Men in the P a c i f i c Ha l ibut F lee t 1932-1951 113 X Landings by Region f o r Each of the Four Periods and Percentage o f the Tota l Catch From Grounds West o f Cape Spencer 130 XI Average Annual Landings in M i l l i o n s o f Pounds and Percentage of Total Average Annual Catch by Port Area f o r Each Per iod 131 XII P a c i f i c Ha l ibut Landings by Port 1952-1971 132 XIII Percent o f the Tota l Catch Landed at Each Port f o r Various Years 134 XIV Number of Vessels and Men Engaged in the Hal ibut F ish ing 1952-1971, and Percentage o f the Catch From Each Area by Canadian and American F leets 140 XV Number o f Vessels Operating in Bering Sea and Catch From Region During 1952-1972 148 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1. Trends in Tota l Catch and Number o f Vessels 1888-1972 4 2. Transformation Within the Ha l ibut F ishery 1888-1972 5 3. Extent o f the Cont inental She l f o f the Eastern North P a c i f i c 15 4. Longl ine Gear Employed in the Eastern P a c i f i c Ha l ibut F ishery 19 5. Manner in Which Gear i s Deployed to Accommodate Bottom Topography, E tc . 20 6. Basic F ish ing Patterns of the Dory F leet 22 7. Spa t i a l S t ructure of the Industry 1888-1912 33 8. Degree of C e n t r a l i z a t i o n o f Ha l ibut Landings 1888-1912 35 9. Average Annual Catch From Various Grounds 1888-1912 36 10. Average Annual Landings (M i l l i ons o f Pounds) By Port Area 1888-1912 39 11. Trend in Landings by Region 1888-1912 40 12. Functional S t ructure o f the Industry 1888-1912 44 13. Spa t i a l S t ructure o f the Industry 1913-1931 58 14. Degree of C e n t r a l i z a t i o n of Ha l ibut Landings 1913-1931 60 15. Average Annual Catch From Various Grounds 1913-1931 61 16. Average Annual Landings (M i l l i ons o f Pounds) by Port Area 1913-1931 63 17. Trend in Landings by Region 1913-1931 64 18. Funct ional S t ructure o f the Industry 1913-1931 69 19. Trends in Catch , E f f o r t , Y i e l d 1913-1931 75 v i i PAGE 20. Spat ia l S t ructure of the Industry 1932-1951 89 21. Degree of Cen t r a l i z a t i on of Hal ibut Landings 1932-1951 90 22. Average Annual Catch From Various Grounds 1932-1951 92 23. Average Annual Landings by Port Area 1932-1951 94 24. Trends in Landings by Region and Average P r i ce Per Pound (Based on Sea t t l e P r i ces ) 1932-1951 96 25. Funct ional S t ructure of the Industry 1932-1951 100 26. Trends in Catch , E f f o r t , Y i e ld 1932-1951 104 27. Length o f the F i sh ing Season in Area 2 and Area 3,1932-1951 107 28. Spat ia l S t ruc ture of the Industry 1952-1972 121 29. Degree o f C e n t r a l i z a t i o n of Ha l ibut Landings 1952-1972 122 30. Average Annual Catch From Various Grounds 1952-1972 125 31. Average Annual Landings by Port Area 1952-1972 126 32. Trend in Landings by Region 1952-1972 128 33. Length of the F ish ing Season in Area 2 and Area 3, 1952-1972 138 34. Trends in Catch , E f f o r t , Y i e ld 1952-1972 143 35. Spa t i a l S t ructure of the Industry 1888-1912 157 36. Degree o f C e n t r a l i z a t i o n o f Ha l ibut Landings 1888-1972 158 37. Conceptual Model o f Industry Evo lut ion 1888-1972 160 Tota l Catch and Landings by Region 1888-1972 Trends in Catch, E f f o r t , Y i e ld For Areas 2 and 3, 1888-1972 Trends in Catch , E f f o r t , Y i e l d For a l l Grounds 1888-1972 Trends in Number o f Vesse l s , Length of F i sh ing Season, Average Year ly P r i ce (Based on B.C. P r i c e s ) , 1888-1972 1x Acknowledgements I wish to express my s incere thanks to a l l those who ass i s t ed me in the preparat ion o f th i s t h e s i s . A very rewarding i ns igh t in to a l l aspects of the ha l ibu t f i s h e r y was achieved during the summer o f 1972 when the wr i t e r was s ta t ioned at Pr ince Rupert. A l l of the fishermen who took of t h e i r time to engage in l i v e l y d i scuss ion with the wr i t e r are too numerous to mention but spec ia l thanks are expressed to Messrs. John Johnson, David Grant , Jack P r ince , Wi l l i am Mossman, John Johnson ( S r . ) , George Penny, A l l an Wainwright, and Harold Gr ins tad . Mr. Don McCleod, Manager, Booth F i s h e r i e s , Pr ince Rupert; and N. R. Chr i s tensen , the Canadian F i sh ing Co. L t d . , Vancouver were very he lp fu l in supply ing requested informat ion on company involvement in the indus t ry . Mr. H. E. Lokken, Manager, F i sh ing Vessel Owner's A s s o c i a t i o n , S e a t t l e , and Mr. C. R. Nordahl , Secretary Treasurer of the Deep Sea Fishermen's Union o f the P a c i f i c , S e a t t l e , suppl ied informat ion on the number of vesse ls and men in t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r organ izat ions and add i t iona l informat ion on ha l i bu t landing p rac t i ces and p r i c e s . Mr. G. Morr is Southward o f the IPHC was most he lp fu l in supply ing requested in format ion . Spec ia l thanks to Dr. J . D. Chapman and Dr. A. F. Far ley o f the Geography Department, Un i ve r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia fo r ass i s tance rendered throughout the preparat ion o f th i s t h e s i s . Chapter I Introduct ion The evo lu t ion of the Eastern P a c i f i c ha l ibu t f i s h e r y presents an i n t e r e s t i ng subject area fo r geographic i nqu i r y . Assoc ia ted with the development and expansion of the f i s h e r y were d i s t i n c t phases through which a c t i v i t i e s re l a ted to e x p l o i t a t i o n of the ha l ibut resource passed. Major s h i f t s to new producing grounds, changes in the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the ha l i bu t f l e e t , expansion o f the co ld storage sec to r , and the f l u c tua t i ng ro les o f ha l i bu t ports represented reac t ion to a v a i l a b i l i t y of ha l i bu t stocks on d i f f e r e n t grounds at each stage o f development. The major changes and s h i f t s which charac te r ized the evo lu t ion of the f i s h e r y provide the major themes o f t h i s study. No attempt has been made to e laborate upon cu l t u r a l and ethnic aspects o f the f i s h e r y . The dominance of Scandinav ians, e s p e c i a l l y Norweigans, in the P a c i f i c ha l i bu t f i s h e r y warrants a study in i t s e l f . Since 1888, when commercial e x p l o i t a t i o n of the resource commenced, the P a c i f i c ha l i bu t f i s h e r y has passed through four main stages o f development. The 1888-1912 per iod i d e n t i f i e d in th i s study as "Spat ia l  Confinement and Resource Dep le t ion" was charac te r ized by extensive f i s h i n g on grounds between Cape F l a t t e r y , Washington and Cape Spencer, Alaska — a l i n e a l extent of approximately 600 m i l e s . Because the independent f l e e t (fishermen-owned) was r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l , most o f the catch was taken by the large company-owned steamers. Major ports assoc ia ted with the 2 growth of the indust ry were located on Puget Sound, Washington and on the S t r a i t o f Georgia in southern B r i t i s h Columbia at ra i lhead l o c a -t i o n s . Towards the end o f the pe r i od , with market improvements and northv/ard expansion of the catching s e c to r , there was increased move-ment o f the processing sector in to northern B r i t i s h Columbia and Southeast A laska . The second phase o f the f i she r y herein t i t l e d " S h i f t to Western  Grounds and F lee t Expansion 1913-1931" saw in tens ive f i s h i n g on grounds from Cape F l a t t e r y to the Shumagin Islands in western A laska . Rapid expansion o f the independent f l e e t occurred and by the end of the per iod the company-owned f l e e t s were no longer engaged in the f i s h e r y . Innovations in vessel and engine design and less emphasis on dory f i s h i n g , accompanied the move to a t r u l y deep-sea f i s h e r y . The com-p l e t i on o f the Grand Trunk P a c i f i c Railway to Pr ince Rupert in 1914 caused the es tab l i shed ports wi th in the industry (Seat t le and Vancouver) to lose ground to Pr ince Rupert. In add i t ion to ha l i bu t landings by i t s own f l e e t , a large number o f vesse ls from other ports e lec ted to land t h e i r catches at Pr ince Rupert. Towards the end of the per iod steps were taken to regulate the f i s h e r y because o f stock dep l e t i on . The s ign ing of the Ha l ibut Convention in 1923 by the United States and Canada was to have an important bearing on subsequent development of the indus t ry . The t h i r d phase of the f i s h e r y , " Spa t i a l Adjustment, Commission  Quota Con t ro l , and Extreme Competit ion 1932-1951" saw confinement o f the f i s h e r y to prev ious ly developed boundaries. No s h i f t s to new grounds 3 occurred but a greater percentage o f the catch was now being taken on grounds between Cape Spencer and the Shumagin Is lands. Regulat ion of the f i s h e r y on a quota b a s i s , commencing in 1932, had imp l i ca t ions fo r the industry as a whole. Increases in ha l ibu t stocks resu l ted in a large increase in the number of vesse ls engaged in the f i s h e r y . Increased competi t ion fo r the annual quotas decreased the length o f the f i s h i n g season from nine months in 1932 to approximately one month in 1951 on grounds south o f Cape Spencer. This placed time cons t ra in ts on movement o f the catch ing sector and a f f ec ted the ro les o f ports in the indus t ry . Stage four of the f i s h e r y , " Spat ia l Encompassment, F leet Dec l i ne , and Sustained Y ie lds 1952-1972" was charac te r ized by both the l a rges t and smal lest catches in the regulated phase o f the indus t ry . The ha l i bu t grounds in the Bering Sea were exp lo i t ed i n t e n s i v e l y fo r the f i r s t t ime, and as a r e su l t a l l ha l i bu t grounds o f the Eastern P a c i f i c had come under e x p l o i t a t i o n . Concentrat ion o f e f f o r t on grounds west of the Gu l f o f Alaska led to increased ha l ibu t landings at ports in western A laska . Competit ion fo r the resource over most sect ions o f the ha l ibu t grounds diminished sharply as the r e su l t o f a large decrease in the number o f vesse ls engaged in the f i s h e r y . Towards the end o f the p e r i o d , however, g rea t l y reduced quotas and catches were causing much concern w i th in the indust ry at a l l l e v e l s . F igure I shows the trends in to t a l catch and the number o f vesse ls engaged in the f i s h e r y at a l l four per iods o f development. F igure 2 i s designed to dep ic t the most s i g n i f i c a n t happenings which occurred in the evo lut ion o f the f i s h e r y and gives an overa l l view of t ransformat ion wi th in the P a c i f i c ha l i bu t f i s h e r y . Figure 1. TREND? IN TOTAL CATCH AND NUMBER OF VESSELS 1S8S-1972 VIRGIN STOCKS 1888 1972 RECORD HIGH PRICES PIONEER DEVELOPMENT 1888—1904 1972 RECORD LOW CATCH MARKET CONSTRAINTS 1888—1904 1961— EXTERNAL COMPETITION MARKET IMPROVEMENT 1905— 1956— FLEET DECLINE FLEET EXPANSION 1905—1951 1956— FLEET CONSTRAINTS RESOURCE DEPLETION 1905—1931 1954— MAXIMUM SUSTAINED YIELDS EXPANSION TO NEW GROUNDS 1913—1931 1951— RISE OF NEW PORTS INCREASED ROLE OF NEW PORTS 1913— 1951— EXPANSION TO NEW GROUNDS HALIBUT CONVENTION 1923 1946—1951 EXCESSIVE ENTRY QUOTA CONTROL 1932— 1932—1941 FLEET CONSTRAINTS FIGURE 2. TRANSFORMATION WITHIN THE HALIBUT FISHERY 1888-1972. 6 The major theme of th i s study i s that the spa t i a l s t ruc ture of the indust ry at each stage o f development was determined by resource a v a i l -a b i l i t y , f i s h i n g c o s t s , and va r i a t i on in landing p rac t i ces by the ha l i bu t f l e e t . Another theme is that the t ime-distance-cost f a c to r between the producing grounds and the landing/process ing sector proved to be a very c r i t i c a l element in determining the ro l e o f i nd i v idua l ports during expansion of the ha l i bu t f i s h e r y . In a d d i t i o n , the common property nature o f the f i s h e r y was to have important imp l i ca t ions on rents which were generated wi th in the f i s h e r y . Methodology The methodology o f t h i s study has i t s o r i g i n s in the methodological and substant ive work o f Lukerman. Lukerman* has maintained that a more geographic economic geography would s t a r t from observat ions with the recording of data on maps. E s s e n t i a l l y , t h i s cons t i tu tes a t r a d i t i o n a l emp i r i ca l- induc t i ve approach and i s based on four main s t eps : (1) the s e l e c t i o n o f a time p e r i o d , (2) the d i v i s i o n o f the se lec ted time per iod in to var ious stages on the bas is o f output , employment, e t c . , (3) the car tographic representat ion o f the spa t i a l s t ruc ture o f the indust ry being examined fo r each o f the designated s tages , and (4) the desc r i p t i on and ana lys i s o f the spa t i a l s t ruc tu re o f the var ious stages and how they compare through t ime. To apply t h i s methodology requi res the development of general conceptual frameworks fo r the r e sou rce-ac t i v i t y complex under examination ( i . e . a f i s h i n g complex), and fo r the s p a t i a l - s t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the p a r t i c u l a r complex ( i . e . the P a c i f i c ha l ibu t f i s h e r y ) . Such frameworks lead to the development of a conceptual model to port ray change in the complex through time. 7 A c t i v i t i e s assoc iated with ex t r ac t i ve types of industry such as f i s h i n g co inc ide s p a t i a l l y with the sources o f raw mater ia l and are 2 l a rge l y determined by the changing nature of the resource. Physical and economic aspects o f a resource such as natural abundance and costs o f e x p l o i t a t i o n have d i r e c t bearing on the spa t i a l pattern of a resource-based indust ry . One o f the centra l themes o f t h i s study is that r e -l a t i n g to spa t i a l and s t ruc tua l change. The sequence o f change in s i z e , number, and l oca t i on of a c t i v i t i e s and i n t e r a c t i ng c i r c u l a t o r y l inkages in the ha l ibu t f i she r y would help expla in the changing patterns o f economic a c t i v i t y r e l a ted to primary resource a v a i l a b i l i t y , acces -s i b i l i t y , and e x p l o i t a t i o n . From a spa t i a l v iewpoint , the s i g n i f i c a n t f ac to rs o f the P a c i f i c ha l ibu t f i s h e r y are the l im i t ed extent of f i s h i n g grounds; the uneven d i s t r i b u t i o n of the ha l i bu t resource ; the marketing of the resource in a f resh or f resh-frozen form; and dependence on external markets cons iderable d is tances from areas of product ion . At each stage o f development the spa t i a l s t ruc tu re of the catch ing and processing sectors o f the indust ry r e f l e c t e d these f a c t o r s . This study i d e n t i f i e s the c r i t i c a l f a c to rs assoc ia ted with the evo lut ion of the f i s h e r y , and examines how they contr ibuted to spa t i a l change wi th in the indus t ry . The four main stages in the study have been se lec ted on the bas is o f sequent ia l e x p l o i t a t i o n o f the P a c i f i c ha l i bu t grounds. Stage one centres around e x p l o i t a t i o n o f the grounds south o f Cape Spencer. The second stage examines the f i s h e r y a f t e r grounds west of Cape Spencer were exp lo i ted between 1913 and 1931. Stage three of the f i s h e r y corresponds to the per iod when the industry adjusted to p rev ious l y es tab l i shed boundaries. The f i n a l per iod saw extension of the f i s h e r y 8 to Bering Sea grounds. De l ineat ion o f per iods on the bas is of output , number of vesse ls and fishermen employed, and pr i ce would not be p r a c t i c a l because they would over lap the sequent ia l pattern o f f i s h i n g ground e x p l o i t a t i o n . There i s , however, a strong r e l a t i onsh ip between the extent o f grounds f i shed and to ta l ca tch . Since a l l sectors o f the indust ry were s ens i t i v e to raw mater ia l supply at each stage o f development, the s h i f t to new grounds necess i ta ted adjustments to t h e i r in te rna l s t ruc ture to accommodate changes in ha l ibu t supply . As a r e su l t the evo lu t ion o f the f i she r y was charac te r ized by a se r i es of spa t i a l and organ iza t iona l pa t te rns . Geography has t r a d i t i o n a l l y concerned i t s e l f with man-land r e l a t i o n -sh ips . T h i s , according to Padgett , expla ins why sea indus t r i e s have been 3 a neglected f i e l d o f geographic i nqu i r y . The geography of a f i s h i n g complex i s somewhat d i f f e r e n t from that o f any other ex t rac t i ve indus t ry . The main d i f f e r ence i s that the resource assoc ia ted with a f i s h e r y complex may vary cons iderab ly over space wi th in short per iods of t ime. F ish ing i ndus t r i e s are charac te r ized by large numbers of i nd i v idua l entrepreneurs , none of whom has contro l or tenure over the resource . Behavior exh ib i ted by those engaged in a f i s h i n g industry tends to d i f f e r , t he r e fo r e , from that o f ex t r ac t i ve i ndus t r i e s such as mining and f o r e s t r y fo r t h i s reason. 4 Padgett recognizes an h o l i s t i c approach to be one of the main strengths o f a geographic study o f sea i ndus t r i e s and argues fo r s tudies which thoroughly explore and i n t e r r e l a t e the p h y s i c a l , economic, e thn ic and cu l t u r a l f a c t o r s . The ethnic and cu l t u r a l f a c to rs are beyond the scope o f th i s study because i t i s designed to show spa t i a l change wi th in the ha l i bu t f i s h e r y . Two recent s tudies are perhaps best representa t i ve 9 of the types of marine s tud ies Padgett argues f o r . "The F i she r i es o f  Europe" Coul l (1972)^ and "Regional Concentrat ion o f the Japanese  Skipjack-Tuna F i shery " Keen (1971)^ both trace the patterns o f a c t i v i t y assoc ia ted with f i s h i n g complexes under examination. Some of the t r a d i t i o n a l emp i r i ca l- induc t i ve s tud ies which have examined var ious s i ng l e species f i s h i n g complexes i nc lude : "The Cod  F i s h e r i e s " , Innis (1940); 7"Sa1mon Industry of the P a c i f i c Coast" o Gregory (1940) ; "The Flounder Industry o f the Soviet Far Eas t , " Katkoff (1952) 9 ; "The Alaskan Salmon Industry-Prologue and P rospec t " , Mathieson ( 1 9 5 4 ) 1 0 ; "The Grouper F ishery o f Cay G lo r y , B r i t i s h Honduras", •I IP Craig (1969); and "The West Canadian Salmon Indust ry " , Jungst (1972) . In terms of r e l a t i n g the phys ica l environment to such c u l t u r a l f a c to rs as market, gear , and vessel design one o f the bet te r s tud ies i s "World 13 Sea F i s h e r i e s , " Morgan (1956) . Because of i t s scope, however, i t i s qu i te general and does not examine any one regional f i s h e r y in the l i g h t o f a l l f ac to rs which have come to bear upon i t . One o f the few theo re t i c a l s tud ies i s "A Model o f a F i sh ing Region" , Serck-Hanssen ( 1964 )^ . It attempts to s e l e c t the best l o ca t i on fo r process ing f irms assoc ia ted with a f i s h i n g complex. The geographical l i t e r a t u r e conta ins r e l a t i v e l y few s tud ies of marine f i s h e r i e s . Those that do e x i s t are charac te r ized by the absence o f a wel l-def ined conceptual framework, an emphasis upon d e s c r i p t i o n , the treatment of elements o f the to t a l f i s h i n g complex i n d i v i d u a l l y rather than as parts o f an i n t e r r e l a t ed complex, and a s u p e r f i c i a l treatment o f the u t i l i z a t i o n o f the resource through t ime. The Study Region The study deals with the e x p l o i t a t i o n o f the ha l i bu t resource on 10 grounds between Cape F l a t t e r y , Washington and the Eastern Bering Sea, inc lud ing the A leu t i an Chain. Within t h i s r eg i on , a common f i s h e r y based on the e x p l o i t a t i o n o f the P a c i f i c h a l i b u t , has been developed by United States and Canadian f i s h i n g f l e e t s . The en t i r e coasta l area comprising more than 3,000 mi les of coas t l i n e i s marked by a r e l a t i v e l y narrow cont inenta l she l f over which the f i she r y has extended. For admin is t ra t i ve and regu la tory purposes, the area has been d iv ided in to two major d i v i s i o n s : Area 2 cons is ts of grounds south o f Cape Spencer, A l a ska , and Area 3 comprises the grounds west of Cape Spencer. Although l im i t ed ha l ibu t stocks have supported a small ha l ibu t f i s h e r y from Cape F l a t t e r y to northern C a l i f o r n i a ( formerly Area 1 but now a part o f Area 2 ) , the f i s h e r y i s not charac te r i zed by such i n t e n s i t y o f e x p l o i t a t i o n as the f i s h e r y north o f Cape F l a t t e r y . For t h i s reason i t i s not examined in d e t a i l . The P a c i f i c ha l i bu t f i she r y has been j o i n t l y conducted by the United States and Canada s ince 1888. Because o f the common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the f i she r y each nat iona l f i s h e r y i s not examined i n d i v i d u a l l y . Where nec-essary , and i f has bearing on spa t i a l i m p l i c a t i o n s , d i s t i n c t i o n i s made between American and Canadian i n t e res t s in the f i s h e r y . E f f e c t i v e sett lement wi th in the region as a whole (Washington, B r i t i s h Columbia, and Alaska) dates from the eighteen f i f t i e s . The f i s h i n g indust ry began ea r l y in the European sett lement h i s t o r y and has played a s i g n i f i c a n t ro le in the economic l i f e of the P a c i f i c Northwest ever s ince . The ha l ibu t i ndus t r y , however, has been overshadowed by the very important salmon indust ry o f the reg ion . Never the less , ha l i bu t has always ranked amongst the top three or four commercial species in terms of volume and va lue. 11 Data Sources Because the study covers a ra ther lengthy time per iod a large number of data sources have been employed. For the per iod p r i o r to 1910, and even fo r some subsequent y ea r s , an accurate p i c tu re of ha l i bu t landings by r eg ion , the number and s i ze of vesse ls engaged in the f i s h e r y , and other re levant data fo r each are d i f f i c u l t to ob ta in . Neverthe less , such data as were a va i l ab l e fo r the per iod leading up to the development o f the f i s h e r y were obtained from the Annual Bu l l e t i n ( s ) o f the U. S. Bureau of F i she r i e s 1872-1910. Between 1874-1929/30 the Annual Report(s) of the Canada Department of Marine and F i s h e r i e s , F i she r i e s Branch, provide informat ion on ca tches , l and ings , e t c . For the years 1902-1935 the Annual Report(s) of the B r i t i s h Columbia Department of F i she r i e s g ives accounts of the expanding ha l ibu t f i s h e r y . S t a t i s t i c s - w i s e , the Annual  Yearbook(s) o f the P a c i f i c Fisherman proved to be an inva luab le source of in format ion . From 1928 onwards the Reports of the Internat ional F i she r i e s Commission ( l a t e r the Internat ional P a c i f i c Ha l ibut Commission) deal with a l l aspects re l a ted to the b i o l ogy , e x p l o i t a t i o n , and management of the ha l ibu t resource. The monthly pub l i ca t ions of Western F i she r i e s from 1929 onwards provide an added source on matters r e l a t i n g to expansion of the f i s h e r y . A de ta i l ed account of the development of Pr ince Rupert in to the wor ld ' s leading ha l i bu t port was obtained from the Pr ince Rupert Da i l y News fo r the years 1911-1920. In a d d i t i o n , a large number o f trade journa l s and government pub l i ca t ions were u t i l i z e d (see b ib l i og raphy ) . Most o f the data used in the compi la t ion o f maps on ha l ibu t catches and landings was taken from Report No. 17 o f the Internat ional F i she r i es Commission e n t i t l e d " P a c i f i c Coast Hal ibut Landings 1888-1950 and Catch According to Area o f O r i g i n " . As w e l l , " F i she ry Lea f l e t 602" o f the U.S. 12 Bureau o f F i s h e r i e s , "Eastern P a c i f i c Ha l ibut F ishery 1888-1966" provided bas ic informat ion on landings of ha l ibu t by n a t i o n a l i t y o f v e s s e l , catch of ha l ibu t by f i s h i n g ground, and landings by po r t , and pr i ces rece ived were obtained from issues o f P a c i f i c Fisherman, and in recent years from the IPHC reports and Western F i s h e r i e s . The fo l lowing chapter i s designed to provide techn ica l informat ion on the P a c i f i c ha l i bu t and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the f i s h e r y . Chapters 3-6 deal with each per iod in the evo lu t ion o f the f i s h e r y , each conta in ing schematic models of the spa t i a l and funct iona l s t ruc ture o f the indus t ry . Chapter 7 attempts to develop a conceptual model showing the evo lu t ion o f the P a c i f i c ha l i bu t f i s h e r y . 13 References 1. Lukerman, F. "On Exp lanat ion , Model and Desc r ip t i on " The Profess iona l Geographer Vo l . XII. Jan. 1960. p. 1. 2. Rostovstev, M.I. "Geographical Approaches to the Study o f Ex t rac t i ve Indust r ies . Sov iet Geography. V o l . XI. No. 8. Oct. 1970. pp. 616-629. 3. Padgett , H.R. "Sea Indus t r i es : A Neglected F i e l d of Geography." The Profess iona l Geographer. V o l . XIII. No. 6. Nov. 1961. pp. 26-28. 4. Ib id , p. 28. 5. Cou l l , J .R . The F i she r i es o f Europe G. Be l l and Sons, London, 1972. 6. Keen, E.A. "Regional Concentrat ion of the Japanese Skipjack-Tuna F i she r y . " Yearbook o f the Assoc i a t i on o f P a c i f i c Coast  Geographers. Vo l . 33. 1971. pp. 127-140. 7. I nn i s , H.A. The Cod F i s h e r i e s . Un i ve rs i t y of Toronto Press. 1940. 8. Gregory, H. "Salmon Industry of the P a c i f i c Coas t . " Economic Geography. V o l . 16. 1940. pp. 407-415. 9. Ka tkof f , V. "The Flounder Industry of the Sov iet Far Eas t . " Economic Geography. Vo l . 28. 1952. pp. 171-180. 10. Mathieson, R.S. "The Japanese Salmon F i s h e r i e s : A Geographical A p p r a i s a l . " Economic Geography. V o l . 34. 1958. p.p. 352-361. 11. C r a i g , A.K. 12. JUngst, P. "The Grouper F ishery of Cay G lo r y , B r i t i s h Honduras." Annals o f the Assoc i a t i on of American Geographers. V o l . 59. 1969. p. 252-264. "The West Canadian Salmon Industry . " Geographische  Rundschau. Volume 24, Number 7. Ju ly 1972. pp. 283-292. 13. Morgan, R. World Sea F i she r i e s Methuen, London. 1956. 14. Serck-Hanssen J . "A Model o f a F ish ing Region" in Papers and Pro-ceedings. Regional Science A s s o c i a t i o n . " V o l . 12. 1964. pp. 107-118. 14 Chapter II The Ha l ibut Resource and F ishery Cha r a c t e r i s t i c s • The P a c i f i c ha l ibu t (Hippoglossus hippoglossus s teno lep i s ) i s the l a rges t member of the f l a t f i s h fami ly and may exceed 250 pounds in weight, although the average s i ze of the Eastern P a c i f i c catch is between 30 and 35 pounds J Ha l ibut i s a boreal species and i s found at depths where the temperature ranges from 3 ° to 8 ° Cent igrade. Unl ike free-swimming, or pe lag ic species such as Salmon, the ha l ibu t i s a demersal or groundf ish species and i s conf ined to the cont inenta l she l f at depths genera l l y l ess than 250 fathoms (1500 f e e t ) . Stocks are most abundant on grounds extending from the northern t i p o f Vancouver Is land to the Shumagin Islands in western A laska . The j o i n t f i s h e r y by American and Canadian f i s h i n g f l e e t s extends from the v i c i n i t y o f Cape F l a t t e r y , Washington to the eastern margins o f the Bering Sea and provides the focus fo r t h i s study. On grounds south o f Cape F l a t t e r y , r e l a t i v e l y sparse ha l ibu t stocks support a small f i s h e r y fo r American vesse ls on ly . The Eastern P a c i f i c f i s h e r y accounts f o r approximately s i x t y percent of to ta l world ha l ibut product ion . The remaining f o r t y percent i s taken from grounds of the Western P a c i f i c by Japanese and Russian f l e e t s and by the var ious f l e e t s f i s h i n g the North A t l a n t i c . In recent years the to ta l world catch has amounted to approximately 100 m i l l i o n pounds. Figure 3 shows the cont inenta l s h e l f o f f the eastern North P a c i f i c c o a s t l i n e and the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the P a c i f i c ha l ibu t grounds. The dominant feature o f the she l f area is the r e l a t i v e l y cons t r i c t ed extent of ocean depths l ess than 250 fathoms. The rap id increase in ocean depth beyond the 100 fathom i soba th , the recognized l i m i t o f ft \ BERING SEA **-»,. <' ALASKA SHUMAGIN " T R I N ' T Y ' (j ^ C ^ ( ISLANDS /'SLANDSc^^KODIAK- P o r t, o c k / \ *«0~--J ! A lbatross Bonk ISLAND B . n k '^»-"Z"\ / *** *~ ~ — \ ' GULF OF ALASKA British C o l u m b i a tSS DISTRIBUTION OF PACIFIC HALIBUT Source : Techn ica l Repor t no . 6, I PHC . Figure 3. EXTENT OF THE CONTINENTAL SHELF OF THE EASTERN NORTH PACIFIC KETCHIKAN I ' V y-'The ^ P R , N C E RUPERT Q U E E N F l a t s C H A R L O T T E I S L A N D S M ft^ Legend * ' M ^ Scale 1 inch equals 263 miles (approximately) \ G o o s e i s l and „ E D G E O F C O N T I N E N T A L S H E L F \'\P'°jJnd S00 F A T H O M I S O B A T H \ / PACIFIC OCEAN 16 the cont inenta l s h e l f , has important bearing on ha l ibu t stocks s ince i t prevents cons iderable of fshore movement of the spec ies . During the winter months there occurs an of fshore movement of ha l ibu t to depths from 125 to 250 fathoms. For the greater part of the year , however, ha l ibu t stocks o f the eastern North P a c i f i c are found at cons iderab ly less depth. The average width o f the eastern North P a c i f i c She l f i s approximately 50 miles and i t s approximate area i s 80 thousand square m i l e s . The most p r o l i f i c ha l ibu t grounds of the region are conf ined to genera l l y sandy-gravel bottom and represent only a small propor t ion of the to t a l s h e l f area. Some o f the more important ha l i bu t banks (F igure 3) inc lude the Goose Is land Banks in southern Hecate S t r a i t (600 sq . m i l e s ) ; the area known as the F l a t s in northern Hecate S t r a i t (1200 sq . m i l e s ) ; Por t lock Bank in the Gu l f of Alaska (6800 sq . m i l e s ) ; and A lbat ross Bank o f f Kodiak Is land (3700 sq . m i l e s ) . Although the Bering Sea she l f i s qu i te ex tens i ve , ha l ibu t stocks are conf ined mainly to the southeastern edge o f i t because eco log i ca l condi t ions are more favourable than over p the remainder of the r eg ion ' s shal low s h e l f . Extensive upwell ing occurs throughout the en t i r e region and i n d i r e c t l y supports the p r o l i f i c f i s h stocks which e x i s t . Extensive experiments conducted by the Internat ional F i she r i es Commission ( IFC) , and i t s successor , the Internat ional P a c i f i c Ha l ibut Commission (IPHC), showed the Eastern P a c i f i c ha l ibu t populat ion to cons i s t of two d i s t i n c t s tocks , the Bering Sea and Gu l f of Alaska stock and 3 those on the grounds south o f Cape Spencer. It was on th i s bas is that the IFC d iv ided the region in to two primary areas : Area 2 comprises the grounds south o f Cape Spencer and Area 3 those west of Cape Spencer. 17 The r e s t r i c t e d area over which ha l i bu t occur in the eastern North P a c i f i c had important bearing on the evo lut ion of the f i s h e r y . F ishery expansion and vessel movement could only occur in a genera l l y northwester ly d i r e c t i o n away from the dominant ports in Washington and B r i t i s h Columbia. Cold storage and process ing p lants were located at s t r a t eg i c l oca t ions along the r eg ion ' s coas t l i ne in response to resource dep le t ion at var ious stages o f development and r a i l connection to market. By the mid nineteen f i f t i e s major ha l i bu t ports had developed along approximately 3,000 mi les o f coas t l i ne from Sea t t l e , Washington to Sand Po in t ,A l aska . Catching o f Ha l ibut At each stage of development the catching sector of the industry cons i s ted o f vesse ls of var ious types and s i z e s . In the i n i t i a l phase of the f i s h e r y , s a i l i n g schooners and sloops were employed. Towards the end of the 1888-1912 per iod p r a c t i c a l l y a l l of these had a u x i l i a r y power i n s t a l l e d . F i sh ing was conducted from dor ies c a r r i ed by the vesse l s . F i sh ing was a l so c a r r i ed out from small open boats o f l ess than f i v e to ten tons based at many f i s h i n g s t a t i ons throughout the reg ion . The company-owned vesse ls which were introduced in to the f i s h e r y were r e l a t i v e l y l a rge . They averaged approximately 125 tons , were about 120 feet l ong , c a r r i ed up to 14 d o r i e s , and had a crew of 20 to 44 men. From 1912 to 1923 schooners averaging 25-60 tons were introduced in to the independent f l e e t . They were powered by gaso l ine engines and c a r r i ed up to 8 do r i e s . There was an increased trend towards l ong l i n i ng from vesse ls but i t was not un t i l a f t e r 1923, with the advent o f the d i ese l engine, that t h i s type of f i s h e r y expanded. A f t e r 1923, new vesse ls enter ing the f l e e t were almost e n t i r e l y l o n g l i n e r s , and they 18 did not have the prominent s a i l i n g l i nes of e a r l i e r vesse l s . In recent years l a rger vessels o f the se iner c lass have been introduced in to the f i she r y but few of them exceed 100 feet in length and average 50-100 tons. Most of the Eastern P a c i f i c ha l ibut catch i s taken with l ong l ine gear (F igure 4) although small quan t i t i e s are caught by t r o l l i n g and hand-l i n i n g . Longl ine gear cons i s t s o f a long groundl ine to which i s attached gangings and hooks at equal i n t e r v a l s , e . g . 9, 13, and 18 f e e t . When bai ted and s e t , i t res ts on the ocean bottom in the manner i l l u s t r a t e d . Figure 5 shows how gear i s set to accommodate the areal extent and con f igura t ion of f i s h i n g grounds. The method of deployment var ies through the year in response to ha l ibu t movement, s i ze of the grounds being f i s h e d , bottom topography, and depth o f water being f i s h e d . The hook spacing i s determined by the s i z e of the grounds being f i s h e d , resource a v a i l a b i l i t y , and the s i z e o f the vesse l s . In the ea r l y years of the f i s h e r y , when dor ies were employed, the i n t e r va l s between gangings were genera l l y 9 f ee t . When l o n g l i n i n g from vesse ls took p l a ce , the i n t e r va l s were increased to 13 fee t but subsequent mod i f i ca t ions have resu l ted in 4 18, 21, 24, and 26-foot gear being introduced in the f i s h e r y . For management purposes, the IFC in 1943 adopted 13-foot gear with 120 hooks as the "standard skate" fo r a l l areas to determine the bas ic un i t o f e f f o r t . On the bas is o f recent experiments the IPHC has found that the "standard skate" underestimated e f f o r t and over-estimated catch per un i t o f e f f o r t (CPUE). F ish ing by o t t e r trawl and other types of bottom net has been pro -h ib i t ed by the IPHC. Although th i s has caused some concern amongst the dragger f l e e t operat ing out o f Eastern P a c i f i c po r t s , the Commission Figure 4. LONGLINE GEAR EMPLOYED IN THE EASTERN PACIFIC HALIBUT Figure 5. MANNER IN WHICH GEAR IS DEPLOYED TO ACCOMMODATE BOTTOM TOPOGRAPHY, ETC. ro o 21 based i t s dec i s ion on f i sh i ng prac t i ces elsewhere. In Norway i t was determined that large ha l ibu t were p a r t i c u l a r l y vulnerable to bottom-set g i l l nets and in 1938 the Commission p roh ib i t ed t h e i r use in the 5 P a c i f i c ha l ibu t f i she r y even before they were employed. In 1944 the Commission p roh ib i t ed the use of o t t e r trawls because i t was shown that in the North A t l a n t i c small ha l ibu t were suscept ib le to t h i s type o f gear. Since 1944 dory f i s h i n g has not been permitted because t h i s type o f f i s h i n g was removing large quan t i t i e s o f small ha l i bu t . While the l ong l ine is a h igh ly s e l e c t i v e and a r e l a t i v e l y inexpensive type o f gear i t does have i t s disadvantages. It i s a labour- intens ive operat ion as cons iderable e f f o r t has to be expended in hau l i ng , b a i t i n g , and r epa i r i ng the gear. As a r e s u l t the actual f i s h i n g day tends to be qu i te long and often amounts to twenty hours. In dragging (o t ter t rawl ing) operat ions on the other hand, very l i t t l e e f f o r t i s involved in the actual f i s h i n g opera t ion . A 75-foot l o n g l i n e r f i s h i n g f o r ha l ibu t may employ 7-9 men, but a dragger of the same s i ze may only employ 4-5 men. The phasing-out o f the company-owned steamer f l e e t and the p r o h i b i t i o n o f the s e t l i n e f i s h e r y with dory vessels saw the pass ing , in Eastern P a c i f i c waters, o f a very i n t e r e s t i ng spa t i a l f i s h i n g pa t te rn . When vessels ca r r i ed dor ies from which l ong l i n i ng operat ions could be c a r r i e d ou t , fishermen employed a number o f f i s h i n g patterns which are depicted in F igure 6. F i sh ing from dor ies was a two-man ope ra t i on , and depending on the s i z e o f the v e s se l s , a number o f dor ies were employed. Depending on such fac tors as weather cond i t i ons , abundance o f h a l i b u t , and extent o f f i s h i n g grounds, the dor ies f i shed in the manner shown in F igure 6. The i r small s i ze and r e s t r i c t e d range necess i ta ted th i s mothership type o f f i s h i n g opera t ion . One o f the l a s t surv i v ing operat ions of t h i s type Legend •^jj&IP Mother Ship Dories Direction and distance (usually less than 5 miles) Edge of continental shelf i fishing edge of ground fish relatively confined. On considerable expanses ^ n e r i i • and of level ground. Figure 6. BASIC FISHING PATTERNS. 23 i s the Portuguese "White F l ee t " cod f i she r y in North A t l a n t i c waters. Management and Exp lo i t a t i on Since 1924 the ha l ibu t f i she r y of the Eastern P a c i f i c has been managed by the Internat ional P a c i f i c Ha l ibut Commission ( formerly the Internat ional F i she r i e s Commission), cons i s t i ng o f representat ives o f Canada and the United S ta tes . The IPHC manages the f i s h e r y s o l e l y on a b i o l o g i c a l bas is and has no contro l over economic aspects of the f i s h e r y , e .g . l i m i t i n g the number of vesse ls engaged in the f i s h e r y . The s ign ing o f the Hal ibut Convention in 1923 came a f t e r extensive dep le t ion of ha l ibu t stocks had occurred dur ing the unregulated phase of the f i she r y (1888-1923). It was one o f the f i r s t i n te rna t iona l agree-ments aimed at p ro tec t ing a depleted marine resource , the Internat ional P a c i f i c Fur Seal Treaty having been signed in 1911. Under the Convention o f 1923, a c losed season to co inc ide with the ha l i bu t spawning per iod (November 16 to February 15) was i n s t i t u t e d , with the costs o f regu la t ing the f i she r y being shared equa l l y by the two coun t r i e s . The Commission was a lso d i r ec ted to engage in very extensive b i o l o g i c a l i nves t iga t ions per ta in ing to the l i f e h i s to r y of the ha l i bu t . The Ha l ibut Convention of 1930 provided f o r : (1) the d i v i s i o n o f the convention waters in to areas , (2) the l i m i t i n g of the catch o f ha l ibut to be taken from each area, (3 ) determining the s i ze and character of ha l ibu t f i s h i n g appl iances (gear) employed, and (4) the c losure o f a l l f i s h i n g areas frequented by small immature halibut.** Th is Convention led to the i n s t i t u t i o n o f annual quotas commencing in 1932. Subsequent Hal ibut Conventions of 1937, 1950, and o f 1953 provided fo r fu r the r regu la t ion o f the f i s h i n g in Convention waters. These Conventions def ined "convention 24 waters" to comprise the t e r r i t o r i a l waters and high seas o f f the western coasts of Canada and the United S ta tes , inc lud ing the southern as well as the western coast o f A l a s k a . 7 The Convention o f 1953 gave the IPHC the power to take necessary steps to obta in maximum sustained y i e l d s from the P a c i f i c ha l i bu t s tocks . It was mainly on the basis that the United States and Canada had undertaken to manage and preserve ha l ibu t stocks that fo re ign f l e e t s g were discouraged from enter ing the P a c i f i c ha l i bu t f i s h e r y . In 1937 , B r i t i s h f i s h i n g i n t e r es t s were prepar ing to send an expedi t ion to the North P a c i f i c to take h a l i b u t , but extreme oppos i t ion from the IFC, and P a c i f i c ha l ibu t fishermen and dealers led to abandonment of the p ro jec t . Movement o f Japanese vesse ls in p a r t i c u l a r in to the Bering Sea in the ea r l y n ine teen-s ix t i es caused grave concern to those engaged in the indus t ry . In 1962, the Internat ional North P a c i f i c F i she r i e s Commission agreed with Japan that sect ions o f the Bering Sea were outs ide Japanese f i s h i n g abstent ion as s p e c i f i e d in the Internat ional Convention fo r the g High Sea F i she r i e s of the North P a c i f i c Ocean. As a r e s u l t the Japanese were permitted to engage in the Bering Sea s e t l i n e f i she r y aga inst the wishes o f the IPHC. This was to have important imp l i ca t ions fo r the f i s h e r y as a whole, s ince there i s cons iderab le in te rming l ing of ha l i bu t stocks o f the Bering Sea and Gu l f o f Alaska waters. P r i o r to 1961, the Eastern P a c i f i c ha l ibu t f i s h e r y was conducted e x c l u s i v e l y by Canadian and American f i s h i n g f l e e t s . The commencement o f ha l i bu t operat ions in the Bering Sea by a fo re ign nat ion no longer gave the North American ha l ibu t f l e e t monopoly over a l l sectors of the ha l i bu t grounds. On grounds outs ide the Bering Sea, stocks are harvested e x c l u s i v e l y by American and Canadian f l e e t s except that i nc iden ta l 25 catches are made by Russian and Japanese f i s h i n g operat ions fo r groundf ish species other than ha l i bu t . Such inc iden ta l catches are not permitted to be re ta ined and must be returned to the ocean. Before expansion o f the Japanese and Russian f i s h i n g operat ions on a g lobal sca le mainly a f t e r World War II, the i s o l a t ed and r e l a t i v e l y r e s t r i c t e d extent o f the Eastern P a c i f i c f i s h i n g grounds hindered fo re ign f i s h i n g penetrat ion in to the reg ion . This g rea t l y f a c i l i t a t e d management o f the resource , and as a r e s u l t the once-depleted stocks were restored to near-maximum susta inab le y i e l d l e v e l s . There has been no admin i s t ra t i ve d i v i s i o n of catch between the American and Canadian f l e e t s s ince commercial e x p l o i t a t i o n of the f i s h e r y began. A f t e r the establ ishment o f annual quotas in 1932, fishermen of both nat ions continued to compete fo r a share of the c a t c h , and up to 1962, the American Sector o f the ha l i bu t f l e e t accounted fo r the l a rges t percentage o f annual catches. S ince 1963, however, the Canadian f l e e t has accounted fo r the l a rges t percentage o f ca tch . Such a reversa l i s a t t r i bu t ed to the dec l ine o f the American ha l ibu t f l e e t r e l a t i v e to that o f Canada. Reciprocal port p r i v i l e g e s were es tab l i shed between the two count r ies in the ea r l y phase of the f i s h e r y . American vesse ls are not permi t ted , however, to f i s h ins ide the three-mile t e r r i t o r i a l l i m i t of Canada, and v i ce versa . S ince the r i s e of the independent f l e e t s , ha l ibu t fishermen and vessel owners have maintained strong unions and f i s h i n g vessel-owner a s soc i a t i ons . These groups have continued to maintain a strong bargaining pos i t i on in the ha l i bu t f i s h e r y . Since the IPHC does not d i r e c t l y contro l the economic aspects of the f i s h e r y , regu la t ion on a non-bio log ica l basis remained with the fishermen and vessel owners. As ea r l y as 1911 there was concern on t h e i r part over excess ive dep le t ion o f the ha l i bu t resource , and t h i s eventua l l y led to the s ign ing of the Ha l ibut Convention in 1923. 26 The i n s t i t u t i o n of the var ious between-trip layover programs a f t e r 1932 was made by the f l e e t to assure more o rde r l y exp lo i t a t i on and marketing o f the ha l ibu t ca tch . The entrance of non-regular ha l ibu t fishermen into the f i s h e r y , however, made i t very d i f f i c u l t to manage the f i s h e r y on an economic bas i s . In recent y ea r s , e s p e c i a l l y s ince 1956, there has been l i t t l e f ree movement o f vesse ls in to the f i s h e r y , and the s i z e o f the f l e e t has shown a sharp downward t rend . Unl ike most f i s h e r i e s based on the harvest ing of a common-property resource , the P a c i f i c ha l ibu t f i s h e r y , from a b i o l o g i c a l v iewpoint , has been very e f f e c t i v e l y managed. This has requ i red and rece ived the f u l l co-operat ion of the Canadian and American governments, f ishermen, vessel owners, and companies engaged in the e x p l o i t a t i o n o f h a l i bu t . Processing and Marketing There i s l i t t l e secondary process ing o f the ha l ibut ca t ch . Almost a l l of the catch i s marketed in a f resh or f resh-frozen form. The exce l l en t keeping q u a l i t i e s o f the species when held in co ld storage makes i t poss ib le to spread marketing throughout the year and thus maintain p r i c e s . In the ea r l y stages o f the f i s h e r y , when f i s h i n g opera -t ions were ca r r i ed out on a year-round b a s i s , the ro l e o f the co ld storage sector was s i g n i f i c a n t l y l ess than in more recent stages o f the f i s h e r y . A greater percentage o f the catch i s now f r o z e n , and held fo r longer periods o f t ime, because the length of the f i s h i n g season has been reduced. In a d d i t i o n , improvements in f resh-food d i s t r i b u t i o n , wholesale and r e t a i l marketing and restaurant p rac t i ces have cont r ibuted to an increase in the amount o f ha l ibu t that i s f rozen . A l l l a rge f i rms in the ha l i bu t indust ry maintain frozen inventor ies of ha l ibu t to provide wholesale customer demands over the yearJ0 27 Unl ike most commercial species of f i s h landed at P a c i f i c Northwest p o r t s , the P a c i f i c ha l ibu t catch is sold by auc t ion . Ha l ibut exchanges are located at a l l of the major po r t s , and buyers bid fo r each vessel de l i v e r y . A l l p r i ces paid, at the smal ler ports through out the region are sca led according to pr i ces paid at neighbouring auct ion por t s . In the days of the company f l e e t s the vesse ls so ld d i r e c t l y to the companies they f i shed fo r and thus bypassed the ha l ibu t exchange. The r i s e of independent f l e e t s at the major ports was accompanied by the establ ishment o f exchanges which were operated by the ha l ibu t vessel owners and f ishermen. Most ha l ibu t vesse ls are owned by self-employed f ishermen. There i s no capt ive ownership o f vesse ls by companies engaged in the buying o f h a l i b u t , and as a r e s u l t the independent vesse ls have been f ree to land t h e i r catches at ports of t he i r cho i ce . Almost a l l of the American f l e e t output of ha l ibu t f inds a market in the l a rge r urban areas o f the United S t a t e s , mainly east o f the M i s s i s s i p p i . Approximately seventy percent o f the Canadian catch i s marketed in the United States as w e l l , and from time to time Canada has exported small amounts o f ha l i bu t to European coun t r i e s , p r i n c i p a l l y B r i t a i n . Demand f o r P a c i f i c ha l ibu t in the North American market has remained s t rong , despi te i s o l a t ed f l u c t u a t i o n s . Because o f the l im i t ed world supply o f t h i s spec ies i t commands premium p r i c e s . The North American wh i t e f i sh market, however, has always been h igh ly compet i t i ve , and ha l i bu t must compete with other wh i te f i sh species such as cod , f l ounde r , perch and so l e . From i n i t i a l e x p l o i t a t i o n , the surv i va l of the industry has been dependent on markets three or four thousand mi les away. Strong t ranspor ta t ion l i nks with the eastern markets were the key p re-requ is i t es fo r ea r l y development of the f i s h e r y and continue to play a leading ro le in the marketing o f the 28 per ishab le ca tch . H i s t o r i c a l Development Before large sca le commercial development o f the Eastern P a c i f i c ha l i bu t f i she r y occur red , the presence of an abundant ha l ibu t resource was well known. The coasta l Indians of the region had long r e l i e d upon the species to supply part o f t he i r food requ i rements .^ The Makah Indians of Cape F l a t t e r y , the Haidas of the Queen Char lo t te I s lands , and the S i tka Indians of Southeast A l a ska , and other coasta l groups caught 12 ha l i bu t . Both Cook and Belcher took small quan t i t i e s o f ha l ibu t in Alaskan waters. The cod expedi t ions from San Franc isco and Puget Sound from the eighteen s i x t i e s onwards made large inc identa l catches of ha l i bu t in Alaskan waters. P r i o r to 1888 the f i she r y indust ry of the region was dominated by the salmon f i s h e r y , with the whale, fur s e a l , and cod f i s h e r i e s p lay ing l ess important r o l e s . Resource e x p l o i t a t i o n in the P a c i f i c Northwest, however was hindered by r e l a t i v e i s o l a t i o n and the absence of a large populat ion base. Never the less , i n t e r e s t was expressed in the abundance o f the r eg ion ' s resources and the f i s h i n g indust ry was amongst the f i r s t to bene f i t from specu la t i ve investment. Fol lowing the establ ishment of 13 the f i r s t salmon cannery on the Sacramento River in 1860 , expansion of the indust ry northwards to Oregon, Washington, B r i t i s h Columbia, and Alaska occurred at a f a i r l y rap id r a t e . By 1896, 54 canner ies were 14 operat ing in B r i t i s h Columbia . Because salmon were i n i t i a l l y s a l t e d , and l a t e r canned, fo l lowing innovat ions in canning, the industry d id not depend so heav i l y on e f f i c i e n t and f a s t modes of t ranspor ta t ion as was to be the case with the developing f resh ha l i bu t f i s h e r y . 29 Development of the ha l ibu t f i s h e r y on a large commercial sca le was not poss ib le p r i o r to the completion of ra i lway l i nks to P a c i f i c coast points such as Vancouver, S ea t t l e , and Tacoma between 1885 and 1892. Only then was i t poss ib l e to move large volumes o f f resh ha l i bu t to the large f i s h markets in the eastern c i t i e s o f North America. Consequently, the ha l ibu t f i s h e r y before 1888 did not e x i s t as an independent sector o f the r eg ion ' s f i s h i n g indus t ry . I n s i g n i f i c a n t landings o f ha l i bu t which were being made cons t i tu ted inc iden ta l catches made by fishermen engaged in other sectors of the f i s h i n g indus t ry . Attempts were made, however, to develop the ha l ibu t f i she r y on a small s c a l e . For example in 1880 an American vessel was sent from San Franc isco to S i t k a , Alaska 15 to f i s h fo r ha l i bu t . These ea r l y attempts d id not succeed because of l im i t ed markets in the coasta l c i t i e s and competi t ion from other food f i shes o f the reg ion . The f i r s t commercial landings of P a c i f i c ha l i bu t were made in 1888 by ha l i bu t vessels from the New England ha l i bu t f i s h e r y . Deplet ion o f the A t l a n t i c ha l i bu t f i s h e r y was occurr ing at t h i s t ime^ 6 . According to Thompson and Freeman^ 7 the owner of two ha l ibu t schooners at G louces te r , Massachusetts responded to l e t t e r s in the loca l newspaper expounding upon the oppor tun i t i es of sea l ing and ha l i bu t f i s h i n g in the P a c i f i c reg ion . I o By 1888 three New England schooners had a r r i ved at Sea t t l e and engaged in the P a c i f i c ha l i bu t f i s h e r y . From such i n i t i a l endeavour the f i she r y had i t s beginnings. As w i l l be shown in the fo l lowing chapter , there were many problems to be overcome in the i n i t i a l development o f the f i s h e r y . These re l a ted to compet i t ion , high f i s h i n g c o s t s , and r e l a t i v e l y low ha l ibu t p r i c e s . Never the less , the f i s h e r y was to expand at a f a i r l y rap id pace, and developed in to an in tegra l sector o f the P a c i f i c Northwest f i s h i n g indus t ry . 30 References 1. St . P i e r r e , G. and F. H. Be l l "The P a c i f i c Ha l ibut " Technica l Report No. 6. IPHC. Sea t t l e . 1970. p. 8. 2. Dunlop, H. A. et a l . " I n ve s t i ga t i on , U t i l i z a t i o n , and Regulat ion o f the Ha l ibut in the Southeastern Bering Sea . " Report No. 35. IPHC. S e a t t l e , 1964. p. 12. Hardman, W. H. 4. Skud, B. C. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Myhre, Richard J . B e l l , F. H. Ib id , p. 63 "Re la t ionsh ip of Ha l ibut Stocks in the Bering Sea As Indicated by Age and S ize Composi t ion. " Technica l Report No. 4. IPHC. Seat t le 1969,p.1. "A Reassessment o f E f f o r t in the Hal ibut F i she r y . " S c i e n t i f i c Report No. 54. IPHC. Sea t t l e 1972. pp. 5, 6. "Gear Se l ec t ion and P a c i f i c H a l i b u t . " Report  No. 51. IPHC. Sea t t l e . 1969. p. 5, "Agreements, Conventions and Trea t ies Between Canada and the United States o f America with Respect to the P a c i f i c Ha l ibut F i she r y . " Report No. 50. IPHC. Sea t t l e 1969. p. 49. P a c i f i c Fisherman Yearbook. 1938. p. 223. B e l l , F. H. "Management o f P a c i f i c H a l i b u t . " In A Century  of F i she r i e s in North America. Norman G. Benson (ed) Spec ia l Pub l i ca t ion No. 7. American F i she r i e s Soc ie ty . Washington, 1970. p. 220. Information suppl ied by Mr. Frank Compantino, Manager. Booth F i she r i es L t d . , Pr ince Rupert. Joyce, H. B. " In t roductory notes on the Ha l ibut F i she r y . " In U. S. Bureau of F i s h e r i e s . Document No. 763. Washington 1912. p.62. United States Bureau of F i s h e r i e s . B u l l e t i n . 1888. p. 6. Doyle, H. The Rise and Decl ine o f the P a c i f i c Salmon F i she r i es Doyle 's C o l l e c t i o n of Papers on The P a c i f i c Salmon. UBC Specia l C o l l e c t i o n s , p. 135. II "The West Canadian Salmon Industry . " In Geographische Rundschau. V o l . 24 No. 7. Ju l y 1972. p. 289. 14. Jungst , V. P. 31 15. U. S. Bureau of F i s h e r i e s . B u l l e t i n . 1881. p. 259. 16. Goode, G. B. "The F i sher i es and F ishery Industr ies o f The United S ta tes . Sect ion V. Vo l . 1. (1884-1887) Washington. 1887. p. 3. 17. Thompson, W. F. and N. L. Freeman. "H i s to ry of the P a c i f i c Ha l ibut F i she r y . " Report No. 5. IFC. Vancouver, 1930. p. 18. 18. U. S. Bureau of F i s h e r i e s . B u l l e t i n 1888. p. 54. 32 Chapter III Spat ia l Confinement and Resource Deplet ion 1888-1912 The ove ra l l aim of t h i s chapter i s to t race the i n i t i a l development of the Eastern P a c i f i c ha l i bu t f i s h e r y . Factors con t r ibu t ing to the ea r l y growth of the f i s h e r y and the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the f i s h i n g complex which evolved w i l l be analysed. It w i l l be shown that t h i s was an unregulated phase r e s u l t i n g in heavy, success ive exhaustion of f i s h i n g grounds causing major nor ther l y s h i f t s in the catching and land ing/pro -cess ing sectors of the indus t ry . During th i s per iod v i r t u a l l y a l l catches were taken on grounds between Cape F l a t t e r y , Washington and Cape Spencer in Southeast A l a ska , a d is tance of approximately 600 m i l e s . In t h i s pe r i od , Washington rece ived the greatest percentage o f the ha l i bu t catch (61%), fol lowed by B r i t i s h Columbia (33%), and Alaska with 6% of to ta l average annual landings amounting to 21.5 m i l l i o n pounds. Between 1888 and-1912 the catch increased from 1.4 m i l l i o n to 60.4 m i l l i o n pounds. Sea t t l e developed in to the leading ha l ibu t centre on the coas t , fo l lowed by Vancouver in B r i t i s h Columbia and, towards the end o f the p e r i o d , Ketchikan, Alaska commenced to p lay an important r o l e . Small landings o f ha l i bu t were a l so made at a la rge number o f smal ler f i s h i n g centres throughout the r eg ion . In essence, t h i s phase o f the f i s h e r y was r e s t r i c t e d to near-shore waters and the spa t i a l extension of the catching and pro -cess ing sectors was hindered by technolog ica l and market c o n s t r a i n t s . By the end of the pe r i od , never the less , a l l major ha l ibu t grounds south of Cape Spencer were exposed to ove r f i sh ing and specu la t i ve investment was cont inu ing in the indus t ry . Spat ia l S t ructure Figure 7 shows the general spa t i a l s t ruc ture o f the P a c i f i c ha l ibu t Legend A RAILHEAD LOCATION PORTS • COLD STORAGE FACILITIES Q SECONDARY PORTS • FISHING STATIONS [MINOR PORTS) a B m LIMIT OF FISHING OPERATIONS -*• RANGE OF FISHING VESSELS BASED AT EACH PORT TYPE — • VESSELS ELECT TO LAND PART OF YEARLY CATCH AWAY FROM HOME PORT FIGURE 7. SPATIAL STRUCTURE OF THE INDUSTRY 1888-1912. 34 f i she r y during the per iod . It was charac te r ized by a r e l a t i v e l y large number of f i s h i n g ports o f varying importance. The range of the catching sec tor was r e s t r i c t e d to f i s h i n g grounds near these por t s . The ra i lhead p o r t s , however, supported vesse ls with a much greater range and they played a dominant r o l e wi th in the indus t ry . S ince the en t i r e catch was marketed v ia the r a i l head po r t s , there was cons iderab le re-rout ing o f ha l i bu t landings to these l o c a t i o n s . Figure 8 shows that there was a high degree of c e n t r a l i z a t i o n assoc ia ted with primary ha l i bu t landings by por t . I n i t i a l commercial e x p l o i t a t i o n of the ha l i bu t stocks took p lace with the development of f i s h i n g grounds in the v i c i n i t y o f Cape F l a t t e r y , Washington in 1888*, but by 1895 operat ions had extended as f a r north 2 as Cape Spencer in Southeast A laska . Despite the rap id northward extension of the boundary of the catching a rea , Vancouver and Sea t t l e developed in to the leading ha l ibu t ports of the reg ion . Average annual ha l i bu t catches during the per iod amounted to 21.5 m i l l i o n pounds , and by the end of the per iod most o f the catch was being taken north o f Vancouver I s l and , but south of Cape Spencer. The grounds c lose to the major ports were heav i l y f i shed in the i n i t i a l years o f the f i s h e r y . As a r e s u l t e f f o r t was d iver ted to the more product ive grounds fu r the r nor th . The small boat sec tor of the indust ry which operated from the smal ler ports and f i s h i n g s ta t ions f i shed the near shore grounds. The l a r g e r , more h igh ly mobile vessels operat ing from S e a t t l e , Tacoma, and Vancouver concentrated t he i r e f f o r t over a l l sectors of grounds in response to resource a v a i l a b i l i t y . Linkages between the catching sec tor of the indust ry and the major l and ing , processing/marketing centres remained strong even a f t e r dep le t ion o f the smal ler southern grounds. SIZE ONE OF THE SQUARE PROPORTIONAL TO A V E R A G E ANNUAL LANDINGS FOR THE PERIOD QUARTER INCH SQUARE EQUALS 8 MILLION POUNDS OTHER PORTS SEATTLE VANCOUVER FIGURE 8. DEGREE OF CENTRALIZATION OF HALIBUT LANDINGS 1888-1912. 37 A large percentage o f the catch landed at S e a t t l e , Tacoma, and Vancouver was made by steamers from the company-owned f l e e t s . By 1907 the steamer f l e e t numbered 15 vesse ls compared to approximately 75 independent (fishermen-owned) schooners and each f l e e t landed approximately 25 m i l l i o n pounds of h a l i b u t . ^ Vancouver was headquarters fo r 6 of the steamers, Sea t t l e supported a f l e e t o f 5 steamers and most o f the 5 independent schooners, and Tacoma was headquarters fo r four steamers. With increased northward extension of f i s h i n g e f f o r t , there was increased tendency f o r vesse ls in the independent f l e e t to land catches at northern loca t ions such as Taku, Petersburg, and Ketchikan. The l a rge r company steamers were f a s t e r and more mobile than the s a i l i n g schooners, permit t ing them to f i s h in d i s t an t waters but to land t h e i r catch at home por t . This p a r t i a l l y accounts fo r the l a rger ports being able to maintain t h e i r dominant pos i t i ons i n the indus t r y . The northward extension of f i s h i n g operat ions was accompanied by the establ ishment o f co ld storage f a c i l i t i e s c lose to the major ha l ibu t grounds in northern B r i t i s h Columbia and Southeast Alaska waters. A small co ld storage p lant (using g l a c i e r ice ) was es tab l i shed at Taku, A laska in 1902. Later p lants were es tab l i shed at Ketchikan (1909), Pacof i (1909), and at Kildonan on the west coast of Vancouver Is land in 1911. Landings o f ha l i bu t at these l o c a t i o n s , apart from Ketchikan were r e l a t i v e l y small because the r a i l head ports o f S e a t t l e , Vancouver, and Tacoma o f fe red higher p r i c e s . In a d d i t i o n , the small boat sec tor expended f a r l ess e f f o r t and accounted fo r a f r a c t i o n o f the to ta l ca tch . Cold storage f a c i l i t i e s were constructed at Pr ince Rupert in 1912 ahead of a ra i lway l i n k to that por t . It was not un t i l the second phase o f the f i s h e r y that northern ports were to play a more important r o l e in the f i s h e r y . 38 Figure 10 shows the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f average annual landings throughout the 1888-1912 per iod . The dominant pos i t ions of ports at ra i lhead loca t ions on Puget Sound and the Lower Mainland r e f l e c t the strong o r i en t a t i on between the catching and landing/marketing sec tor of the ha l ibu t indust ry . Apart from l im i t ed product ion of smoked and f l e t ched (sa l ted) ha l i bu t^ , the en t i r e catch was marketed in a f resh or f resh-f rozen form. This required c e n t r a l i z a t i o n of co ld storage and marketing f a c i l i t i e s at the ra i l head centres on the coast in order to make fo r f as t and e f f i c i e n t movement o f ha l ibu t to eastern markets. Average annual landings at ports on Puget Sound ( p r i n c i p a l l y Sea t t l e ) amounted to 13.5 m i l l i o n pounds compared with 5.9 m i l l i o n pounds fo r Lower Mainland p ports (mainly Vancouver). In a d d i t i o n , these ports were entry points fo r ha l i bu t landed in A l a ska , which was marketed in eastern markets as w e l l . In the i n i t i a l phase of the f i s h e r y the Washington ha l ibu t f l e e t expanded at a much f a s t e r ra te than the B r i t i s h Columbian and Alaskan f l e e t s . As a r e s u l t Washington accounted f o r the l a rges t proport ion o f the ca t ch , fo l lowed by B r i t i s h Columbia and Alaska r e spec t i v e l y . F igure 11 shows the trend in landings fo r each of these reg ions . Towards the end of the per iod Washington ports were l o s ing ground to both B r i t i s h Columbia and Alaska por t s . The dec i s i on in 1894 by the New England F ish ing Company, one of the l a rges t American f i s h i n g companies, to g make Vancouver i t s western headquarters, and the subsequent use o f h igh ly e f f i c i e n t steamers by the company, contr ibuted to ea r l y growth o f the p o r t ' s r o l e in the f i s h e r y . Vancouver, however, d id not support a la rge independent f l e e t l i k e that of S e a t t l e , and t h i s was to a f f e c t the former 's ro l e in the second phase of the f i s h e r y . BERING SEA 'V-ALASKA Legend QUEEN CHARLOTTE^ Scale 1 inch equals 263 miles (approximately) ISLANDS^ -) ^ Percentage Landed By Region ^ 1888 -1912 Washington pai] British Co lumbia F~l Alaska FIGURE 10. AVERAGE ANNUAL LANDINGS (MILLIONS OF POUNDS) BY PORT AREA 1888—1912. P O R T A R E A S I N C L U D E : P U G E T S O U N D , L O W E R M A I N L A N D , V A N C O U V E R I S L A N D , N O R T H C E N T R A L BR IT I SH C O L U M B I A , N O R T H E R N BR IT I SH C O L U M B I A , S O U T H E A S T A L A S K A A N D W E S T C E N T R A L A L A S K A . vO WASHINGTON 40 FIGURE 11. TREND IN LANDINGS BY REGION 1888-1912. CATCH • (MILLIONS OF POUNDS) 1888 1893 1898 1903 1908 1912 YEARLY CATCH LANDED IN WASHINGTON LANDED IN BRITISH COLUMBIA LANDED IN ALASKA 41 Ha l ibut landings made outs ide the major port areas were dependent on e i the r a packer or f r e i g h t e r system to d e l i v e r catches to holding units and the ra i l head por t s . In A laska , fo r example, packers would c o l l e c t ha l ibu t d e l i v e r i e s made to the small-boat f i s h i n g s ta t ions throughout Southeast Alaska and d e l i v e r them to Petersburg fo r de l i v e r y south by f r e i g h t e r . ^ Inc idental landings of ha l ibu t were a lso made at the var ious salmon cannery s i t e s throughout the reg ion . During the 1888-1912 pe r i od , average annual landings fo r Vancouver Island amounted to 607 thousand pounds ,^ and were taken mainly by the small boat sec tor operat ing from f i s h i n g s ta t ions and v i l l a g e s such as Ki ldonan. In the ea r l y years of the f i s h e r y , V i c t o r i a was headquarters fo r several ha l ibu t vesse ls which landed t h e i r catches at that por t . From there they were shipped east 12 v i a the r a i l head at Tacoma. Butedale , in north centra l B r i t i s h Columbia, developed into an important salmon centre a f t e r the turn o f the century. Inc idental landings o f ha l i bu t were a l so made at Butedale because i t was equipped with holding f a c i l i t i e s and was near the major ha l ibu t grounds in north centra l B r i t i s h Columbia waters. Elsewhere along t h i s sec t ion o f the coast a small boat f i s h e r y was ca r r i ed out by whites and Indians, 13 mainly in ins ide i n l e t s . The area south o f Hecate S t r a i t and north of Cape Caution accounted f o r approximately 473 thousand pounds annual ly dur ing the 1888-1912 pe r iod . Inc idental landings of ha l ibu t were a l so made at a"number of small f i s h i n g s ta t ions in the v i c i n i t y of the Queen Char lo t te I s lands , but i t was not un t i l a f t e r 1912 that t h i s was to develop in to a major landing sector of the indust ry . A small co ld storage was constructed at Hayesport, a few mi les south o f Pr ince Rupert in 1911, and from there ha l ibu t landings were sent to Vancouver 42 fo r f i n a l marketing. By 1901 the Alaska-based f l e e t numbered 20 small schooners and sloops] In a d d i t i o n , a number of vesse ls from the Puget Sound independent f l e e t f i shed in Alaska waters and landed part o f t h e i r catches at ports and f i s h i n g s ta t ions there . Development of the ha l ibu t f i s h e r y in Southeast Alaska proceeded in the same manner as in the i so l a t ed areas to the south. It was e s s e n t i a l l y a shore based f i s h e r y c a r r i e d out in small boats from a number o f shore s t a t i o n s . The l a r g e r , and more important s ta t ions were Douglas, Wrangell Narrows, Taku, and Petersburg. An increase in the s i z e o f the Puget Sound independent f l e e t a f t e r 1901 led to increased f i s h i n g a c t i v i t y in Alaskan waters by these vesse l s . A f t e r the cons t ruc t ion of co ld storage f a c i l i t i e s at Ketchikan in 1909, increased landings occurred in Southeast A l aska , and the port commenced to play an important r o l e in the f i s h e r y . By 1912, landings at Alaska ports t o t a l l e d 10.3 m i l l i o n pounds. Although a f l o a t i n g co ld storage 15 p lant was s ta t ioned at Kodiak in 1912 , the experiment f a i l e d . It was not un t i l a f t e r a large number o f vesse ls had s h i f t e d t h e i r e f f o r t to the west s ide o f the Gu l f of Alaska in the second phase o f deve lop-ment, d id West Central A laska play a ro l e in ha l ibu t l and ings . Increased demand in eastern markets, less compet i t ion from A t l a n t i c h a l i b u t , and improvements in r a i l t ranspor t led to rap id expansion of the indust ry a f t e r 1905. Th is was r e f l e c t e d in increased ha l ibu t p r i c e s , an increase in the s i z e and number o f vesse ls in the independent and company-owned f l e e t s , expansion of the co ld storage sec tor away from Puget Sound and the Lower Main land, and g rea t l y increased product ion . The increased use of powered vesse ls in the f i n a l years of the per iod g rea t l y increased mob i l i t y w i th in the independent ha l i bu t f l e e t . They 43 were, however, expensive to operate because o f the high costs o f g a s o l i n e , and as a r e s u l t t h e i r economic f i s h i n g range was l i m i t e d . Never the less , the catching sector o f the indust ry was in a bet ter pos i t i on to cope with expansion to new grounds and to support the developing co ld storage sector at points c l o se r to the more p r o l i f i c ha l i bu t grounds in northern waters. Functional S t ructure The i n i t i a l phase of the industry was charac te r ized by a func t iona l s t ruc ture cons i s t i ng of three d i s t i n c t pa t te rns : (1) the small boat sec tor operat ing mainly from small f i s h i n g s t a t i o n s , (2) the l a rge r independent dory f l e e t based p r ima r i l y at S ea t t l e , and the company owned steamer f l e e t based at S e a t t l e , Tacoma, and Vancouver. F igure 12 shows the s t ruc tu re o f the indust ry during the 1888-1912 per iod and the flow patterns assoc ia ted with each catching sector of the indus t ry . The independent dory vesse ls from Puget Sound ports were the f i r s t vessels to engage in the ha l i bu t f i s h e r y on the P a c i f i c Coast . In the ea r l y years o f the f i s h e r y they conf ined f i s h i n g a c t i v i t y to near-shore grounds over which f i s h i n g operat ions were conducted from do r i e s . The i r catch was then taken d i r e c t l y to such ports as Sea t t l e and Tacoma and so ld by auct ion on the ha l ibu t exchange. With dep le t ion o f the southern grounds, however, these s a i l i n g vesse ls were forced to go fu r the r nor th . S ince they d id not have s u f f i c i e n t speed to d e l i v e r a l l t h e i r catches to the major r a i l head p o r t s , they landed part o f t h e i r catch at ports in Southeast A laska . These landings were moved by packer to the major f r e i g h t e r ports o f Petersburg and Ketchikan, and then were shipped in a f resh or f resh-f rozen form to the southern STOCKS DORY VESSEL SOLD FRESH r COLD STORAGE L_J L-J MARKET 1. STRUCTURE OF THE COMPANY—OWNED FLEET STOCKS DORY VESSEL L7_ EXCHANGE SOLD FRESH .ITT COLD STORAGE HOLDING UNIT PACKER I MARKET 2. STRUCTURE OF THE INDEPENDENT DORY VESSEL FLEET STOCKS VESSEL HOLDING UNIT EXCHANGE I PACKER "T~ I I SOLD FRESH COLD STORAGE MARKET 3. STRUCTURE OF THE SMALL BOAT FLEET FIGURE 12. FUNCTIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE INDUSTRY 1888-1912. 45 ra i l head l o c a t i o n s . Here the transshipped ha l ibu t was e i t he r placed in co ld storage or shipped d i r e c t l y to market. The small boat sector of the industry commenced to play a ro l e in the ha l ibu t f i s h e r y soon a f t e r commercial f i s h i n g s ta r ted in 1888. Vessels in t h i s sec tor were genera l l y less than f i v e tons and conf ined t he i r f i s h i n g operat ions to grounds less than ten mi les from shore. In the ea r l y years they f i shed the waters in the v i c i n i t y o f Cape F l a t t e r y and southern Vancouver I s l and , and de l i ve red t h e i r catches to such ports as S e a t t l e , Tacoma, Bel l ingham, Port Townsend, and V i c t o r i a . With increased dep le t ion of these grounds th i s sec tor of the f i s h e r y dec l ined in the a r ea , but i t continued to play a s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e in northern areas un t i l a much l a t e r date. These small vesse ls genera l l y conf ined t h e i r operat ions to the more i so l a t ed areas of the coas t . As a r e s u l t th i s sec tor of the f i s h e r y r e l i e d heav i l y on storage f a c i l i t i e s at i s o l a t ed p o r t s , and a packer system to t ranspor t landings to the major marketing po in t s . The major northern ports supported a small boat f i s h e r y as w e l l , but grounds c lose to these ports were soon dep le ted , and i t was no longer poss ib le for the small boat sector to engage in f i s h i n g opera t ions . The company-owned vesse ls were introduced in to the f i s h e r y in 1898, the companies having chartered coasta l f r e i gh t e r s which were converted fo r the f i s h e r y p r i o r to that date. They were based at the ra i lhead centres and conducted operat ions a l l along the c o a s t l i n e as f a r north as Cape Spencer. Because of t h e i r large car ry ing capac i t i e s (approximately 200-300,000 pounds) and cons iderab le range they were more h igh ly mobile than the independent dory and small boat f l e e t s . F i sh ing operat ions were conducted from dor ies c a r r i ed by the streamers 46 and were r e s t r i c t e d to waters short d istances from the mother sh ip . These large steamers r a r e l y landed t h e i r catch away from the ra i l head p o r t s , and as a r e su l t the l a rger ports were assured o f ha l i bu t landings fo r as long as they were headquarters fo r the steamer f l e e t . Unl ike the independent v e s s e l s , the company-owned vesse ls de l i ve red t h e i r catch d i r e c t l y to co ld storages and plants operated by i nd i v idua l companies, and bypassed the ha l i bu t exchange. Major f irms engaged in the ha l ibu t trade invested in steamers to assure adequate supp l ies of ha l i bu t fo r the co ld storage sec to r . In the ea r l y phase o f the f i s h e r y the i n -dependent f l e e t could not produce the quan t i t i e s o f ha l ibu t requi red by the various f i r m s , nor could they supply ha l ibu t at a compet i t ive p r i c e . The pattern o f landings depicted in Figure 10 was therefore a func t ion of the catching and landing prac t i ces of the var ious f l e e t s ec to r s . The independent dory f l e e t and the company-owned steamer f l e e t landed v i r t u a l l y the en t i r e catch and concentrated t h e i r landings at Puget Sound and Lower Mainland p o r t s , and to a l e s se r extent , Ketchikan. The small boat sec tor on the other hand landed i t s catch at smal ler ports throughout the reg ion . Because vessels in t h i s sector were l ess e f f i c i e n t than vesse ls in the other sectors they accounted fo r only a f r a c t i o n of the to ta l ca tch . Factors A f f e c t i ng I n i t i a l Development Investment c ap i t a l f o r development o f primary resources in the P a c i f i c Northwest came mainly from Great B r i t a i n , eastern Canada, and the eastern United S ta tes . In the case o f the Washington and Alaska f i s h e r i e s , c ap i t a l f o r f i s h e r i e s development came from the es tab l i shed 47 f i sh i ng companies of New England, and to a l e sse r extent San F ranc i sco . The ea r l y ha l ibu t f i she r y in B r i t i s h Columbia was dominated by the New England F ish ing Company of Bos ton ,^ 7 but investment in the salmon sec tor 18 came p r ima r i l y from eastern Canadian and B r i t i s h c i r c l e s . Since the marketing sec tor o f the P a c i f i c ha l ibu t f i s h e r y was con t ro l l ed by companies who were a lso the leading fac tors in the A t l a n t i c ha l i bu t f i s h e r y , t h i s had some bearing upon the slow growth of the former up to 1904 at l e a s t . The p o s s i b i l i t y of having the eastern markets f looded with low-priced P a c i f i c ha l ibu t when A t l a n t i c ha l ibu t 19 pr i ces were reaching 20 cents per pound was reason to protec t t h e i r investment in the A t l a n t i c f i s h e r y . In the f i r s t ten to f i f t e e n years o f the P a c i f i c f i s h e r y , investment in the r eg ion ' s ha l ibu t indust ry was f a r l ess than accumulated investment in the New England ha l i bu t f i s h e r y . By 1904, the A t l a n t i c ha l ibu t catch had reached an a l l time low, having dropped from a peak o f 14.6 m i l l i o n pounds in 1879 to approximately 20 4 m i l l i o n pounds. It was only then that company investment in the P a c i f i c f i she r y increased. For example, the number o f company-owned 21 steamers increased from 5 in 1904 to 14 in 1905. These steamers were extremely e f f e c t i v e and were accounting f o r 22 approximately f i f t y percent of the to ta l catch even by 1912 . In f a c t , heavy landings by the steamers tended to f lood the market thereby depressing ha l i bu t p r i c e s , and had an adverse e f f e c t on expansion o f the independent f l e e t . Unstable markets in the ea r l y per iod made i t d i f -f i c u l t f o r the non-company vesse ls to compete with the l a rge r and more h igh ly e f f i c i e n t company steamers. In terms of c ap i t a l requirements, much more c ap i t a l was required f o r vessels in the catching sec tor o f the 48 ha l ibu t f i she r y than fo r the salmon f i she r y . The ha l ibu t f i s h e r y developed in to a deep-sea f i s h e r y a f t e r 1910, but the salmon industry continued to conf ine operat ions to near-shore waters. Despite a shortage of c ap i t a l fo r const ruc t ion o f vessels in the independent f l e e t , the economic opportuni ty provided by expansion to new grounds a f t e r 1912, overcame th i s cons t r a in t and there was a rap id increase in the number 23 of privately-owned vesse l s . Development o f the ha l ibu t f i she r y on a la rge commercial sca le was not poss ib le p r i o r to the completion o f ra i lway l i nes to P a c i f i c coast points in the eighteen e i g h t i e s . Only then was i t poss ib le to move large volumes of f resh ha l i bu t to the large f i s h markets in the eastern c i t i e s . The r e l a t i v e l y small populat ion o f the western seaboard 24 could not absorb any extensive ha l ibu t catches. The catch increased from 1.4 m i l l i o n pounds in 1888 to 4.2 m i l l i o n pounds in 1895, but the catching sector o f the indust ry was capable o f producing f a r greater q u a n t i t i e s . Th is was not poss ib l e because the industry faced extreme compet i t ion. Local markets were small and most o f the demand was located in the large urban centres o f the east in Chicago, New York, Boston, e t c . There fo re , the surv i va l and expansion o f the P a c i f i c ha l ibu t f i s h e r y was dependent on markets three thousand or more mi les away. Competit ion from the New England supply o f ha l ibu t and eastern groundf ish product ion d id not make poss ib le a year round f i s h e r y before 1900. Instead, the P a c i f i c ha l ibu t f i s h e r y was only conducted during the winter months when the A t l a n t i c ha l ibu t f i s h e r y was l ess i n t ens i v e l y pursued. This r esu l t ed in increased demand f o r P a c i f i c ha l ibu t and high enough p r i ces to make i t economical ly worthwhile f o r vesse ls to engage in the f i s h e r y . Before 1900, i t was of ten the case where inc iden ta l 49 summer catches o f P a c i f i c ha l ibu t could not f i nd wholesale buyers in the region because low p r i ces combined with high t ranspor ta t ion costs d id not make i t an economical undertaking. The rapid increase in the number o f company vessels together with expansion o f the independent f l e e t resu l ted in over-capaci ty wi th in the catching sec to r . The to ta l catch increased at a f a s t e r rate than demand a f t e r 1905. As a r e s u l t , p r i ces were kept low (around three cents per pound), e s p e c i a l l y during the summer months when the greatest part of the catch was taken. Even the number o f a va i l ab l e r e f r i g e r a t o r cars was to have a bearing upon p r i ce f l u c t u a t i o n s . With heavy landings on any given day combined with a shortage o f cars to d e l i v e r h a l i b u t , p r i ces dropped and v ice versa . In f a c t , t h i s was always to be an i n t e r e s t i ng aspect o f the ha l ibu t i ndus t r y , but to a l e s se r degree in recent years . Ha l ibut which could not be forwarded d i r e c t l y to market in a f resh form had to be placed in co ld storage and brought lower p r i ces at docks ide. Another i n t e r es t i ng f ac to r re la ted to ea r l y growth o f the P a c i f i c 25 ha l ibu t f i s h e r y was the cost o f i c e . Ice was requi red to preserve catches at sea and e s p e c i a l l y before 1895 to preserve ha l ibu t on t h e i r long journey to eastern markets. The p r o h i b i t i v e cost of i ce -- f i f t e e n 26 do l l a r s per ton at Sea t t l e in 1888 -- combined with extremely low ha l ibu t pr i ces prevented a large number o f independent vesse ls from enter ing the f i s h e r y . The large ca r ry ing capac i t i e s of company-owned steamers together with greater f i n a n c i a l backing made i t poss ib le f o r the company-owned f l e e t s to engage in the f i s h e r y more p r o f i t a b l y . The ea r l y development o f the ha l ibu t f i she r y in Southeast A l a ska , was in pa r t , re la ted to the r e l a t i v e s c a r c i t y and high p r i ce of ice in Washington and B r i t i s h Columbia. Vessels proceeded north to Alaska to secure 50 suppl ies o f g l a c i e r i c e , and there was cons idera t ion given to moving 27 large volumes o f i ce from Alaska to the ra i lhead centres of the South. A f t e r the cons t ruc t ion of increased numbers of i ce making and co ld storage plants and subsequent expansion o f the f i s h e r y , lower product ion costs per uni t volume decreased the p r i ce of i c e . This made i t poss ib le fo r greater numbers o f independent vessels to engage in the f i s h e r y . Re lat ive improvement of market cond i t ions a f t e r 1905 resu l ted in i n -creased landings of h a l i b u t , and heavy, success ive exhaustion of grounds from Cape F l a t t e r y to Cape Spencer. The per iod ended with the catch reaching 60.4 m i l l i o n pounds in 1912, and much specu la t i ve investment 28 being in j ec ted in to the i ndus t r y , e s p e c i a l l y at Pr ince Rupert. In essence, the per iod was charac te r ized by the presence o f large companies wi th in the indus t ry . Corporate involvement in the P a c i f i c ha l i bu t f i s h e r y in i t s ea r l y phase was essen t i a l to the development of an i n f r a s t ru c tu r e (co ld s torages , i ce p l a n t s , marketing techn iques , e t c . ) around which the f i she r y could develop and expand. Extent o f F ish ing The extent o f f i s h i n g grounds which could support the expanding ha l ibu t f i she r y in the 1888-1912 per iod was l im i t ed to the genera l l y small banks south of Cape Spencer, A laska . The much l a rger banks in the Gul f of Alaska and westwards were to be exp lo i ted at a l a t e r date when high vessel operat ing costs and techno log ica l and market cons t ra in ts were overcome. In the i n i t i a l years o f the developing f i s h e r y , the f i s h i n g grounds most in tense ly f i shed were those in near-shore waters o f f Cape F l a t t e r y and southern B r i t i s h Columbia. Deplet ion o f these grounds occurred rather qu i ck l y because of heavy f i s h i n g pressure and no f i s h i n g r e s t r i c t i o n s . 51 As a r e s u l t , expansion to grounds away from S e a t t l e , Tacoma, Port Townsend, and Vancouver took place from 1900 onwards. Smaller ha l ibut centres such as Port Townsend, Bel l ingham, Fa i rhaven, and Whatcom on Puget Sound were not as convenient ly located as the l a rger p o r t s , nor d id they have the f a c i l i t i e s to handle the g rea t l y increased catches a f t e r the turn of the century . Consequently, these smal ler ports no longer played a s i g n i f i c a n t ro le in the f i s h e r y . Unt i l 1909, f i s h i n g fo r ha l ibu t was c a r r i ed out in approximately 35 s fathoms of water during the summer months and s l i g h t l y greater depths 29 during the winter months. With increased dep le t ion o f stocks on inshore grounds, the o f f shore ha l i bu t grounds came under more in tens ive f i s h i n g . It was not un t i l 1910 that f i s h i n g was c a r r i ed out in depths 30 exceeding 100 fathoms, and the deeper waters o f f the west coast o f the Queen Char lo t te Islands were f i r s t exp lo i t ed in the 1910-1911 f i s h i n g 31 season. P r i o r to 1909 large catches were poss ib le on inshore grounds, but the movement to deeper water r e f l e c t e d stock dec l i n e s . Th is co inc ided with the add i t ion o f l a rger and more h igh ly mobile vesse ls to the inde -pendent f l e e t . From 1909 onwards, however, increased Canadian s u r v e i l -lance of i t s three mi le f i s h i n g l i m i t contr ibuted to American vesse ls 32 moving to o f f shore grounds. Towards the end of the 1888-1912 pe r i od , competi t ion fo r dec l i n i ng f i s h i n g stocks on the southern grounds increased g r ea t l y , Table 1 shows the trends in c a t ch , e f f o r t , and y i e l d fo r the f i n a l years o f the pe r iod . Although the catch increased s l i g h t l y , there occurred a sharp decrease in y i e l d per un i t o f e f f o r t . The increase in e f f o r t r e f l e c t ed an increase in the number of vesse ls enter ing the f i s h e r y , and greater amounts o f e f f o r t which were required to take r e l a t i v e l y s tab le catches . Catches were being maintained at higher costs than prev ious ly was the case. 52 Table 1 Trends in Y i e l d , Landings, E f f o r t 1907-1912. Catch per Landings Number of Year Skate (Pounds) (Pounds) Skates Fished 1907 280.0 50,000,000 178,571 1910 271.0 51,849,240 191,325 1911 237.0 56,931,796 240,219 1912 176.0 60,479,550 343,066 Source: Report No. 8. IFC By the end o f the second pe r i od , a l l major ha l ibu t grounds south o f Cape Spencer were subjected to ove r f i sh ing and had surpassed t h e i r maximum susta inab le y i e l d l e v e l s . Only s m a l l , i s o l a t ed patches o f grounds remained undiscovered. General improvements in vessel design and engine power resu l t ed in more e f f i c i e n t and la rger vessels being added to the f l e e t . Consequently, t h i s had an adverse e f f e c t not only on ha l ibu t stocks but a l so on returns to fishermen engaged in the f i s h e r y . Increased annual catches were only poss ib l e as the r e s u l t o f increased e f f o r t and the constant s h i f t to new grounds. To compensate f o r d e c l i n i n g y i e l d s fishermen not only employed greater amounts o f gear but a l so resor ted to longer hours o f f i s h i n g . For example, in the case o f the company-owned ve s se l s , the average time spent f i s h i n g per t r i p increased from 3.4 days in 1906 to 8.9 days in 1912. Over the same period the 35 average catch dec l ined from 135,300 pounds per t r i p in 1906 to 97,355 pounds per t r i p in 1912 . Most of the ha l ibu t which continued to be taken cons is ted o f sma l l e r , lower-priced f i s h , the l a rge r f i s h having been removed by o v e r f i s h i n g . Besides increases in e f f o r t , other fac tors a f f ec ted the dep le t ion of the grounds south of Cape Spencer. These inc luded : the l im i t ed 53 extent of f i s h i ng grounds, the removal o f large numbers of female f i s h , the l a te matur i ty of female f i s h , the slow rate of growth of d i f f e r e n t age c lasses in the ha l ibu t popu la t ion , and the presence of large numbers of l a rger f i s h in the v i r g i n stocks which were e a s i l y suscept ib le to increased f i s h i n g pressure . The l im i t ed ha l ibu t stocks were not capable of withstanding the f i s h i n g e f f o r t which was brought to bear upon them. Improvements in catching methods and greater f a m i l i a r i t y with the various grounds by the fishermen were add i t iona l f ac tors which led to severe dep le t ion of ha l i bu t grounds. As w i l l be seen, the s h i f t to western grounds in the second phase of the f i she r y brought only temporary r e l i e f from these problems and resource dep le t ion soon reoccurred . References 54 1. Cobb, John N. " P a c i f i c Ha l ibut F ishery Dec l i n i ng " in American F i she r i e s Soc ie ty - Transact ions Vol XLV. No. 1. 1915/16. Dec. 1915. New York. p. 134. 2. P a c i f i c Fisherman Yearbook, 1907 Vo l .V . No. 2, Feb. 1907-Mil ler Freeman Pub l i c a t i ons . S e a t t l e , p. 68. 3. B e l l , F. H . , H. A. Dunlop, & N. L. Freeman " P a c i f i c Coast Hal ibut Landings 1888 to 1950 and Catch According to Area of O r i g i n . " Report Number 17, Internat ional  F i she r i es Commission. S e a t t l e , 1952. passim. 4. P a c i f i c Fisherman Yearbook, 1908 Vo l . 6. No. I. Jan 1908. M i l l e r Freeman Pub l i c a t i ons . S e a t t l e , p. 63. 5. Ib id , p. 63 6. Thompson, W. F. and N. L. Freeman. "H i s to ry of the P a c i f i c Ha l ibut F i she r y . " Report No. 5, Internat ional F i she r i es Commission. Vancouver, 1930, pp. 36, 37. 7. P a c i f i c Fisherman Yearbook 1908 o p . c i t . p. 61. 8. B e l l , F. H. et a l . , op_. c i t . passim (esp. p. 10, 31). 9. B e l l , F. Heward "Agreements, Conventions and T rea t i es Between Canada and the United States of America with Respect to the P a c i f i c Ha l ibut F i she r y . " Report  Number 50. Internat ional P a c i f i c Ha l ibut  Commission. S e a t t l e , 1969. p. 6. 10. P a c i f i c Fisherman Yearbook. 1907 op_. c i t . p. 68. 11. B e l l , F. H . , H. A. Dunlop, & N. L. Freeman. op_. c i t . p. 31. 12. United States F i she r i e s Commission B u l l e t i n 1897. Washington. 1898. p. 141 13. B r i t i s h Columbia Department of F i s h e r i e s . Report 1913. V i c t o r i a , B.C. p. R148. 14. Thompson, W. F. & N. L. Freeman. op_. c i t . p. 29. 15. Ib id , p. 40 16. Ib id , p. 27. 17. United States Bureau o f F i s h e r i e s . B u l l e t i n 1897. Washington 1898. p. 141. 55 18. Royal Commission on Canada's Economic Prospects . The Queen's P r i n t e r , Ottawa. 1956. p. 3. 19. United States Bureau of F i s h e r i e s . B u l l e t i n 1884. Washington. 1895. p. 92. 20. Goode, G. B. And J . W. C o l l i n s . "The Hal ibut F i s h e r i e s . " In the F i she r i e s and F ish ing Industry of the United S ta tes . Washington 1884-1887. Sec. V. Vol I. 1887. p.3. 21. Thompson, W. F. And N. L. Freeman, O J D . c i t . p. 46. 22. P a c i f i c Fisherman. Vo l . XI. No. 1. Jan. 1913. M i l l e r Freeman Pub l i ca t i ons . S ea t t l e . 1913. p. 67. 23. P a c i f i c Fisherman Yearbook(s) 1912-1923. M i l l e r Freeman Pub l i c a t i ons . Sea t t l e . Passim. 24. United States Bureau of F i she r i e s . B u l l e t i n 1888. Washington 1889. p. 5. 25. Ib id , p. 15 26. Ib id , p. 62 27. Thompson, W. F. And N. L. Freeman, o p . c i t . p. 36. 28. The Pr ince Rupert Da i l y News Vol II. No. 232. Oct. 11, 1911. p. 1; Vol II. No. 284. Dec. 12, 1911. p . l ; Vol II No. 291, Dec. 20 1911, p. 1; Vol III. No. 225. Sept. 24, 1912, p. 1; Vol III. No. 297. Dec. 18, 1912. p. 5. 29. Thompson, W. F. and N. L. Freeman, o p . c i t . p. 31. 30. Ib id , p. 31 31. B r i t i s h Columbia Department o f F i she r i es Report 1915. V i c t o r i a , B . C . p. S74. 32. P a c i f i c Fisherman Yearbook 1910. Vol VI I I , No. 2. Feb. 1910. p. 28. 33. Thompson,W. F. and F. H. B e l l . " B i o l og i c a l S t a t i s t i c s of the P a c i f i c Ha l ibut F i shery " Report Number 8. Internat ional F isher jes Commission. S ea t t l e . 1934. p. 12. 34. B r i t i s h Columbia Department o f F i s h e r i e s . Report 1915, V i c t o r i a , B.C. p. SI37. 35. Ib id , p. S137 36. P a c i f i c Fisherman Yearbook 1913. Vo l . XI. No. 1. Jan. 1913. p. 67. 56 Chapter IV S h i f t to Western Grounds and F leet Expansion 1913-1931. The main ob jec t i ve o f Chapter IV i s to account fo r changes in the spa t i a l s t ruc ture of the ha l ibu t industry during the 1913-1931 per iod a r i s i n g from resource dep le t ion in the i n i t i a l phase of the f i s h e r y and fu r ther expansion o f the indust ry . The per iod was charac te r ized by more in tens ive f i s h i n g on grounds south of Cape Spencer and a westward s h i f t in to the Gul f o f A laska . This cont r ibuted to the development and expan-sion o f major landing/process ing and marketing ports in northern B r i t i s h Columbia at Pr ince Rupert, and to a l e s se r extent at Ketchikan in Southeast A laska . In a d d i t i o n , a number o f smal ler ports o f B r i t i s h Columbia and Alaska were to play a more s i g n i f i c a n t ro l e in the ha l ibu t indus t ry . A downward trend in landings at the major southern ports o f S e a t t l e , Tacoma, and Vancouver occur red . Never the less , Sea t t l e re ta ined i t s ea r l y pre-eminence and emerged as one of the two dominant ha l ibu t ports o f the reg ion . Pr ince Rupert replaced Vancouver as the major ha l ibu t port in B r i t i s h Columbia and landings at the former g rea t l y exceeded those at S ea t t l e . During the 1913-1931 per iod a la rge percentage o f the catch was taken from grounds west o f Cape Spencer which had remained unexplo i ted dur ing the i n i t i a l phase o f the f i s h e r y . Throughout most o f the second per iod there was an increased tendency fo r vesse ls to land t h e i r catch at ports r e l a t i v e l y c lose to the major f i s h i n g grounds in northern B r i t i s h Columbia and Alaska waters. Th is was perpetuated by the growth and expansion o f the independent ha l i bu t f l e e t , the dec l ine of the company-owned f l e e t , and extension of co ld storage f a c i l i t i e s . In essence, the 1913-1931 per iod was charac te r ized by continued expansion o f the industry and decen t r a l i z a t i on o f the produc ing, c a t ch ing , and landing/process ing 57 sectors of the f i s h e r y . Spat ia l S t ructure The i n i t i a l phase of the ha l ibu t f i s h e r y (1888-1912) was shown in Chapter III to be charac te r ized by a r e l a t i v e l y high degree of c e n t r a l i -za t ion wi th in a l l sectors o f the indus t ry . A l l ha l ibu t were taken on grounds south of Cape Spencer and Sea t t l e and Vancouver were dominant as headquarters and bases o f operat ion f o r the ha l ibu t f l e e t and fo r the marketing of the en t i r e ca tch . Between them they accounted f o r approximately 88%* o f a l l d i r e c t landings o f ha l i bu t . It was only towards the end of the f i r s t per iod that Ketchikan began to take on an important r o l e in the ha l ibu t f i s h e r y . The i n f r a s t ruc tu re of the indust ry had developed to a stage at which large quan t i t i e s of ha l ibu t could be suppl ied to eastern markets at compet i t ive p r i c e s . F igure 13 shows the general spa t i a l s t ruc ture of the P a c i f i c ha l ibu t indust ry during the 1913-1931 pe r iod . F ish ing operat ions were conducted over a much greater area than was the case in the i n i t i a l pe r iod . The range of the catching sector had increased g r e a t l y , and the ro l e o f the small boat f i s h e r y dec l ined sharp ly . Much of the a c t i v i t y assoc ia ted with the e x p l o i t a t i o n o f the ha l i bu t resource west o f Cape Spencer became d iver ted to the newly completed ra i lway terminus at Pr ince Rupert. A number of important secondary ports a l so developed in Southeast A laska . In West Central A l a ska , to which an increas ing amount of f i s h i n g a c t i v i t y was d i r e c t e d , secondary ports d id not develop s i g n i f i c a n t l y . In the f i r s t phase o f the f i she r y only a small part of the catch was landed at ports away from the various home ports o f the f i s h i n g vesse l s . In the second phase, however, vesse ls were e l e c t i n g to land a large share o f the catch RAILHEAD LOCATION PORTS SECONDARY PORTS FISHING STATIONS (MINOR PORTS) COLD STORAGE FACILITIES LIMIT OF FISHING OPERATIONS RANGE OF FISHING VESSELS BASED AT EACH PORT TYPE VESSELS ELECT TO LAND PART OF YEARLY CATCH AWAY FROM HOME PORT FIGURE 13. SPATIAL STRUCTURE OF THE INDUSTRY 1913-1931. 59 away from home port on Puget Sound and the Lower Mainland. In a d d i t i o n , independent ha l ibu t f l e e t s developed away from the major ports to the south. F igure 14 shows a cons iderab le degree o f decen t r a l i z a t i on in the ove ra l l s t ruc ture of the indust ry during the 1913-1931 pe r iod . The increase in catch from grounds west of Cape Spencer resu l ted in increased ha l ibu t landings in northern B r i t i s h Columbia and Southeast A laska . Whereas in the 1888-1912 per iod Washington ports received 61% of average annual l and ings , i t s share decreased to 31% in the 1913-1931 pe r iod . B r i t i s h Columbia and Alaska ports increased t h e i r share from 33% and 3 5% r e spec t i v e l y to 52% and 17% over the two pe r iods . This r e f l e c t e d the increased tendency f o r vesse ls to land t h e i r catches near the major producing grounds. Figure 15 shows the extent of f i s h i n g on the ha l ibu t grounds o f the Eastern P a c i f i c and catches from var ious sectors of the grounds during the 1913-1931 pe r i od . Product ion from the newly exp lo i ted grounds increased from an i n s i g n i f i c a n t amount in 1912 to 21.6 m i l l i o n pounds i n 4 1931. Throughout the per iod as a whole average annual landings from 5 the western grounds t o t a l l e d 21.2 m i l l i o n pounds, or 41% of to ta l average annual l and ings . The increase from grounds west o f Cape Spencer (Area 3) was o f f s e t by a la rge dec l ine on grounds south of Cape Spencer (Area 2) from 59.5 m i l l i o n pounds in 1912 to 21.6 m i l l i o n pounds in 1931. The northwestward s h i f t in landings resu l t ed in the weakening o f the Puget Sound and Lower Mainland port ro les in the ha l i bu t indus t ry . Although average annual landings fo r the industry increased from approx-imately 21.5 m i l l i o n pounds in the 1888-1912 per iod to 48.8 m i l l i o n pounds in the 1913-1931 pe r i od , those of Puget Sound only increased from 13.5 WEST CENTRAL ALASKA PORTS SIZE OF THE SQUARE PROPORTIONAL TO AVERAGE ANNUAL LANDINGS FOR THE PERIOD. ONE QUARTER INCH SQUARE EQUALS 8 MILLION POUNDS FIGURE 14. DEGREE OF CENTRALIZATION OF HALIBUT LANDINGS 1913-1931. o 62 to 15.0 m i l l i o n pounds 7 over the same two per iods . Average annual land-o ings on the Lower Mainland decreased from 5.9 to 3.0 m i l l i o n pounds. The most s i g n i f i c a n t change in the pattern of landings was brought on by the a t t r a c t i o n o f fe red by the ra i l head terminus at Pr ince Rupert. Table II shows the average annual landings by port area fo r each of the two per iods . The westward trend in landings outs ide the es tab l i shed port areas i s qu i te apparent (F igure 16). Table II Average Annual Ha l ibut Landings by Port Area During the 1888-1912 and 1913-1931 Periods (000 l b s . ) Lower Van Cen. SE WC Per iod P. Sound Mainland I BC Nor BC Alaska Alaska Total 1888-1912 13519 5905 607 473 89 1000 — 2 1 5 g 3 1913-1931 15046 3078 652 1140 18776 9619 1163 49474 Figure 17 shows the trends in landings fo r Washington, B r i t i s h Columbia, and Alaska dur ing the 1913-1931 per iod and f o r the region as a whole. The upward trend in Washington landings towards the .end o f the per iod r e f l e c t e d decreasing ha l ibu t p r i ces between 1926 and 1931. For example, the average landed p r i ce of ha l ibu t in B r i t i s h Columbia g decreased from 13 cents per pound in 1926 to 6 cents per pound in 1931. As a r e s u l t , most of the Seatt le-based vesse ls landed an increased share of t h e i r catch at Sea t t l e where s l i g h t l y higher pr i ces p reva i l ed . Decen t ra l i za t ion o f landings throughout the P a c i f i c Northwest, the northwestward movement of the catching sec to r , and the completion o f a FIGURE 17 TREND IN LANDINGS BY REGION 1913-1931. I J I 1 I 1913 1918 1923 1928 1931 YEARLY CATCH LANDED IN WASHINGTON LANDED IN BRITISH COLUMBIA • LANDED IN ALASKA 65 rail link to Prince Rupert in 1914 were the main factors which promoted the development of cold storage and port faci l i t ies away from the established ports. Following the westward shift to new grounds after 1912, ports in northern British Columbia and Southeast Alaska took on a more prominent role in the halibut industry. This was also accompanied by a larger number of companies engaging in the halibut trade. Despite the increase in the number of important halibut centres, two centres continued to dominate landings: Prince Rupert, which replaced Vancouver as the main halibut port in British Columbia and became the main landing port in the Eastern Pacific, and Seattle. In 1915 the United States and Canada reached an agreement whereby American vessels were permitted to sell their catch to Prince Rupert buyers, who in turn could then process and transship the halibut to United States markets in bondJ 0 The effect of this agreement may be seen in the fact that landings of halibut by American vessels at Prince Rupert increased from 7.1 million pounds in 1915 to 22.1 million pounds by T925. 1 1 By the end of the second period each of the major sub-regions had developed an important halibut centre. This resulted in the tendency toward a more even distribution of landings throughout the entire region. Fleet reaction to spatial expansion of the fishery was to favour landing ports near the fishing grounds, but only i f prices were competitive with those at Seattle and Vancouver. Halibut prices paid at Prince Rupert were highly competitive and this explains the strong showing of Prince Rupert during the 1913-1931 period. Because the Seattle and Vancouver based fleets consisted of larger vessels than the fleets which developed to the north, they were in a better position to deliver catches to ports 66 which o f fe red bet ter p r i ce advantages. The smal ler v e s se l s , however, were i n d i r e c t l y forced to s e l l t h e i r catches at the ports from which they operated. The importance of each node was a funct ion of proximity to f i s h i n g grounds, the s i ze and number of the vessels operat ing from i t , and the p r i ce paid f o r ha l ibu t at each por t . Table III shows the yea r l y landings o f ha l ibu t at the more important ha l ibu t ports during the 1913-1931 pe r iod . The dominant pos i t i ons of Pr ince Rupert and Seat t le are qui te apparent, with a major s h i f t occur -r ing in ha l ibu t landings away from the Tat ter a f t e r 1915 when Pr ince Rupert became the dominant port in the indust ry . Genera l l y , any decreases in Sea t t l e landings were captured by Pr ince Rupert, and v ice versa . E s s e n t i a l l y , the r o l e o f Vancouver and Tacoma in the indust ry dec l ined with the passing o f the company-owned f l e e t s . Both these ports had not developed as large independent f l e e t s as Sea t t l e or Pr ince Rupert, and were heav i l y dependent on company vessel l and ings . One of the most s t r i k i n g features o f the per iod was the increase in ha l ibu t landings outs ide the major p o r t s , e s p e c i a l l y at Southeast Alaska l o ca t i ons . Such ports as S i t k a , Juneau, and Petersburg had acquired co ld storage f a c i l i t i e s towards the end o f the f i r s t per iod and at the beginning of the second pe r iod . They were therefore in a pos i t i on to capture a s i g n i f i c a n t proport ion of the catch that otherwise would have gone to such ports as Ketchikan. These ports developed t h e i r own small independent f l e e t s during the second per iod which landed t he i r catches p r ima r i l y at home por t . With increased expansion to grounds on the west s ide of the Gu l f of Alaska a f t e r 1923, Seward accounted f o r cons iderab le landings as w e l l . There fore , by the end of the per iod f i s h i n g a c t i v i t y 12 was being ca r r i ed out approximately 2500 mi les from Seat t le and Vancouver Table III Hal ibut Landings at Major Ports 1913-1931 ('000 l b s . ) Van- Pr ince Wran- Peters-Year Seat t le couver Butedale Rupert Ketchikan S i tka gel 1 Juneau Taku burg Seward 1913 9368 — 10749 (4539) 1 ~J 1 " 1 " 1 ~~1 1 " 1 1 " J 1 " 1 2 ~~9 1914 35520 7851 -- 8742 (3106) c 9 1915 27906 9714 16055 3632 1000 137 344 679 C o 1916 16104 6486 19646 3326 1300 3 450 1570 c 9 1917 15592 3572 38 18709 3528 1508 50 65 243 900 L 9 1918 9932 1726 62 15658 4819 900 30 30 21 I " 1 " 1 " 1 " 1 " 1 C 9 1919 11400 2671 106 16887 4553 1600 25, " 1 " 1 " 1 130 165 C 9 1920 12580 3184 16 19419 6197 2000 120 -- C 1921 11795 4139 70 25212 6624 1800 51 — 1300 1922 9982 873 25665 2253 900 426 -- 2000 1923 8218 961 212 28984 8006 1500 600 1559 1924 7378 803 385 28252 7331 2000 600 600 253 1500 2049 1925 9676 862 221 28273 4297 2500 625 188 242 -1 1432 1926 10080 710 243 26305 8808 1750 650 911 — -1 358 1927 11911 884 198 25062 8393 2250 500 960 200. , 1000 600 1928 13788 1241 235 28474 5037 1375 250 334 421 1200 1929 12359 894 146 28442 6060 967 250 1715 1972 1456 1930 12671 1138 139 23956 4975 1500 147 1216 907 1602 1931 15087 907 303 16792 5908 860 4 684 — 426 1133 Source: P a c i f i c Fisherman (Yearbooks) Hal ibut Commission Reports Indicates information not ava i l ab le but landings do not vary s i g n i f i c a n t l y from year l y trends. 2 -- Landings at Seward r e l a t i v e l y small before extensive development of western grounds. 68 and intervening ports had become important centres of a c t i v i t y assoc ia ted with the exp lo i t a t i on o f most ha l ibu t s tocks . Funct ional S t ructure The 1888-1912 per iod was charac te r ized by a funct iona l s t ruc tu re cons i s t i ng of three d i s t i n c t operat iona l pa t te rns . In add i t ion to these th ree , the second per iod saw fu r the r t ransformat ion in patterns o f a c t i v i t y assoc ia ted with the exp lo i t a t i on of the ha l ibu t resource. F igure 18 shows the add i t i ona l l i n k in the f i s h i n g complex which arose from the evo lu t ion of the l o n g l i n e r f l e e t . P r i o r to 1913, l ong l i n i ng operat ions were ca r r i ed out from dor ies over a l l sec t ions o f the ha l i bu t grounds. Both the company-owned f l e e t and the independent dory vessel f l e e t engaged in t h i s type o f f i s h i n g opera t ion . By employing dor ies each vessel could f i s h l a rger amounts of gear in one day in su i t ab l e weather than was poss ib le by f i s h i n g d i r e c t l y from the l a rge r vesse l s . Th is was e s p e c i a l l y the case when f i s h i n g was being conducted in r e l a t i v e l y shallow water where power gurdies were not requi red to r e t r i e ve the l o n g l i n e s . The move to o f fshore grounds and more treacherous waters in the Gul f o f Alaska in 1913 resu l ted in f i s h i n g operat ions being c a r r i e d out from the large vesse l s . As a r e s u l t these vessels came to be known as 1 l o n g l i n e r s . 1 By the end o f the per iod p r a c t i c a l l y a l l vessels in the independent f l e e t had switched to th i s type o f opera t ion . The move to l o n g l i n i n g from vesse ls of a large s i ze reduced man-power requirements in the catching sector of the indus t ry . Dory f i s h i n g was a two man operat ion and i f a vessel c a r r i ed f i v e dor ies i t requi red STOCKS DORY VESSEL SOLD FRESH 73 COLD STROAGE I—J L._ MARKET 1. STRUCTURE OF THE COMPANY-OWNED FLEET STOCKS DORY VESSEL L EXCHANGE HOLDING UNIT SOLD FRESH Z _ J PACKER COLD STORAGE __J u MARKET 2. STRUCTURE OF THE INDEPENDENT DORY VESSEL FLEET STOCKS VESSEL EXCHANGE HOLDING UNIT SOLD FRESH COLD STORAGE PACKER : I MARKET 3. STRUCTURE OF THE INDEPENDENT LONGLINER FLEET STOCKS VESSEL HOLDING UNIT EXCHANGE —A PACKER COLD STORAGE SOLD FRESH MARKET I 4. STRUCTURE OF THE SMALL BOAT FLEET FIGURE 18. FUNCTIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE INDUSTRY 1913-1931. 70 a crew of ten men in add i t ion to the capta in at l e a s t . In the new method of f i s h i n g fewer men were requ i red . For example the average 13 s i z e crew per vessel of the Sea t t l e based f l e e t in 1915 was ten men. By 1931 when v i r t u a l l y the en t i r e catch was taken by l o n g l i n e r s , the average crew s i z e o f the Sea t t l e based f l e e t had dec l ined to seven men. In the open waters of the Gu l f of Alaska in p a r t i c u l a r , l ess f i s h i n g time was l o s t because the l ong l i ne r s could carry out f i s h i n g oper -at ions in more adverse weather condi t ions than the dory f l e e t . F i sh ing costs were there fore reduced and earnings of i nd i v idua l crew members increased. In 1913 the en t i r e ha l i bu t catch was taken from do r i e s . 15 By 1928, 93% of the to t a l catch was taken from l o n g l i n e r s . The move to th i s type o f f i s h i n g came with the move to o f fshore grounds and g rea t l y f a c i l i t a t e d exp lo i t a t i on o f ha l ibu t stocks on the new grounds west o f Cape Spencer. Factors Contr ibut ing to Westward Extension The maintenance of the high leve l of landings c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the end of the f i r s t per iod required that f i s h i n g e f f o r t be d i rec ted to grounds west o f Cape Spencer because the more souther ly grounds had become severe ly depleted (Chapter II I). However, fo r th i s r e l o ca t i on or s h i f t to take place i t was necessary that the range and e f f i c i e n c y o f the vesse ls be increased and, f u r t h e r , that co ld storage f a c i l i t i e s be developed reasonably c lose to these grounds. A l l vesse ls in the ha l ibu t f l e e t were o u t f i t t e d with gaso l ine engines by 1913, and as a r e s u l t they could r e a d i l y engage in f i s h i n g operat ions some d is tance west o f Cape Spencer. Extension of co ld storage f a c i l i t i e s to northern loca t ions and the 71 development of a r a i l head port at Pr ince Rupert made i t economical ly poss ib l e to exp lo i t western grounds. Large y i e l d s from the western banks in the i n i t i a l years o f westward expansion o f f s e t the added operat ing costs incurred in e x p l o i t i n g these banks. As a r e s u l t o f westward expansion and an increase in to ta l e f f o r t expended, ha l ibu t landings reached 68.7 m i l l i o n pounds in 1915. This f igure was not to be surpassed un t i l 1954 a f t e r measures had been taken to res tore ha l i bu t s tocks . Despite the rap id increase in t o t a l catch the a va i l ab l e market fo r ha l ibu t was not capable of keeping pace with the potent ia l p roduc t i v i t y of the indust ry . Never the less , the increase in f r eez ing capac i ty wi th in the co ld storage sector provided buyers with the means to over-purchase yea r l y suppl ies of ha l ibu t and encouraged the catching sec tor to maintain a high leve l of product ion . The r e s u l t being that a l a rge r proport ion of the catch had to be placed in co ld storage f o r longer per iods . When catches were not moving from storage at a f a s t r a t e , p r i ces f o r f resh ha l i bu t decreased, as was the case in the i n i t i a l years of westward e x t e n s i o n . For example, the average p r i ce paid fo r number one ha l ibu t at Sea t t l e decreased from 8 cents per pound in 1913 to 4.7 cents 1 g per pound in 1914. The P a c i f i c Fisherman stated that "It i s very evident that there can be no permanent improvement in the ha l ibu t f i she r y unless the market fo r ha l i bu t i s extended cons iderab ly or the output ma te r i a l l y reduced. Anxiety on the part of the indust ry r e l a t i n g to over-product ion soon disappeared. Although expansion to grounds on the east s ide o f the Gul f of Alaska resu l t ed in a temporary increase in c a t ch , product ion dec l ined sharply during the war per iod desp i te a sharp increase in ha l i bu t p r i c e s . Landings dropped from 68.7 m i l l i o n pounds in 1915 to a low of 72 37.8 m i l l i o n pounds in 1918. The catch dec l ine r e f l e c t e d continued dep le t ion of ha l ibu t stocks because there was no ove ra l l reduct ion in 1 g e f f o r t . Food demands during the war, together with decreased catches and increased competit ion between buyers for decreased suppl ies of ha l i bu t led to an esca l a t ion of ha l ibu t p r i c e s . The average p r i ce paid fo r number one f i s h at Sea t t l e increased from 4.7 cents per pound in 1914 to 18.3 19 cents per pound in 1918. In a n t i c i p a t i o n of the port developing in to a major seapor t , much specu la t i ve investment occurred at Pr ince Rupert p r i o r to the completion o f the Grand Trunk P a c i f i c Railway in 1914. Assoc ia ted with th i s i n ves t -ment was the completion o f a number o f co ld storage p l an t s . One had a capac i ty in excess of 12 m i l l i o n pounds and was one of the l a rges t in the 20 world at that t ime. Much of the cap i t a l was B r i t i s h , and North Sea 21 trawlers were brought out to supply the co ld storage sec to r . The vessels were designed fo r t rawl ing operat ions but th i s proved imprac t i ca l and they switched to l o n g l i n i n g . The development of f i s h i n g f a c i l i t i e s at t h i s northern ra i lhead l oca t i on g rea t l y f a c i l i t a t e d westward expansion because of i t s s t r a t eg i c pos i t i on in r e l a t i o n to the major ha l i bu t grounds of the Eastern P a c i f i c . The r i s e o f Pr ince Rupert as the leading ha l ibu t port was looked 22 upon b i t t e r l y by Sea t t l e and Ketchikan in p a r t i c u l a r . Because o f i t s ra i lhead l o c a t i o n , Pr ince Rupert was in a pos i t i on to capture a s i g n i f i c a n t propor t ion of the en t i r e catch s ince p r i ces paid at the port were competi t ive with those at ports to the south. The former ports made representat ion to the United States government to have t a r i f f s imposed on United States imported ha l ibu t from B r i t i s h Columbia but these attempts f a i l e d . Using the port as an operat iona l and landing p o r t , not only 73 could vesse ls f i s h the southern grounds, but they were a lso s t r a t e g i c a l l y located to develop and exp lo i t the western grounds as w e l l . Ketchikan was a lso convenient ly located near the major grounds but because o f add i t iona l t ranspor ta t ion costs incurred in t ranssh ipp ing ha l ibu t to the ra i lhead ports fo r f i n a l market d e s t i n a t i o n , pr i ces were lower than those paid fo r ha l ibu t at Pr ince Rupert. As a r e su l t Ketchikan never developed on the sca le of Pr ince Rupert. Although westward extension to the grounds on the east s ide o f the Gu l f of Alaska commenced on a very in tens ive sca le in 1913, the expensive operat ing costs of the g a s o l i n e / d i s t i l l a t e powered vesse ls s t i l l hindered expansion to waters of the west s ide o f the Gu l f . A f t e r 1923, with the advent of cheap operat ing costs and e f f i c i e n c y of the d i ese l engine, e x p l o i t a t i o n o f the banks on the west s ide of the Gul f of Alaska expanded r a p i d l y . Landings west of Cape St . E l i a s increased from 4.5 23 m i l l i o n pounds in 1922 to 17.8 m i l l i o n pounds in 1924. Longer t r i p s at f a r less cost were now economical ly poss ib l e . In a d d i t i o n , innovat ions in f r eez ing onboard vesse ls such as small f r eez ing uni ts and cork insu la ted holds permitted f i s h i n g over a greater spa t i a l range f o r greater time dura t ions . A f l e e t with a greater degree of mob i l i t y and range had developed by the end of the second per iod than was the case in the 1888-1912 pe r iod . From Table III i t can be seen that the increased catches from the western grounds were landed mainly at northern B r i t i s h Columbia and Southeast Alaska por t s . Landings on Puget Sound remained f a i r l y s t ab l e . Whereas landings in west centra l Alaska were only a f r a c t i o n of the ha l i bu t catch taken in these waters. With decreased pr i ces towards the end of 74 the 1913-1931 pe r i od , however, a greater number of American vesse ls with home port on Puget Sound found i t more p r o f i t a b l e to d e l i v e r catches to Sea t t l e . Because o f dec l i n ing pr i ces fishermen were less i n c l i n e d to f i s h the f a r western grounds. Instead, they concentrated more e f f o r t on the southern grounds and e lec ted to land t he i r catch at home por t . F igure 19 shows the catch in m i l l i o n s of pounds, the to ta l amount of gear f i shed in thousands of ska tes , and the catch per skate f o r Area 2 and Area 3 over the 1913-1931 pe r iod . Then general dec l ine in y i e l d s continued on the southern grounds. On western grounds, the sharp decrease in catch per skate r e f l e c t e d the same pattern of dep le t ion which occurred e a r l i e r on the banks south of Cape Spencer. Average y i e l d s per skate of gear in western waters decreased from 266 pounds in 1915 to 64.7 pounds in 1930, but the number of skates of gear f i shed increased 24 from 88.9 thousand to 431.2 thousand. South of Cape Spencer, the average y i e l d s decreased from 118 pounds to 35 pounds over the same per iod and the number of skates o f gear employed increased from 381.5 thousand to 616.3 25 thousand. The s l i g h t upward trends for both areas in 1931 was re l a ted to a cons iderab le dec l ine in e f f o r t because of very low pr i ces being paid fo r ha l i bu t . By the end of the 1913-1931 per iod the amount of e f f o r t expended was d iv ided almost equal ly between Area 2 and Area 3. The greater amounts o f gear f i shed on the southern banks was due to the l a rger number o f vesse ls f i s h i n g these waters. In a d d i t i o n , fishermen were forced to employ more and more gear to compensate for dec l i n i ng ha l ibu t s tocks . Although a c losed f i s h i n g season between November 16 and February 15 was i n s t i t u t e d in 1924 by the IFC, average y i e l d s continued to decrease. There i s no conc lus ive evidence that the sharp decrease in ha l ibu t landings a f t e r 1915 was re l a ted to environmental f a c t o r s , e .g . change in ocean temperature. 75 FIGURE 19. TRENDS IN CATCH, EFFORT, YIELD 1913-1931. X u r -< in a z o a. u_ O to z o 00 Q z o x °-O U-5 ° to 60 50 h AREA 3 J I l L J I I L 600 500 400 300 200 1913 1915 1917 1919 1921 1923 1925 1927 1929 1931 50 40 30 e- 20 10 AREA 2 / N - ~_ -L 1 1 1 1 • 300 200 100 to ui < to o Ll_ U. UJ LU t-< LU 0_ X u < 100 = V I Q z < tO ZD o X H to Q Z o a. u. O to a LU a z X ai 600 £ u. LU 500 CO LU < 00 LU O to a z < to O X 400 ^ LU H < to ai LU a. X u < to Q LU ai a z X 1913 1915 1917 1919 1921 1923 1925 1927 1929 1931 CATCH EFFORT - - CATCH PER SKATE 76 Increased f l e e t expansion a f t e r 1912, coupled with increased e f f o r t and greater vessel e f f i c i e n c y , placed added s t r a i n on overa l l ha l ibu t populat ions wi th in an economical spa t i a l radius of the catching sec to r . The newly exp lo i ted grounds as well as the longer f i shed southern grounds could not maintain outputs which were reached between 1910 and 1915. This resu l ted in decreased y i e l d s , genera l l y higher ha l ibu t pr i ces and smal ler average landings per t r i p per v e s s e l . For example, the average landings o f the Sea t t l e schooner f l e e t decreased from 29,337 pounds per ?fi t r i p in 1915 to 10,465 pounds in 1918. Average landings per t r i p of the steamer f l e e t decreased from 106,457 pounds to 55,872 pounds over the same 27 pe r iod . Because of such decreases , Sea t t l e in p a r t i c u l a r , was not in a pos i t i on to maintain i t s dominant place in the f i s h e r y . Although westward expansion promoted decen t r a l i z a t i on in the spa t i a l s t ruc ture o f the Eastern P a c i f i c ha l ibu t industry during the 1913-1931 p e r i o d , i t d id not solve the problems of resource dep le t ion and o v e r f i s h i n g . Unres t r i c ted entry in to the f i s h e r y (apart from cap i t a l cons t r a in t s ) r esu l ted in increased dep le t ion of stocks and underemployment of men, v e s s e l s , and gear wi th in the catching sec tor . Technologica l innovat ions supported by r e l a t i v e l y strong pr i ces throughout most o f the per iod resu l ted in the ha l ibu t f i s h e r y being charac te r i zed by over-expansion. F leet T r a n s i t i o n The i n i t i a l per iod of the f i s h e r y was dominated by the company-owned f l e e t s fo r reasons prev ious ly d i scussed . The New England F ish ing Company had made Vancouver i t s headquarters and was the major company operat ing steamers. Vessels in the company f l e e t averaged 125 tons , were approx-imately 100 feet l ong , c a r r i e d 12 dor ies and a crew of 30-35 men with a 77 pQ ca r ry ing capac i ty of 200-250,000 pounds. A vessel in the 1915 Seatt le-based independent f l e e t averaged 27.2 tons , c a r r i ed an average of 4 dor ies and 10 men, and had an average ca r ry ing capac i ty o f 51,685 29 pounds. The steamer-based ports therefore had great advantage over the smal ler po r t s . Company-owned f l e e t s had been extremely e f f e c t i v e in the i n i t i a l phase of the f i s h e r y . For example, one steamer alone accounted fo r 1.6 30 m i l l i o n pounds of ha l ibu t (27% of the to ta l catch) in s ix months f i s h i n g during the winter of 1898-99. With increased dep le t ion of s tocks , however, the operat ing costs o f the steamer f l e e t rose sharp ly . Because of t h e i r la rge s i z e they could not r e a d i l y engage in l o n g l i n i n g operat ions e f f e c t i v e l y . This meant that t h e i r dor ies had to be used in the open waters o f the Gul f o f A l a ska , and i t proved uneconomical to do so because o f more adverse weather cond i t ions than was the case south o f Cape Spencer. Table IV shows the number of steamers in the ha l i bu t f i s h e r y during the 1913-1931 pe r iod . Ve r t i c a l i n teg ra t ion was necessary in the ea r l y Table IV No. o f Steamers Operating Each Year 1913-1931 Year No. Year No. Year No. 1912 13 1920 9 1928 1 1913 18 1921 4 1929 1 1914 17 1922 4 1930 1 1915 15 1923 6 1931 0 1916 15 1924 5 1917 14 1925 1 1918 11 1926 1 1919 9 1927 1 Source: IFC Report No. 5 phase of the f i she r y in order to assure adequate suppl ies of ha l ibu t fo r the co ld storage sec to r . The expanded independent f l e e t now served t h i s ro l e 78 which fur ther contr ibuted to the dec l ine of the company-owned f l e e t . The temporary increase in the s i ze of the f l e e t from 13 in 1912 to 18 in 1913 was brought about by expansion of co ld storage f a c i l i t i e s at Pr ince Rupert. At that time the Pr ince Rupert independent f l e e t cons is ted o f a few small vesse ls which were not capable o f producing the volumes of ha l ibu t that the new co ld storage f a c i l i t i e s were capable of handl ing. With the completion of the ra i lway , however, the independent f l e e t at Pr ince Rupert expanded r ap id l y and overcame t h i s d i f f i c u l t y . E s s e n t i a l l y , the ro le of Vancouver and Tacoma in the f i s h e r y dec l ined with the passing of the company f l e e t s . Nei ther o f these ports had developed independent f l e e t s l i k e those o f Sea t t l e and Pr ince Rupert, and were l a r g e l y dependent on company vessel l and ings . Development o f an independent f l e e t proceeded much slower in B r i t i s h Columbia than in Washington. Table V shows the number o f independent vesse ls operat ing from the major ports in var ious years of the 1913-1931 pe r iod . The Underwood T a r i f f Act o f 1913 e l iminated the one cent per pound import duty on ha l ibu t imported in to the United States from Canada, but i t d id not have any immediate impact on vessel cons t ruc t ion in B r i t i s h Columbia. The f u l l impact of the Act was not f e l t un t i l the development o f Pr ince Rupert as a major ha l i bu t port in 1915. The s i z e o f the Canadian f l e e t increased from approximately 35 vesse ls in 1915 to 100 vesse ls in 31 1918. During the same period the s i z e of the Pr ince Rupert f l e e t in-32 creased from 17 to 71 vesse l s . Continued extension o f the ha l ibu t f i s h e r y during the 1913-1931 per iod was accompanied by the r i s e of independent f l e e t s outs ide Puget Sound and the Lower Mainland. A f t e r the r i s e o f Pr ince Rupert as a Table V Number of Vessels >10 Tons with Home Port at the Major Ports and Total Gear Fished 1912-1931. Pr ince Number of Skates Year Seat t le Vancouver Rupert Ketchikan Juneau Petersburg of Gear Fi s 1912 56 <10 12 . . (1 ) . . ( 1 ) 343066 1913 (70) <10 <17 -- -- -- 436273 1914 97 <10 <17 -- — -- (460000) 1915 100 10 17 -- 470568 1916 98 11 20 — 355690 1917 93 27 57 -- -- 494342 1918 105 24 71 -- 394379 1919 96 26 65 -- 430960 1920 118 33 62 — — 485271 1921 129 35 84 588500 1922 109 25 72 -- — — 575200 1923 108 17 80 -- -- 642700 1924 138 17 89 — -- 714000 1925 138 19 94 -- 724500 1926 148 16 96 47 32 26 765000 1927 153 25 107 46 34 26 825800 1928 149 30 112 40 35 51 921600 1929 155 37 116 35 49 45 1048400 1930 149 26 109 41 50 44 1041200 1931 146 26 98 36 55 44 838800 (1) Information not a va i l ab l e . N.B. These s ix ports accounted fo r approximately 85% of a l l vesse ls in the ha l ibu t f l e e t . The remaining 15% were based at smal ler ports throughout the region e .g . Wrangel l , S i t k a , Seaward. Source: P a c i f i c Fisherman Yearbook(s). 80 major landing/process ing and marketing po r t , i t s f l e e t outnumbered that of Vancouver. In much the same manner the Alaska-based f l e e t grew at the expense of the Sea t t l e f l e e t . With increased expansion of the catching sector many fishermen from Washington es tab l i shed permanent headquarters at such places as Juneau, S i t k a , Ketchikan, Petersburg, and Wrangel l . The f l e e t s which developed at these ports were smal ler in s i z e and number than the main f l e e t at Sea t t l e . For example, the average net tonnage of the Seatt le-based f l e e t in 1931 was 28 tons compared to 20 33 tons f o r the Ketchikan-based f l e e t . S ince the small independent f l e e t s were located near the major producing grounds in northern B r i t i s h Columbia and Alaska waters, t h e i r required operat iona l radius was f a r less than that of the l a rge r vesse ls based to the south. In t h i s respect they held an advantage over the southern f l e e t , but t h i s was counterbalanced by the lower p r i ces (approximately two to f i v e cents per pound less ) which the Pr ince Rupert and Alaska-based f l e e t s rece ived fo r t he i r catches. There fore , when p r i ces dec l ined s u b s t a n t i a l l y , the l a rger vesse ls from Vancouver and Sea t t l e were in a be t te r pos i t i on to d e l i v e r t h e i r catches to the southern po r t s . This exp la ins why Vancouver and Sea t t l e increased t h e i r landings between 1926 and 1931. By the end of the 1913-1931 pe r i od , the independent f l e e t had com-p l e t e l y replaced the company f l e e t s which developed p r i o r to 1914. In-creases in the p r i ce of ha l i bu t and more favourable market cond i t ions made 34 i t more p r o f i t a b l e fo r fishermen and specu la t i ve backers to invest in increased numbers of vesse ls thereby con t r ibu t ing to rap id expansion of the independent f l e e t during the second per iod . From a small number of 81 small s a i l i n g vessels at the turn of the century , the independent f l e e t expanded to approximately 500 r e l a t i v e l y large powered vesse ls by 1931. Although the Canadian f l e e t increased in number throughout the 1913-1931 pe r i od , i t s share o f the to ta l catch decreased from 26.5% in 1915 to 35 17.4% in 1931. This r e f l e c t ed the f a s t e r increase in the s i ze o f the American f l e e t , as well as the ret i rement of the steamers from the Canadian f l e e t . Despite t h i s , landings o f ha l i bu t at B r i t i s h Columbia ports increased from 33.3% of the to ta l catch in 1913 to 41.4% of to ta l landings in 1931. The r i s e o f Pr ince Rupert made i t convenient fo r vesse ls in the American f l e e t to land a greater proport ion o f i t s catch at t h i s por t . This accounts fo r the upward s h i f t in B r i t i s h Columbia port landings during the per iod desp i te a s i g n i f i c a n t decrease in the percentage o f the catch by the Canadian sector o f the f l e e t . The r i s e of the independent f l e e t had important imp l i ca t ions f o r the ha l ibu t indust ry as a whole. F leet expansion came at a time when y i e l d s from most of the f i s h i n g grounds were d e c l i n i n g . Any increase in the number of vesse ls resu l ted in increased amounts of e f f o r t being employed. Catch returns were not proport iona l to the amount of e f f o r t expended and consequently fishermen were competing fo r r e l a t i v e l y s tab le catches year a f t e r year . This resu l ted in overinvestment of c ap i t a l wi th in the f i s h e r y . By 1924 the p r o f i t s o f many vessel owners were not in keeping 37 with the amount o f investment, l abour , and hazards invo lved . The amount o f e f f o r t had increased two and one-half times between 1915 and 1930 but the catch dec l ined by 38% over the same pe r iod . The Ha l ibut Convention of 1923 It i s c l ea r from the foregoing that the ha l ibu t indust ry reached a 82 c r i t i c a l turning point during th i s pe r iod . E i ther b i o l o g i c a l and other con t ro l s had to be introduced or the indust ry would su f f e r the same fa te as the A t l a n t i c ha l ibut f i s h e r y , that i s almost to ta l resource dep l e t i on . Recognizing t h i s s i t u a t i o n the United States and Canadian governments 38 signed the Hal ibut Convention on March 2, 1923. This convention was the f i r s t i n te rna t iona l agreement aimed at regu la t ing a s e r i ous l y depleted deep-sea f i s h e r y . Concern was being expressed by those engaged in the indust ry over dep le t ion o f ha l ibu t stocks long before s ign ing o f the 39 convent ion, e s p e c i a l l y by the F i sh ing Vessel Owners Assoc i a t i on o f S e a t t l e . 4 0 In 1914, the government o f B r i t i s h Columbia s o l i c i t e d the se rv i ces of a b i o l o g i s t (W. F. Thompson) to inves t iga te the l i f e - h i s t o r y of the P a c i f i c ha l i bu t . The Report of the B r i t i s h Columbia Department o f F i she r i es fo r 1914 stated that "It i s beyond quest ion t h a t . . . some pro -t e c t i on must be extended to the species in the near f u t u r e . " 4 * In 1916 a B i l l was introduced in the United States Congress (Senate B i l l 4586) to e s t a b l i s h a c losed season: f o r ha l i bu t and to c lose known 42 nursery grounds. Enforcement of these p r o v i s i o n s , however, was dependent on s i m i l a r ac t ion by Canada because o f the i n te rna t iona l nature of the f i s h e r y . The American-Canadian F i she r i es Conference of 1918 led to the s ign ing of a ha l ibu t t r ea ty which provided fo r a c losed season fo r ha l ibu t and r e -c ip roca l port p r i v i l e g e s . The t rea ty was not r a t i f i e d , however, because the two par t i es could not agree on non-conservation matters such as port-use 43 p r i v i l e g e s and t a r i f f s . The exc lus ion of trade and economic f a c to r s f i n a l l y led to the s ign ing o f the Hal ibut Convention in 1923. It i s 83 i n t e r e s t i ng to note that those d i r e c t l y engaged in the i ndus t r y , i . e . fishermen and f i s h dea l e r s , were advocating measures to protec t the f i s h e r y , but p o l i t i c a l disagreement at the in te rna t iona l l eve l prevented the adoption o f the necessary measures. A r i s i n g from the convention the Internat ional F i she r i e s Commission was es tab l i shed in 1923, cons i s t i ng o f four members, two from each country , with the j o i n t expenses incurred by the Commission to be d i v ided equa l ly between the two count r i e s . The Commission was not given the powers to r e s t r i c t vessel entry in to the f i she r y but to conduct a thorough inves -t i g a t i o n into the l i f e - h i s t o r y of the P a c i f i c ha l ibu t and to make recommendations as to the regu la t ion of the f i s h e r y . As these b i o l o g i c a l s tudies would take some time to deve lop, the Commission immediately es tab l i shed (1924) a c losed season from mid-November to mid-February to co inc ide with the ha l ibut spawning pe r iod . This move d id not increase y i e l d s per skate because o f the f ac t that f i s h i n g e f f o r t was concentrated in the summer months anyway. Toward the end of the 1920-30 decade i t had become c l ea r that the 1923 Convention required changing and in 1930 i t was re-negot ia ted. This time the Commission was given the power to implement catch quotas by areas to be d e l i m i t e d ; to p r o h i b i t the departure of vesse ls fo r waters where set l i m i t s were c lose to being reached; to f i x the s i z e and type o f gear used in any a rea ; to make regu la t ions essen t i a l f o r the c o l l e c t i n g of s t a t i s t i c s ; 44 and to c lose f i s h i n g areas frequented by s m a l l , immature ha l i bu t . As a r e s u l t of these measures, greater cons t ra in ts were placed upon the indust ry in the 1932-1951 phase of the f i s h e r y . 84 References 1. B e l l , F. H . , H. A. Dunlop, and N. L. Freeman. " P a c i f i c Coast Hal ibut Landings 1888 to 1950 and Catch According to Area of O r i g i n . " Report Number 17. Internat ional F i she r i e s Commission, Sea t t l e . 1952. pp.10, 31. 2. B e l l , F. Heward. "Eastern P a c i f i c Ha l ibut F i she ry , 1888-1966." F ishery Lea f l e t 602, U. S. Dept. of the In te r io r . U. S. F ish and W i l d l i f e Se r v i ce , Bureau of Commercial F i she r i e s . Washington, D.C. August, 1968, pp. 4 ,5 . 3. Ib id . pp. 4,5 4. Ib id . p. 7. 5. Ib id . p.7. 6. Ib id . p. 7. 7. P a c i f i c Fisherman Yearbook(s) 1913-1931. passim 8. B e l l , F. H. e t . a l . op. c i t . p. 31 and P a c i f i c Fisherman Yearbook(s) 1913-1931. passim. 9. Urquhart , M. C. and K. A. H. Buckley (eds. ) H i s t o r i c a l S t a t i s t i c s o f Canada Sponsored by the Canadian P o l i t i c a l Science Assoc. and Soc ia l Science Research Counci l o f Canada. The Un i ve rs i t y Press. Cambridge. 1965. p. 395. 10. B e l l , F. Heward. "Agreements, Conventions and Trea t i es Between Canada and the United States of America with Respect to the P a c i f i c Ha l ibut F ishery . Report Number 50 (IPHC). S ea t t l e , 1969. p. 6. 11. B e l l , F. H. et a l . op. c i t . p. 31 12. P a c i f i c Fisherman. Yearbook. 1930. p. 172. 13. P a c i f i c Fisherman. Yearbook. 1916. p. 102. 14. P a c i f i c Fisherman. Yearbook. 1932. p. 189 15. Thompson, W. F., H. A. Dunlop, and F. H. B e l l . " B i o l og i c a l S t a t i s t i c s o f the P a c i f i c Ha l ibut F i she r y . " Report Number 6. IFC. Vancouver, 1931. p. 35. 85 16. P a c i f i c Fisherman. Yearbook. 1924. p. 96 17. P a c i f i c Fisherman. Ju ly 5, 1914. p. 28. 18. Thompson, W. F., and F. H. B e l l . " B i o l og i c a l S t a t i s t i c s of the P a c i f i c Ha l ibut F i she r y . " Report Number 8, IFC. Sea t t l e . 1934. p. 12. 19. P a c i f i c Fisherman Yearbook. 1924. p. 96. 20. The Pr ince Rupert Da i l y News. Vol II. No. 291. Dec. 20, 1911. p . l . 21. Ib id , p. 1 22. P a c i f i c Fisherman Yearbook. 1917, p. 75. 23. B e l l , F. H. et a l . op. c i t . p. 7. 24. Chapman, D. C „ R. J . Myhre, and G. M. Southward. " U t i l i z a t i o n o f P a c i f i c Ha l ibut Stocks: Est imation of Maximum Susta inable Y i e l d . 1960. Report Number 31. IPHC. S e a t t l e , 1962. p. 33. 25. Ib id , p. 33. 26. P a c i f i c Fisherman Yearbook, 1917. p. 77 and P a c i f i c Fisherman Yearbook. 1919. p. "119. 27. Ib id , p. 119 28. B r i t i s h Columbia Department of F i s h e r i e s . Report. 1915. V i c t o r i a , 1915. p. SI 31. 29. P a c i f i c Fisherman Yearbook. 1916. p. 79. 30. Thompson, W. F. and N. L. Freeman. "H i s to ry of the P a c i f i c Hal ibut F i she r y . " Report Number 5. IFC. Vancouver, 1930. p. 29. 31. P a c i f i c Fisherman Yearbook. 1919. pp. 121, 121a. 32. Ib id , pp. 121, 121a. 33. P a c i f i c Fisherman Yearbook. 1932. pp. 157, 158. 34. Thompson, W. F. and N. L. Freeman, op. c i t . p. 39. 35. B e l l , F. H. , H. A. Dunlop, and N. L. Freeman, o p . c i t . p. 5. 36. Ib id , pp. 4, 5. 37. P a c i f i c Fisherman Yearbook. 1925. p. 114. 38. Treaty fo r the Protect ion of the P a c i f i c Ha l ibu t . 1923. Appendix B. No. 809. The K ing 's P r i n t e r . Ottawa. 1923. 39. P a c i f i c Fisherman Yearbook. 1924. p. 108 40. P a c i f i c Fisherman Yearbook. 1925. p. 128. 41. B r i t i s h Columbia Department o f F i s h e r i e s . Report 1914. V i c t o r i a , B. C. 1915. p. PnlO 42. B r i t i s h Columbia Department of F i s h e r i e s . Report 1916. V i c t o r i a , B. C. 1916. p. S12. 43. B e l l , F. Heward. Report Number 50 (IPHC) o p . c i t . p. 7. 44. Treaty Se r i e s . No. 917. Preservat ion of Hal ibut F ishery of Northern P a c i f i c Ocean and Bering Sea. Convention Between the United States o f America and Canada. Jan. 29, 1937. U. S. Government P r i n t i ng O f f i c e . Wash. 1937. Appendix M. 87 Chapter V Spat ia l Adjustment, Commission Quota C o n t r o l , and Extreme Competit ion 1932-1951. Stages I and II o f the P a c i f i c ha l ibu t f i she r y were charac te r ized by heavy exp lo i t a t i on and dep le t ion of the major ha l ibu t grounds as a r e su l t of in tens i ve f i s h i n g pressure . The indust ry passed through an unregulated phase in which there were no r e s t r i c t i o n s on annual catch and entry . The ever- increas ing ha l ibu t f l e e t operated in response to the changing p roduc t i v i t y of f i s h i n g banks throughout the P a c i f i c Northwest. By the end of the second stage (1913-1931) a l l major banks with the except ion of those in the Bering Sea had been exposed to heavy e x p l o i t a t i o n . The frequent s h i f t to new grounds which was a dominant aspect o f the e a r l i e r stages o f the f i she r y was not c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f the t h i r d stage (1932-1951). Rather, the t h i r d stage of the ha l ibu t f i she r y was one in which the spa t i a l s t ruc ture of the indust ry was con -f ined to p rev ious l y developed boundaries. The imposi t ion of quota cont ro ls (commencing in 1932) by the Internat ional F i she r i e s Commission was to a f f e c t the catch from var ious sectors of the ha l i bu t grounds and as a r e su l t resource stocks were to improve during the pe r i od . Never the less , the f l e e t expanded very r ap id l y and compet i t ion between vesse ls fo r a share of the catch became very keen. As a r e s u l t o f such competi t ion the durat ion o f the f i s h i n g season was decreased phenomenally s ince the quotas were taken in fa r l e ss t ime. The funct iona l s t ruc ture o f the indust ry was l im i t ed to two components, the l ong l i ne r and small boat s ec to r s . 88 Spat ia l S t ructure Between 1888 and 1931 a l l major ha l ibu t banks o f the Eastern P a c i f i c with the exception of those in the Bering Sea had come under in tens ive f i s h i n g pressure . No expansion to new grounds occurred during the 1932-1951 per iod although there was a general s h i f t in the amount o f e f f o r t to the western grounds i n i t i a l l y developed in the previous pe r iod . Between 1932 and 1939 r e l a t i v e l y low ha l ibu t p r i ces led to l i t t l e v a r i a t i on in the amount of e f f o r t expended, but from 1939 onwards upward p r i ce movement and a number of other f ac to rs increased the number o f vessels enter ing the f i s h e r y . F igure 20 shows the spa t i a l s t ruc tu re of the indust ry during the 1932-1951 pe r iod . It dep ic ts the increased importance o f secondary ports in the indus t ry . Because o f an increase in ha l ibu t stocks on the inshore grounds, the small boat sector of the indust ry became o f some importance once aga in . For reasons to be examined, there was a l so l e ss tendency fo r some vessels in the f l e e t to land t h e i r catches away from home por t . Although much of the f i s h i n g a c t i v i t y was again centred a cons iderab le d is tance from the most southern p o r t s , no major ha l ibu t port developed west of Cape Spencer. During the per iod a l a rge r number of vesse ls were operat ing from a l l ports wi th in the i ndus t r y , but the spa t i a l range of the catch ing sector was greates t fo r those vessels based at the ra i l head por t s . S i m i l a r l y , Figure 21 shows that Southeast Alaska l oca t i ons increased t h e i r share o f the catch over that of the 1913-1931 pe r iod . Pr ince Rupert landings decreased somewhat as more of the American vesse ls e lec ted Legend RAILHEAD LOCATION PORTS SECONDARY PORTS FISHING STATIONS (MINOR PORTS) COLD STORAGE FACILITIES nmnn LIMIT OF FISHING OPERATIONS — • RANGE OF FISHING VESSELS BASED AT EACH PORT TYPE — * VESSELS ELECT TO LAND PART OF YEARLY CATCH AWAY FROM HOME PORT Co. FIGURE 20. SPATIAL STRUCTURE OF THE INDUSTRY 1932-1951. SIZE OF THE SQUARE PROPORTIONAL TO A V E R A G E ANNUAL LANDINGS FOR THE PERIOD WEST CENTRAL ALASKA PORTS ONE QUARTER INCH SQUARE EQUALS 8 MILLIONS POUNDS OTHER PORTS SEATTLE VANCOUVER KETCHIKAN SOUTHEAST ALASKA PORTS (EXC'L KETCHIKAN) PRINCE RUPERT FIGURE 21. DEGREE OF CENTRALIZATION OF HALIBUT LANDINGS 1932-1951. 91 to land a greater part of t he i r catch on Puget Sound, Expansion o f the independent f l e e t s at Southeast Alaska loca t ions resu l ted in g rea t l y increased landings at ports in that area. Landings at ports in West Central Alaska increased s l i g h t l y over the previous pe r i od . The increase in landings at other minor ports in B r i t i s h Columbia and, to a l e sse r extent in Washington was the r e s u l t o f greater catches during the per iod by the small boat sector of the indus t ry . In the 1913-1931 pe r i od , grounds west of Cape Spencer produced approximately 41% of a l l Eastern P a c i f i c ha l i bu t land ings . During the 1932-1951 p e r i o d , landings from these western grounds accounted fo r 49% o f to ta l average annual l and ings . * F igure 22 shows the area over which f i s h i n g was ca r r i ed out in the t h i r d per iod and the breakdown of catches from various sectors of the ha l ibu t grounds. In gene ra l , the grounds north by Cape Scott were exposed to the greatest amount o f f i s h i n g pressure and were the source o f the heaviest l and ings . Grounds south of Cape Scott support l ess p r o l i f i c stocks and in the ea r l y years of the per iod quota cont ro l s were designed to take pressure o f f these heav i l y depleted grounds. Although the radius of the catch ing sector was not extended to new f i s h i n g grounds, changes d id occur in the pattern of landings by reg ion . Th is gave r i s e to a more even d i s t r i b u t i o n of landings in Washing-ton , B r i t i s h Columbia, and A laska . Washington landings remained 2 unchanged from the previous per iod at 31% of a s l i g h t l y increased ca tch . B r i t i s h Columbia landings decreased from 53% in the 1913-1931 per iod to 3 40% in the 1932-1951 pe r iod . Alaska experienced a s i g n i f i c a n t increase 4 in average annual landings from 17% in the previous per iod to 29% in FIGURE 22. AVERAGE ANNUAL CATCH FROM VARIOUS GROUNDS 1932-1951. WASHINGTON 93 the 1932-1951 pe r iod . In add i t ion to a general westward s h i f t in volume of catch there was an accompanying s h i f t in regional landings as well (F igure 23). The s i g n i f i c a n t changes which occurred throughout the per iod were: the dec l ine in Washington landings a f t e r 1939; the r e l a t i v e s t a b i l i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia landings a f t e r the same date ; and the increase in Alaska landings but most notably a f t e r 1939. The increased westward trend in landings was in large measure a t t r i bu t ab l e to increased catches from the western grounds and the tendency fo r vesse ls to land t h e i r catch at ports c lose to the grounds. This was e s p e c i a l l y the case in the f i n a l years o f the per iod when the f i s h i n g season durat ion was reduced sharp ly . In an attempt to increase t h e i r share of the c a t ch , i nd i v idua l vesse ls t r i e d to make as many t r i p s as p o s s i b l e . To do t h i s , they e lec ted to land a l l , but t h e i r f i n a l t r i p at ports c lose to the grounds they were f i s h i n g . Ha l ibut pr i ces f e l l sharply during the depression and were slow to recover . For example, the average p r i ce per pound of ha l i bu t landed in B r i t i s h Columbia f e l l from 13 cents per pound in 1926 to 4 cents 5 per pound in 1932. To combat the low p r i ces which p r e v a i l e d , the fishermen i n s t i t u t e d a between-trip layover program and set vessel q u o t a s . 6 To avoid heavy landings of ha l i bu t on any given day, ha l f the f l e e t stayed in port whi le the remaining ha l f engaged in f i s h i n g opera t ions . This system worked qu i te e f f e c t i v e l y but increased demand fo r ha l ibu t and higher p r i ces a f t e r 1939 resu l ted in increased numbers of non-regular ha l ibu t vessels enter ing the f i s h e r y . For maritime su r ve i l l ance purposes the lay-over program was terminated a f t e r the 1942 95 f i s h i n g season and was not r e- i n s t i t u t ed a f t e r the war ended because the i n f l ux of vessels mi t igated against t h i s . During the years in which the program was in e f f e c t , vesse ls landed a greater share o f t h e i r catch at home por t . Figure 24 shows the increase in ha l ibu t pr i ces a f t e r 1939 (based on pr ices at S ea t t l e ) . This f a c t o r , together with the terminat ion of the between-trip layover program, weakened Washington's pos i t i on in the ha l ibu t industry in terms of primary land ings . Other f ac to rs a f f e c t i n g the pos i t i on of Sea t t l e and other ports in the industry during the 1943-1945 per iod w i l l be d iscussed l a t e r in the chapter . As was the case in the 1913-1931 pe r i od , ha l ibut landings were dominated by three major areas : Puget Sound, northern B r i t i s h Columbia, and Southeast A laska . Because o f operat ing cons t ra in ts placed upon the catch ing sec tor during the p e r i o d , minor s h i f t s d id occur in landings throughout the region as a whole. The pos i t i on of Puget Sound remained unchanged over the previous per iod at 31% of average annual l and ings , while landings at northern B r i t i s h Columbia decreased from 38% of average annual landings to 31%, and those in Southeast Alaska increased from 19% to 25%^. Table VI shows how the landings were d i s t r i b u t e d throughout the P a c i f i c Northwest f o r a l l three per iods . Table VI Average Annual Ha l ibut Landings by Port Area 1888-1912,1913-1931,1932,1951. ( '000 l b s . ) Lower S.E. W.C. Period P. Sound Mainld Van. I . Cen.BC Nor.BC Alaska Alaska Tota l 1888-1912 13519 5905 607 473 89 1000 — 21593 1913-1931 15046 3078 652 1140 18776 9619 1163 49474 1932-1951 16428 2562 1041 1590 15789 13065 1030 51505 The emergence o f major ha l ibu t ports in Southeast Alaska i s shown 96 FIGURE 24. TRENDS IN LANDINGS BY REGION AND AVERAGE PRICE PER POUND (BASED ON SEATTLE PRICES) 1932-1951. CATCH (MILLIONS OF POUNDS) 1932 1937 1942 1947 1951 YEARLY CATCH LANDED IN WASHINGTON LANDED IN BRITISH COLUMBIA LANDED IN ALASKA AVERAGE PRICE 97 in Table VII. These p o r t s , l i k e the small ports in B r i t i s h Columbia,, benef i ted from the increase in ha l ibu t stocks during the per iod as the r e su l t of quota regu la t ion of the f i s h e r y but Vancouver and Ketchikan did not improve t h e i r r e l a t i v e p o s i t i o n s . Never the less , Ketchikan, be-cause o f i t s proximity to the major ha l ibu t grounds captured a l a rge r share of landings than Vancouver. Cold storage f a c i l i t i e s es tab l i shed at western loca t ions such as Seward and Se ldov ia during the second per iod were only able to a t t r a c t landings mainly from vesse ls based at these ports dur ing the 1932-1951 pe r iod . P r i ces paid fo r ha l i bu t at the western ports were cons iderab ly lower than those paid at more southern l o c a t i o n s . F ish landed outs ide the major r a i l head ports had to absorb t ranspor ta t ion costs incurred in p shipment to the ra i lheads fo r f i n a l market d e l i v e r y . The spa t i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the ha l ibu t f i s h e r y in the 1932-1951 per iod were therefore a funct ion o f increased westward s h i f t in ca tches , the sharp increase in ha l i bu t p r i c e s , the impos i t ion o f ha l ibu t quota c o n t r o l s , a sharp increase in the number of vesse ls enter ing the f i s h e r y , and the d i scon t inua t ion of the voluntary between-trip layover program. Between 1943 and 1945 the O f f i c e of P r i ce Admin is t ra t ion of the United States imposed p r i ce ranges at the various ports and t h i s was to have a bearing on the d i s t r i b u t i o n of ha l ibu t landings during these years . By the end of the 1932-1951 p e r i o d , the r e l a t i v e proximity o f northern B r i t i s h Columbia and Southeast Alaska ports to the major producing grounds, acted upon by the above f a c t o r s , assured them o f a large pro -por t ion o f the ha l i bu t ca tch . Table VII Halibut Landings By Port 1932-1951 ('000 lbs.) Prince Peters-Year Seattle Vancouver Rupert Ketchikan Wrangell burg Sitka Pelican Juneau 1932 21791 1188 14860 3157 150 482 53 673 1933 21761 1343 14406 2877 325 1089 845 -- 1621 1934 20205 1513 16537 3155 284 1002 1172 — 1463 1935 21691 2246 14563 3752 112 474 667 -- 1341 1936 22572 2054 14318 3556 494 1979 945 — 1541 1937 21165 2333 16401 3642 590 1352 983 — 1832 1938 20769 2794 15943 2828 414 1965 906 — 2039 1939 20038 3018 19223 2263 279 1460 • 931 — 2001 1940 18831 1999 20529 3798 400 1718 1370 -- 1984 1941 19095 3139 18744 3367 375 1463 2173 -- 1616 1942 14865 4035 19325 5749 469 1559 834 — 1816 1943 13278 5065 18621 7450 727 1936 2694 589 1700 1944 11881 3561 13896 9544 1008 2486 2347 1540 2000 1945 12651 2340 16177 11208 585 2161 2773 2000 2363 1946 13932 2023 19495 12115 699 2943 2684 2000 2363 1947 5816 4298 20453 7503 643 2828 2634 2200 3232 1948 9434 2641 16144 7600 716 2548 2990 2362 2797 1949 10006 2129 17950 7628 499 2675 2008 2102 2473 1950 7473 1096 18921 6992 479 3140 3103 3351 3823 1951 9648 2512 20098 5170 496 2869 1985 2294 2386 Source: International Pacific Halibut Commission Reports. Pacific Fisherman Yearbook. CO 99 Functional Structure Figure 25 shows the functional structure of the hal ibut industry during the 1932-1951 per iod. By 1930 the company-owned steamer f l e e t g had been almost completely r e t i r ed from the industry and the dory vessel f l ee t was only accounting for a very small percentage of the tota l c a t c h J 0 V i r t u a l l y the ent i re f l e e t had switched to the more e f f i c i e n t long l in ing method of f i s h i n g . As a resu l t the funct ional , structure of the industry in the th i rd period consisted of only two components -- the long l iner and the small boat sectors. This compares with three components in the i n i t i a l phase of the f i shery and four com-ponents in the 1913-1931 per iod. The phasing out of company-owned vessels el iminated ve r t i ca l i n t e -grat ion in the industry at the company l e v e l . As a resu l t the cold storage sector of the ports at which the steamers were based no longer maintained ' capt i ve ' f l e e t s . As previously s ta ted , the steamers del ivered the i r catches to the companies which operated them. The base ports were therefore assured of hal ibut landings for as long as the steamers remained in the industry. This was not the case in the 1932-1951 per iod. The ent i re f l e e t now consisted of independently-owned vessels which landed catches at ports of the i r choice. Nevertheless, the smaller vessels in the f l ee t were r e s t r i c t ed to the ports from which they operated be-cause of the i r l im i ted range. The mobi l i t y and non-captive ownership of vessels also allowed for freedom of the market since ports had to com-pete for ha l ibut l a n d i n g s . ^ P roh ib i t ion of dory f i sh ing was a move taken by the IFC to meet the changing needs of ha l ibut f i shery management. Because of r e l a t i v e l y STOCKS VESSEL EXCHANGE I T ™ HOLDING UNIT SOLD FRESH COLD STORAGE PACKER I I MARKET 1- STRUCTURE OF THE INDEPENDENT LONGLINER FLEET STOCKS VESSEL HOLDING UNIT EXCHANGE PACKER SOLD FRESH COLD STORAGE _ J MARKET I 2. STRUCTURE OF THE SMALL BOAT FLEET FIGURE 25. FUNCTIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE INDUSTRY 1932-1951. V-1 O O 101 l i g h t gear ( e .g . smal ler hooks) used in dory f i s h i n g i t was found that th i s type o f operat ion was catching a higher proport ion of smal l-s ized 12 ha l ibu t than the l o n g l i n e r opera t ion . Dory f i s h i n g was therefore p roh ib i ted on grounds south o f Cape Spencer in 1935, and by the time 13 the p r o h i b i t i o n was extended to a l l convention waters in 1944 l i t t l e f i s h i n g was being ca r r i ed out by the dory method anyway. Vessels in the small boat sector of the indust ry employed gear s i m i l a r to that of the l o n g l i n e r f l e e t and they continued to funct ion wi th in the indus t ry . T r o l l i n g gear a lso accounted fo r l a rge l y i nc iden ta l catches of h a l i bu t . In 1938 the Commission p roh ib i t ed any use o f bottom set nets because elsewhere-i t was shown that t h i s was not a very s e l e c t i v e type of gear. The marketing of ha l ibu t by the catching and process ing sectors changed l i t t l e over the previous pe r i od . The vesse ls in the l o n g l i n e r f l e e t continued to land catches almost e n t i r e l y at the major ports where higher pr i ces p reva i l ed . The small boat sector of the indust ry continued to land catches at f i s h buying s ta t ions or landing points outs ide the major port areas. Due to the decreased durat ion o f the f i s h i n g season towards the end o f the per iod a greater percentage o f the catch was f rozen and l ess o f the to ta l catch was de l i ve red to market in a f resh form. The to ta l ha l ibut catch could not be absorbed by the r e t a i l market in a f resh form over a r e l a t i v e l y short f i s h i n g pe r iod . For example, in 1932, 31% o f the ha l ibu t catch was frozen compared with 70% of the catch in 1 9 5 1 . 1 5 Commission Quota Control Impl icat ions Under Ha l ibut Convention regu la t ions of 1930 and 1937 the Com-miss ion was given broader regulatory powers. The quota system was i n t ro-102 duced during the 1932 f i s h i n g season, with set opening dates for the f i s he r y . The f i s h i n g season terminated as soon as quotas were reached. Consequently, competit ion fo r the annual quotas became so intense that the length o f the f i s h i n g season was reduced from 249 days in 1932 to 28 days 16 in 1951 on grounds south of Cape Spencer. On grounds west o f Cape Spencer the f i she r y was somewhat longer-from approximately 288 days in 1932 to 56 days in 1951.*^ Fewer vesse ls f i shed on the l a t t e r grounds, therefore i t took longer f o r the quotas to be reached in that area. S ince no r e s t r i c t i o n s were placed on entry in to the ha l ibu t f i s h e r y or the amount o f gear that could be f i s h e d , such increased com-p e t i t i o n fo r annual quotas was d i s t r i b u t e d over a greater number o f vesse l s . With an increase in stocks because of ha l ibu t contro l measures, more and more vessels found i t economical ly worthwhile to engage in the ha l i bu t f i s h e r y . A large number of new entrants in to the f i s h e r y were vessels that a lso engaged in other sectors of the f i s h i n g industry--mainly the salmon f i s h e r y . As a r e s u l t o f un res t r i c t ed entry and the economic a t t r a c t i ons due to improved ha l ibu t s tocks , the number o f vesse ls engaged in the ha l ibu t f i she r y increased from 407 in 1932 to 820 in 1 9 5 1 . 1 8 The greatest increase in the number of vesse ls was f e l t on the grounds o f f northern B r i t i s h Columbia and Southeast A laska . S ince they were not as large and, hence, not as mobile as the vessels which operated on the more d i s t an t banks, they found i t convenient and advantageous to land catches at such ports as Pr ince Rupert, Ketchikan, P e l i c a n , S i t k a , and Petersburg. This cont r ibuted to the s i g n i f i c a n t expansion of these and other ports in the same general area during the 1932-1951 pe r iod . 103 Commission quota cont ro l s were designed to improve ha l ibu t stocks on a l l heav i l y depleted grounds of the Eastern P a c i f i c . The long-run expected outcome of such c o n t r o l s , however, was that not only would ha l i bu t stocks rep len i sh themselves but economic e f f i c i e n c y would improve with in the indust ry as w e l l . With no l i m i t a t i o n s on the number of vessels which could enter the f i s h e r y during any given yea r , vesse ls from other sectors of the f i s h i n g industry could r ead i l y engage in the ha l ibu t f i s h e r y . This meant that by the end of the 1932-1951 per iod any economic returns from the improved stocks had to be shared by twice the number o f vesse l s . Although there was a two-fold increase in the number o f vesse ls over the 1932-1951 pe r i od , there was a lso a cons iderab le increase in ha l ibu t stocks on a l l grounds. The catch increased from 44.4 m i l l i o n pounds in 1932 to 56.3 m i l l i o n pounds in 1951 with s l i g h t l y higher catches fo r a number of years during the pe r iod . Figure 26 shows the trends in c a t ch , amount o f gear f i s h e d , and y i e l d s for Area 2 and Area 3 fo r the 1932.-1951 pe r iod . Average y i e l d per skate of gear i s a funct ion o f stock s i z e , f i s h i n g i n t e n s i t y , and environmental f ac to rs such as wind and t i d e cond i t i ons . The number of skates of gear employed throughout the per iod dec l ined s l i g h t l y on the western grounds and qu i te cons iderab ly on the southern grounds. The decreasing length o f the f i s h i n g season reduced the f i s h i n g time and hence the number of skates of gear f i s h e d . Since the catch was taken in f a r less time by a smal ler amount of e f f o r t , i t meant that ha l ibu t were more abundant over a l l sec t ions of the f i s h i n g grounds. From Figure 26 i t can be seen that there was cons iderab le improvement in stocks 104 FIGURE 26. TRENDS IN CATCH, EFFORT, YIELD 1932-1951. LU H < to to Q Z o a. LL O to z o X u I— < 1932 1934 1932 1934 1936 1938 1940 1942 1944 1946 1948 H 400 300 H 200 -hoo 1951 O u. LL LU L U H < to LU &. X u < to LU H < IO LL O to a z < to :D O X ,H to a z o a. LL. O to a LU Q z X >• CATCH EFFORT CATCH PER SKATE 105 on the southern grounds which had been severe ly depleted before quota r egu l a t i on . The quota system placed time cons t ra in t s on the catch ing and process -ing sectors of the indus t ry . In attempting to res tore s tocks , the Commis-s ion was aiming fo r a greater supply o f ha l ibu t in the long run. Without r e s t r i c t i o n s on freedom of entry in to the f i s h e r y , however, there were some short run e f f e c t s . The decrease in the length o f the f i s h i n g season resu l ted in inventor ies o f ha l ibu t having to be held in co ld storage f o r a longer per iod o f t ime. In years o f heavy product ion and r e l a t i v e l y low demand inventor ies remained h igh . This meant lower p r i ces being paid to fishermen at dockside fo r ha l ibu t or higher p r i ces being charged the consumer to cover add i t iona l f r eeze r cos t s . Genera l l y i t was the l a t t e r because the eastern market was a lso open to large volumes of other wh i te f i sh with which ha l ibu t competed. Once ha l ibu t was pr i ced too h igh , consumers subs t i tu ted such lower pr i ced species as haddock, cod and so l e . A second r e s u l t of improved ha l ibu t stocks was reduced f i s h i n g cos t s . Since y i e l d s were greater per uni t o f e f f o r t , the amount o f gear f i shed and the number of hours spent f i s h i n g were reduced cons iderab ly . There occurred a reduct ion o f approximately 29% in the amount o f gear employed in Area 2 between 1932 and 1951. In Area 3 the dec l ined amounted to approximately 19 11% over the same pe r iod . The smal ler dec l ine in Area 3 can be a t t r i bu t ed to a smal ler number o f vesse ls f i s h i n g these waters and a longer f i s h i n g season. Y ie lds on the western grounds were much higher than those on the southern grounds. Because o f t h i s less e f f o r t was required in order to a t t a i n the set quotas. 106 ' The overa l l ob jec t i ve of the Commission was to res tore ha l ibut stocks to near maximum susta inab le y i e l d l e v e l s . This was achieved during the 1932-1951 pe r iod . By e f f e c t i v e l y managing each area of f i s h i n g ground, i t provided fo r stock r es to ra t i on throughout the Eastern P a c i f i c ha l ibut grounds. Shortened F i sh ing Season Impl icat ions Figure 27 shows the length of the f i s h i n g season fo r the 1932-1951 per iod and the sharp dec l ine that occurred on grounds south and west o f Cape Spencer. The annual quotas which were imposed by the Commission were not designed to decrease the length o f the f i s h i n g season. The se t t i ng o f annual quotas was the most e f f e c t i v e means to rep len ish decreased ha l ibu t s tocks . The p o s s i b i l i t y of l a rger economic gains led to the decrease in the durat ion o f the f i s h i n g season, because o f the increase in the number o f vesse l s . This would probably not have occurred had the ha l ibu t f i s h e r y been l e f t unregulated. With un res t r i c t ed entry in to the f i s h e r y , the length o f the f i s h i n g season dec l ined sharp ly . There was a time lag of approximately seven years between the imposi t ion o f quotas, commencing in 1932, and the increase in ha l ibu t landings at ports in northern B r i t i s h Columbia and Southeast A laska . Because o f the in f lux of vesse ls into the ha l ibu t f i s h e r y , the t ime/ d is tance f a c to r between f i s h i n g grounds and landing ports became c r i t i c a l . Each vessel in the ha l ibut f l e e t would attempt to maximize output in the shor tes t time p o s s i b l e , thereby p re f e r r i ng to land catches at those ports c lose to the f i s h i n g grounds. Between 1932 and 1941 the ha l ibu t f l e e t ' s v o l u n t a r i l y i n s t i t u t e d 107 FIGURE 27. LENGTH OF THE FISHING SEASON IN AREA 2 AND AREA 3 1932-1951. I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1932 1934 1936 1938 1940 1942 1944 1946 1948 19501951 N.B. IN 1935 FLEET TIED-UP VOLUNTARILY UNTIL APRIL 1. IN 1943 FLEET TIED-UP UNTIL MAY 20 TO PROTEST OPA PRICES IN 1947 SEATTLE FLEET TIED-UP UNTIL JULY 1 DUE TO SHARE DISPUTE 108 between-trip layover program and vessel quotas tended to r e s t r i c t the number of vesse ls which entered the f i s h e r y . The increase in ha l ibu t pr i ces a f t e r 1939, in p a r t i c u l a r , a t t rac ted a l a rger number o f vesse ls in to the f i she r y and g rea t l y increased compet i t ion fo r the annual quotas. As a r e s u l t of such compet i t ion , and the attempt to minimize the t ime/distance f a c to r to and from f i s h i n g grounds, landings decreased cons iderably at the southern ports o f Sea t t le and Vancouver, but increased in such northern ports as Prince Rupert, Ketchikan, Juneau, Petersburg, S i t k a , and Pe l i c an . I l l u s t r a t i v e o f the s h i f t in vessel movement over the 1932-1951 per iod i s the case o f S ea t t l e . In 1932, when the length of the f i s h i n g season was at i t s longest fo r the p e r i o d , ha l ibu t vesse ls made 1134 landings 20 averaging 19,216 pounds per t r i p at S ea t t l e . By 1951, the number o f landings at t h i s port had dropped to 485, but the average landings o f 21 each vessel had increased s l i g h t l y to 19,879 pounds. As a r e s u l t o f the decreased durat ion of the f i s h i n g season, each vessel would tend to maximize the amount o f time spent in actual f i s h i n g opera t ions . There fo re , the f l e e t found i t j u s t as p r o f i t a b l e to land i t s catch at the northern p o r t s , where s l i g h t l y lower p r i ces p r e v a i l e d , than d e l i v e r the catch to southern ports and lose va luable f i s h i n g t ime. In essence, the shortened f i s h i n g season placed l i m i t a t i o n s on vessel movement wi th in the ha l ibu t indust ry because i t l im i t ed the number of t r i p s any one vessel could make. This meant that fishermen could not gamble on exploratory t r i p s and were forced to r e s t r i c t movement on the f i s h i n g grounds. There fo re , most of the f l e e t ' s e f f o r t was conf ined 109 to the most favourably located grounds where the chances o f secur ing the l a rges t catches in a r e l a t i v e l y short f i s h i n g per iod were h ighest . E s s e n t i a l l y the f l e e t tended to minimize the t ime/distance f ac to r between producing grounds and landing por t s . Table VIII shows that the ha l ibu t f i s h e r y on grounds north of Cape Spencer was ca r r i ed out by a cons iderab ly smal ler f l e e t than on the grounds south o f Cape Spencer. The vessels which f i shed the western grounds were l a rge r and more h igh l y mobile than most o f the vesse ls which f i shed the southern grounds. Therefore they were capable o f ca r r y ing l a rger volumes o f ha l i bu t over greater d i s t ances . Because o f l ess com-p e t i t i o n on the western grounds the f i s h i n g season was longer . This enabled the l a rge r western f i s h i n g vessels to d e l i v e r t h e i r catches to the ports of Sea t t l e and Vancouver, s ince pr i ces at ports in west centra l Alaska were cons iderab ly lower. In a d d i t i o n , p r a c t i c a l l y a l l vesse ls operat ing on the western grounds were American-owned and th i s r esu l t ed in cons iderab ly greater landings at Sea t t le than at Vancouver. A large number o f American v e s s e l s , however, d id e l e c t to d e l i v e r catches to Pr ince Rupert. The extent to which pr i ces paid an important ro l e in a l l o c a t i o n of the ha l ibu t catch i s borne out by the s i t u a t i o n which ex is ted in 1943. In Ju ly o f 1943, the U. S. O f f i c e of Pr ice Admin is t ra t ion es tab l i shed 22 pr i ce p a r i t y between Sea t t l e and Pr ince Rupert fo r f resh ha l i bu t . This move was made to reduce the sharp increases in ha l i bu t pr i ces during the war. This resu l ted in landings ceasing e n t i r e l y at Sea t t l e and increas ing at Pr ince Rupert f o r the remainder of the season. In 1944 due to industry Table VIII Vesse l , Manpower, and Catch Trends 1943-1951 TOTAL CANADIAN Area 2 Area 3 Vessels Men Vessels Men Vessels Men 1943 519 2770 162 767 3 24 1944 573 7654 278 831 4 34 1945 591 2983 175 867 3 26 1946 681 3287 187 952 5 41 1947 689 3397 215 1168 5. 40 1948 796 3851 249 1221 5 39 1949 753 3782 225 1153 5 41 1950 816 4050 235 1210 5 39 1951 820 4077 270 1346 8 66 Source: Internat ional P a c i f i c Hal ibut Commission P a c i f i c Fisherman Yearbook(s). AMERICAN Total Catch Area 2 Area 3 M i l l . Vessels ; Men Vessels Men l b s . Area 2 Area 3 247 1037 107 942 53.6 24.8 28.3 278 1056 84 753 53.3 26.1 26.9 316 1253 97 837 54.6 24.9 29.1 373 1373 116 921 60.2 28.5 31.1 350 1302 119 887 55.9 27.5 27.9 403 1496 139 1095 55.4 27.4 27.7 314 1452 149 1134 55.0 26.0 28.5 426 1654 150 1147 57.2 26.7 30.1 394 1574 148 1091 56.0 30.6 25.1 Reports. I l l p ro t e s t , the OPA es tab l i shed a p r i ce d i f f e r e n t i a l between Sea t t l e and Pr ince Rupert, and reduced p r i ce d i s p a r i t y between Alaska and Pr ince 23 Rupert. T h i s , in turn led to increases in Alaska landings and increased landings at S ea t t l e . Company a l l o c a t i o n of landings during 1944-1945 had a minor e f f e c t on port landings because the amount each company was a l l o t e d was based on a f i v e year average p r i o r to 1944. Government in te rven t ion to regulate pr ices terminated l a t e in 1945 a f t e r the war had ended. The westward s h i f t s in output from f i s h i n g grounds and o f landings resu l ted in the co ld storage sector of the industry becoming more impor-tant in the northern areas. Although co ld storage f a c i l i t i e s had been located at such ports in the 1913-1931 pe r i od , most landings were made at Ketchikan and Pr ince Rupert. With increased a c t i v i t y on the northern and western grounds, more favourable p r i c e s , and the shortened f i s h i n g season, excess-capaci ty no longer ex is ted in the co ld storage sector o f the northern por t s . P lant c apac i t i e s at the smal ler p o r t s , however, were much smal ler than those at Pr ince Rupert. The smal ler co ld storage plants sca t te red throughout Alaska were mainly s a t e l l i t e operat ions of the large Sea t t l e based companies, and were es tab l i shed in conjunct ion with westward s h i f t s in the catching sec to r . Most o f the ha l ibu t was then shipped to Sea t t l e by packer/ f re ighte r fo r d i s t r i b u t i o n in the North American market. Some quant i t i e s of f resh ha l i bu t were marketed through Pr ince Rupert, but i t was cheaper to ship ha l ibu t d i r e c t from Alaska 24 points to Seat t le than to ship v ia Pr ince Rupert. This was because regular shipping l i nes operated between Alaska and Sea t t l e . 112 Unres t r i c ted Entry Table IX shows the sharp increase in the number o f vesse ls and men engaged in the P a c i f i c ha l ibu t f i she r y over the 1932-1951 pe r iod . Such an increase was i nve r se l y proport iona l to the length of the ha l ibu t f i s h i n g season during the same per iod . Although some new ha l ibu t vesse ls were cons t ruc ted , the greates t increase in the s i z e o f the f l e e t r esu l t ed from non-regular ha l ibu t boat movement into the f i s h e r y . This movement was encouraged by the improvement in ha l ibu t s tocks , the low cap i t a l costs incurred in enter ing the f i s h e r y , an improvement in ha l ibu t p r i c e s , and the decreasing length o f the f i s h i n g season f o r ha l i bu t . The ha l i bu t catch increased from 43.6 m i l l i o n pounds in 1932 to 56.0 m i l l i o n pounds in 1951. The number o f vesse ls engaged in the ha i i bu t f i s h e r y increased from 407 to 820 over the same pe r iod . A 22% increase in catch was taken by a f l e e t which increased i t s s i z e by 100%. The amount o f e f f o r t expended decreased, however. The fac t that a l a rger catch was taken in fa r l ess time r e f l e c t e d greater ha l i bu t abundance on the grounds. The to ta l amount o f e f f o r t decreased 22%, from 709.8 thousand skates in 1932 to 556.8 thousand skates in 1951, and the y i e l d per 25 skate increased from 65.5 to 102.0 pounds. The Commission did not r e s t r i c t entry in to the ha l ibut f i s h e r y , but from time to time took measures to prevent fo re ign in te res t s (e .g . the B r i t i s h ) from engaging in the e x p l o i t a t i o n o f the P a c i f i c ha l ibut resource . The dec id ing f a c to r which determined whether or not any given number o f vesse ls would enter the f i s h e r y was re l a ted p r ima r i l y to market cond i t i ons . I f p r i ces were h igh , vesse ls from other sectors of the f i s h i n g indust ry found i t economically worthwhile to engage in the ha l ibu t f i s h e r y . When 113 Table IX Number of Vessels and Men in the P a c i f i c Ha l ibut F leet 1932- 1951 Vessels and Boats M e n Year U.S. Canadian Total U.S. Canadian Tota l 1932 322 85 407 1588 350 1938 1933 301 83 384 1569 334 1903 1934 323 115 438 1632 454 2086 1935 303 129 432 1637 494 2131 1936 335 135 470 1734 585 2319 1937 373 158 531 1852 652 2504 1938 345 164 509 1855 693 2548 1939 335 180 515 1906 760 2666 1940 377 172 549 2096 752 2848 1941 397 179 576 2247 833 3080 1942 342 155 497 1894 733 2627 1943 354 165 519 1979 791 2770 1944 362 211 573 1809 865 2774 1945 413 178 591 2090 893 2983 1946 489 192 681 2294 993 3287 1947 469 220 689 2189 1208 3397 1948 542 254 796 2591 1260 3851 1949 523 230 753 2586 1194 3780 1950 576 240 816 2801 1249 4050 1951 542 278 820 2665 1412 4077 Source: P a c i f i c Fisherman Yearbook(s) passim. 114 pr i ces f e l l , as they did in the ea r l y stages of the f i s h e r y , vessels would drop out and return again when pr ices reached favourable l e v e l s . There fore , the vessels engaged in the f i she r y on a regular basis suf fe red from the i n f l u x of vessels from other sectors o f the indus t ry . The problem of managing a common property resource such as ha l ibut i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f a l l major f i s h e r i e s . Since no one ind i v idua l has contro l over the resource , exp lo i t a t i on i s open to those who wish to enter the f i s h e r y . This w i l l continue un t i l the bionomic y i e l d i s reached, or when average costs equal average revenues. A statement made by a f i s h i n g company manager engaged in the P a c i f i c f i s h i n g indust ry sums up the behavior of fishermen and f i rms qu i te w e l l : "The br ight sun o f p rosper i t y shines fo r a season or two upon regular stand-bys in the business and i t looks very a t t r a c t i v e and i n v i t i n g to some chaps with an o ld vessel or a l i t t l e spare money. So they jump in and f o r a time cut a b r i l l i a n t dash in the bus iness . So br ight are they that the sun of p rosper i t y i s a l l in e c l i p se and everyone in the trade walks in shadow. When they get t i r e d of t h i s , or broke, they drop out , and those who are l e f t p ick up the scat tered ends of the t r ade , s t rugg le out in the l i g h t again and by and by there i s some more p ro spe r i t y , and then a new crop of hopeful Of. investors appears and so on , and o n . " Between 1932 and 1939, low ha l ibu t p r i ces combined with the vo luntary layover program kept down the number o f vesse ls which entered the f i s h e r y . 115 From 1940 onwards, however, with the exception of 1942, when a number of vesse ls were assigned wartime d u t i e s , there was a steady increase in the number o f vesse ls engaged in the ha l ibu t f i s h e r y . T h i s , in pa r t , was re la ted to strong ha l ibu t pr ices throughout the remainder o f the per iod . The l a rges t increase occurred in the Canadian sector of the f l e e t which increased in s i z e from 85 to 270 ve s se l s , an increase of 329%. The American f l e e t increased 68% from 322 to 542 vessels over the pe r iod . V i r t u a l l y a l l vessels which entered the ha l ibu t f i she r y on a part-time bas is belonged to the large salmon f l e e t o f the P a c i f i c Northwest. With the continued decrease in the durat ion of the ha l ibu t f i s h i n g season, the ha l ibu t and salmon f i s h e r i e s no longer overlapped to any s i g n i f i c a n t extent . Since the most product ive part of the ha l ibu t season occurred before the salmon f i she r y reached i t s peak, a greater number of se iners and t r o l l e r s found i t convenient to engage in the ha l i bu t f i she r y part-t ime. Because o f cheaper conversion costs in switching from the salmon f i she r y (e .g . se in ing) to the ha l ibu t f i s h e r y ( l o n g l i n i n g ) , the regu lar ha l ibu t boats d id not have the same degree of freedom of entry in to the salmon f i s h e r y . With decreased returns from the shortened ha l ibu t f i s h e r y , however, a greater number of regu lar ha l ibu t boats were forced to engage in other sectors of the f i s h i n g indus t ry . This in turn led to an increase in the number o f mult i-purpose vesse ls engaged in the Eastern P a c i f i c f i s h i n g indus t ry . The rep len ished ha l ibu t stocks on the southern grounds in p a r t i c u l a r made i t poss ib le fo r small boats ( less than 5-10 tons) to play a more important ro l e in the ha l ibu t f i s h e r y throughout the 1932-1951 pe r iod . In the ea r l y phase o f the f i s h e r y , the day-to-day operat ing sector 116 decreased in importance because of dep le t ion o f stocks on f i s h i n g grounds c lose to shore. Once the cond i t ion of ha l ibu t stocks improved, a l a rge r number of the smal ler vesse ls entered the f i s h e r y during the t h i r d per iod . This sector of the f i s h e r y was conf ined mainly to the west coast of B r i t i s h Columbia and A laska . In the main the l im i t ed range and capac i ty o f the small boat f i she r y vesse ls resu l ted in them not being able to use ports such as Pr ince Rupert f o r headquarters. There fore , they r e l i e d on the packer system to d e l i v e r catches from the more i so l a t ed areas. The increased ro le o f small boats during the per iod accounts fo r the increased landings o f ha l ibu t on Vancouver Island and the north centra l coast of B r i t i s h Columbia. In the ea r l y years o f the P a c i f i c ha l ibu t f i s h e r y , high f i s h i n g costs combined with low ha l ibu t p r i ces played a major ro l e in determining the number o f vesse ls which entered the ha l ibu t f i s h e r y . This was e s p e c i a l l y the case a f t e r resource dep le t ion on the near shore grounds led to a t r u l y deep sea f i s h e r y requ i r ing greater c ap i t a l out lay requirements fo r l a rge r vesse l s . Because o f investment from outs ide the i ndus t r y , as well as w i t h i n , a l a rge r number o f vesse ls entered the ha l ibu t f i s h e r y in the 1913-1931 pe r iod . By the end of the 1932-1951 pe r i od , the f i s h i n g indust ry i n f r a s t ru c tu r e o f the P a c i f i c Northwest had developed to the stage whereby d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of e f f o r t was poss ib l e on a much l a rge r s ca l e . This resu l ted in f ree movement of vesse ls from the indust ry in gene ra l , to the ha l ibu t f i s h e r y in p a r t i c u l a r , and led to a much l a rge r-s i zed ha l i bu t f l e e t . 117 References 1. B e l l , F. Heward, "Eastern P a c i f i c Hal ibut F ishery 1888-1966" F ishery Lea f l e t 602, U.S. Dept.of the In te r io r U.S. F ish and W i l d l i f e Serv i ce . Bureau o f Commercial F i s h e r i e s . Wash.,D.C. August 1968. p.7. 2. Ib id , p.2. 3. Ib id , p.p. 4 ,5 . 4. Ib id , pp. 4 ,5 . 5. Urquhart , M.C. and K.A.H. Buckley (eds.) H i s t o r i c a l S t a t i s t i c s o f Canada. Sponsored by Canadian P o l i t i c a l Science Assoc i a t i on and Soc ia l Science Research Counci l of Canada. The Un i ve rs i t y Press - Cambridge. 1965. p. 395. 6. P a c i f i c Fisherman Yearbook. 1933. p. 149. 7. P a c i f i c Fisherman Yearbook(s). 1932-1951. passim. 8. P a c i f i c Fisherman Yearbook. 1932. p. 148 9. Thompson, W. F. and N.L. Freeman., "H i s to ry of the P a c i f i c Ha l ibut F i she r y . " Report Number 5. Internat ional F i s h -e r i es Commission. Vancouver 1930. p. 46. 10. Thompson, W. F., H. A. Dunlop, and F. H. B e l l . , " B i o l og i c a l S t a t i s t i c s o f the P a c i f i c Ha l ibut F i shery " Report Number 6. IFC. Vancouver, 1931. p. 35. 11. B e l l , F. Heward, B i o l og i c a l and Economic Aspects of F i she r i e s Management. Un i ve rs i t y of Washington, S e a t t l e , Wash., 1959, p. 59. 12. B e l l , F. H. "The Incidental Capture of Hal ibut by Various Gear Types . " Report Number 23. Internat ional P a c i f i c Ha l ibut Commission. S e a t t l e , Wash. 1956. p. 5. 13. Ib id , p. 5. 14. P a c i f i c Fisherman Yearbook. 1957. p. 193. 15. Ib id , p. 193 16. P a c i f i c Fisherman Yearbook. 1953. p. 223. 118 17. Ib id , p. 223. 18. Ib id , p. 225. 19. Chapman, D.G. , R.J. Myhre, and G. M. Southward, " U t i l i z a t i o n o f P a c i f i c Ha l ibut Stocks: Est imat ion of Maximum Susta inable Y i e l d , 1960. Report Number 31, IPHC. S e a t t l e , 1962 p. 33. 20. P a c i f i c Fisherman Yearbook. 1933. p. 150. 21. P a c i f i c Fisherman Yearbook. 1953. p. 233. 22. P a c i f i c Fisherman Yearbook. 1944. pp. 297-298. 23. P a c i f i c Fisherman Yearbook. 1945. p. 291. 24. P a c i f i c Fisherman Yearbook. 1944. P. 300. 25. Chapman, D.G. et a l , op, c i t . p. 33. 26. Overton, C P . "P ioneers in the P a c i f i c Coast Codf ish-Industry" in P a c i f i c Fisherman Yearbook. 1906. Sea t t l e 1906. p. 71. 119 Chapter VI Spat ia l Encompassment, F leet Dec l ine , and Sustained Y ie lds 1952-1972 The previous per iod was charac ter ized by a h igh ly compet i t ive f i she r y during which unres t r i c t ed entry increased the underemployment of v e s s e l s , men and gear. Although annual quotas p reva i l ed throughout the p e r i o d , the operat ion of the ha l ibu t f l e e t centred around extreme competi t ion f o r a share of those quotas. This was to continue un t i l the end of the 1955 f i s h i n g season when the f l e e t agreed again upon a voluntary layover between f i s h i n g t r i p s . This move resu l ted in a decrease in the s i ze o f the ha l ibu t f l e e t , a greater i n t e r e s t in mult i-purpose v e s s e l s , and a longer f i s h i n g season. In essence, t h i s was conducive to a more r a t i o n a l l y organized and conducted ha l ibu t f i s h e r y . The 1952-1972 per iod saw the extension of the f i s h e r y into the Bering Sea from which only i so l a t ed catches had been taken during previous years . Such extension coupled with less competi t ion with in the f l e e t , expansion wi th in the co ld storage s e c t o r , and genera l l y higher p r i ces r esu l t ed in g rea t l y increased ha l ibu t landings at f a r western Alaskan ports and s t r i k i n g dec l ines at some of the more southern and longer es tab l i shed ha l i bu t cent res . Regu-l a to r y and conservat ion programs of the Internat ional P a c i f i c Ha l ibut Commission (IPHC) led to record high landings during the pe r i od . The commencement o f Russian and Japanese f i s h i n g operat ions in the Bering Sea in the l a t e f i f t i e s and ea r l y s i x t i e s placed added s t r a i n on ha l ibu t stocks in fa r western waters. In pa r t , t h i s led to a l l time low quotas and catches during the f i n a l years of the 1952-1972 per iod and a phenomenal increase in ha l ibu t p r i c e s . 120 Spa t i a l S t ructure Figure 28 shows the general spa t i a l s t ruc ture o f the ha l ibu t indust ry during the 1952-1972 per iod . The f i she r y expanded to new grounds r e s u l t i n g in an increase in the spa t i a l range o f the catching sector over the previous per iod . There was l ess tendency fo r some vesse ls to land part of t he i r catch at the northern ra i l head port o f Pr ince Rupert. The r i s e o f important secondary ports in f a r western Alaska resu l ted in increased landings of ha l ibu t being d iver ted to these l o c a t i o n s . Expansion of ha l ibu t f a c i l i t i e s at Bel l ingham, j u s t north of S e a t t l e , led to that port developing into a major ha l ibu t cen t re . The decrease in the number of vesse ls operat ing in the f l e e t reduced overa l l movement wi th in the indus t ry . As in the spa t i a l s t ruc tu re o f the previous pe r i od , the small boat f i s h e r y continued to be an in tegra l component o f the indus t ry . F igure 29 shows that there was a cons iderab le d i f f e r ence between the pattern of landings by port in t h i s most recent per iod from that which ex i s ted in the 1932-1951 pe r iod . Landings at Sea t t le dec l ined sharply while those at Pr ince Rupert remained r e l a t i v e l y s t ab l e . Vancouver and Ketchikan increased t h e i r l and ings , and there was l i t t l e change in landings at the secondary ports near the southern grounds. During the p e r i o d , however, a number o f important ha l ibu t ports developed wi th in the indus t ry . Vessels e lec ted to land t h e i r catch at a greater degree o f de cen t r a l i z a t i on than was the case in e i t he r of the e a r l i e r pe r iods . These new ports had not developed large independent f l e e t s . This meant that they were l a r g e l y dependent on vesse ls from other ports fo r the ha l i bu t landings they rece i ved . SIZE O F T H E S Q U A R E P R O P O R T I O N A L T O A V E R A G E A N N U A L L A N D I N G S F O R T H E PERIOD, O N E Q U A R T E R INCH S Q U A R E E Q U A L S 8 MILLION POUNDS KODIAK WEST CENTRAL ALASKA PORTS (EXC'L KODIAK) OTHER PORTS KETCHIKAN SOUTHEAST ALASKA PORTS (EXC'L KETCHIKAN) PRINCE RUPERT SEATTLE BELLINGHAM VANCOUVER FIGURE 29. DEGREE OF CENTRALIZATION OF LANDINGS 1952-1972. 'to ro 123 Average annual ha l ibu t landings during the 1952-1972 per iod approximated 62 m i l l i o n pounds compared to 52.4 m i l l i o n pounds in the previous pe r iod . The increase resu l ted from spa t i a l extension of the f i she r y to new grounds and increased catches from the prev ious ly exp lo i ted grounds. The tendency fo r vesse ls to land part of t h e i r catch at ports r e l a t i v e l y c lose to the major ha l ibu t grounds south o f Cape Spencer increased s l i g h t l y , whereas average annual landings from grounds west of Cape Spencer increased from 24.8 to 35.8 m i l l i o n pounds.* This r ep re -sented an increase from 49% to 57% of to ta l average annual landings over the two per iods . Most of the increase on the western grounds was assoc ia ted with the development of the Bering Sea ha l ibu t banks. Land-ings in t h i s region increased from 265 thousand pounds in 1952 to 8.1 2 m i l l i o n pounds in 1963. Apart from expansion of the ha l i bu t f i s h e r y to the Bering Sea, there was l i t t l e spa t i a l v a r i a t i on in the operat ion o f the catch ing sec tor over the various ha l ibu t grounds throughout the 1952-1972 pe r iod . S i g n i f i c a n t changes, however, occurred in the landing/process ing sector of the indust ry . The ports o f Bel l ingham, in Washington, and Seward, Kodiak, and Sand Point in west centra l Alaska developed in to major ha l i bu t cent res . Expansion at Bell ingham was re l a ted to the i n i t i a t i v e of buyers at that port and the const ruc t ion o f a large co ld storage p lant . The increase in landings at f a r western loca t ions was i n d i r e c t l y re l a ted to increased landings from the extreme western grounds. Developments at these ports w i l l be examined more c l o s e l y l a t e r in t h i s chapter . The most s i g n i f i c a n t changes in the pattern of ha l ibu t landings were assoc ia ted with the dec l i ne of S e a t t l e ' s ro l e in the primary landing phase 124 of the ha l ibu t i ndus t r y , and the emergence o f Kodiak as the second l e ad -ing ha l i bu t landing port of the Eastern P a c i f i c . Ha l ibut landings at Sea t t le decreased from 18% of the to ta l catch in 1952 to 4% in 1 9 7 1 . 3 Kodiak's share went from v i r t u a l l y no landings in 1952 to 20% of the 4 to ta l catch in 1971. Landings at Pr ince Rupert were s u f f i c i e n t fo r the port to maintain i t s pos i t i on as "the ha l ibu t cap i t a l o f the world'.' Mainly on the basis of an increase in the Canadian percentage of the c a t c h , Vancouver landings increased cons iderab ly during the pe r i od . F igure 30 shows the extent o f f i s h i n g over the Eastern P a c i f i c ha l i bu t grounds, and catches from var ious sectors of the grounds during the 1952-1972 pe r iod . With the extension o f f i s h i n g operat ions in to the Bering Sea, a l l f i s h i n g banks (ha l ibut ) of the Eastern P a c i f i c had come under varying degrees o f pressure . As a r e s u l t , f i s h i n g was being c a r r i e d out approximately 2500 mi les from the most souther ly po r t s . The southern ports of S e a t t l e , Be l l ingham, and Vancouver, in p a r t i c u l a r only accounted fo r a r e l a t i v e l y small proport ion of ha l i bu t taken on the most wester ly banks in the Bering Sea area. With decreased compet i t ion fo r annual quotas, extension of co ld storage f a c i l i t i e s at western p o i n t s , a reduct ion in p r i ce d i s p a r i t y o f ha l ibu t p r i ces at ports throughout the en t i r e r eg ion , and increased durat ion o f the f i s h i n g season, there occurred a more wester ly s h i f t in ha l ibu t landings during the per iod (F igure 31). During the l a t e nineteen f i f t i e s and ea r l y nineteen s i x t i e s , Commission quota cont ro ls were designed to t e s t maximum susta inab le y i e l d s o f most banks. This accounts for the record high catches which were a t ta ined dur ing the pe r iod . This was e s p e c i a l l y app l i cab le to the most product ive grounds from northern B r i t i s h Columbia waters FIGURE 30. AVERAGE ANNUAL CATCH FROM VARIOUS GROUNDS 1952-1972. 127 westward. The strong reversa l in landing prac t i ces at f a r western l o c a t i o n s , which accompanied the westward s h i f t in ca t ch , was much d i f f e r e n t than those of previous per iods . Between 1952 and 1971, Washington's percentage o f the to ta l catch decreased cons iderab ly from 21 to 10 per cent ; B r i t i s h Columbia landings decreased from 42 to 38 per cen t ; whi le landings in Alaska increased from 35 to 51 per cent of the to ta l yea r l y ca tch . Figure 32 shows the yea r l y catch f o r the en t i r e region during the 1952-1972 pe r i od , and yea r l y landings o f ha l ibu t in Washington, B r i t i s h Columbia, and A laska . In 1971 the Canadian f l e e t accounted f o r 54.6% of the en t i r e P a c i f i c ha l ibu t ca t ch .^ The increased tendency during the per iod fo r Canadian vesse ls to land greater quan t i t i e s o f ha l ibu t at Washington and Alaska ports expla ins the discrepancy between the Canadian catch and landings at B r i t i s h Columbia por t s . With increased landings by American vesse ls in Alaska as w e l l , Pr ince Rupert, in p a r t i c u l a r l o s t ground to Alaskan, por t s . Landings by American vessels at Canadian ports decreased from 3.0 m i l l i o n pounds in 1952 6 to 1.5 m i l l i o n pounds in 1971. Canadian landings at American ports increased from 974 thousand pounds to 9.2 m i l l i o n pounds over the same per iod . In add i t i on to increased Canadian landings at Alaskan ports during the 1952-1972 pe r i od , landings by Canadian vesse ls at Washington ports increased as w e l l . Most of the landings at the l a t t e r l oca t ions were made by Vancouver-based vessels that took advantage o f higher ha l ibu t pr i ces and the greater par value of the American d o l l a r . From 1961 onwards such vesse ls benef i ted from the opening o f a la rge co ld storage plant at Bel l ingham, Washington, a short d is tance south o f Vancouver. Despite 126* YEARLY CATCH LANDED IN WASHINGTON LANDED IN BRITISH COLUMBIA LANDED IN ALASKA. 129 increased Canadian landings at Washington p o r t s , in add i t ion to landings by the Puget Sound f l e e t , Washington landings reached an a l l time low. Table X shows the trends in ha l ibu t landings at each of the four periods of development. A l a ska ' s increased percentage o f the t o t a l catch co r re l a t es s t rong ly with greater catches from grounds west o f Cape Spencer at each stage of development. This p a r t i a l l y expla ins the r i s e o f such ha l ibu t centres as Kodiak, Sand Po in t , and Seward in west centra l A laska . Table XI shows the general trends in ha l ibu t landings at each of the f i v e major port areas throughout the four periods of development. Aga in , the increased ro le of west centra l Alaska in ha l ibu t landings was re l a ted to exp lo i t a t i on of ha l i bu t grounds in that area . Figure 32 shows that a more even d i s t r i b u t i o n o f landings by sub-region was a t ta ined during the 1952-1972 pe r iod . With the in t roduc t ion 8 of the seven-day layover program in 1956 , there was an increased t e n -dency fo r vesse ls to land part of t h e i r catch at home por t s . This r e -su l t ed in landings being more near ly propor t iona l to the number of vessels operat ing out o f the var ious ports in each sub-region. A dec l i ne in the number of vesse ls in the ha l ibu t f l e e t from the ea r l y s i x t i e s onwards, decreased compet i t ion cons iderab ly . As a r e s u l t , the S e a t t l e , Vancouver, and Pr ince Rupert based f l e e t s spent more time f i s h i n g f a r western Alaskan waters, and e lec ted to land a cons iderab le percentage o f t h e i r catch at ports in western A laska . The breakdown of landings by ports i s given in Table XII and rep -resents approximately 95% of to ta l landings during the 1952-1972 pe r iod . The remaining landings were made mainly by the small boat f i s h e r y at a cons iderab le number of s t a t ions from Washington to A laska . The emergence Table X % Of Total Per iod Wash. Catch 1888-1912 13,519 61 1913-1931 15,046 31 1932-1951 16,428 31 1952-1972 13,890 22 Landings by Sub-Region fo r Four Periods and Percentage Catch From Grounds West o f % Of Total B.C. Catch Alaska 7074 34 1000 25749 52 8168 21149 41 14837 24800 40 23600 Each of the of the Tota l Cape Spencer % Of % Of Total Catch Total From Grounds West Catch Of C. Spencer 5 17 41 28 49 38 57 CO o Table XI Average Annual Landings in M i l l i o n s of Pounds, and Percentage o f Tota l Average Annual Catch By Port Area For Each Per iod Puget-, Lower 2 Pr ince 3 Southeast, West C e n t r a l 5 Period Sound Mainland Rupert Area A laska ' Alaska 1888-1912 13.5 M i l l . (61%) 5.9 M i l l . (27%) .1 M i l l . (.4%) 1.0 M i l l . ( 5%) — 1913-1931 15.4 M i l l . (31%) 3.0 M i l l . ( 6%) 18.7 M i l l . (38%) 9.6 M i l l . (19%) 1.1 M i l l . ( 2%) 1932-1951 16.4 M i l l . (31%) 2.5 M i l l . (.555) 15.7 M i l l . (31%) 13.0 M i l l . (25%) 1.0 M i l l . ( 2%) 1952-1972 13.8 M i l l . (22%) 5.5 M i l l . (8% ) 17.0 M i l l . (27%) 15.9 M i l l . (26%) 7.7 M i l l . (12%) 1. Puget Sound includes S e a t t l e , Bellingham and a number of minor por ts . 2. Lower Mainland includes Vancouver and immediate area , i . e . Steveston. 3. Pr ince Rupert Area includes Pr ince Rupert, Butedale, and Queen Char lo t te Is land Po r t s , i . e . Masset. 4. Southeast Alaska includes Ketchikan, Wrangel l , Petersburg, Juneau, P e l i c an , S i tka and minor por t s . 5. West C. Alaska includes Seward, Kodiak, Sand Po in t , Cordova, Port W i l l i ams , Se ldov ia and minor por t s . Table XII P a c i f i c Hal ibut Landings By Port 1952-1971 ('000 lbs . ) Year Seat t le Be l l - Prince inqham Vancouver Rupert Ketchikan Wran-ge l l Peters -burg S i tka Pe l i can Juneau Cordova Seward Kodiak Sand Point 1952 11299 (400) 2400 19686 7696 430 3022 2023 2244 2645 __ __ 676 1953 12985 (500) 4572 18086 4823 368 2847 1662 2829 1706 689 -- -- 1027 1954 16140 (600) 5892 18187 5611 376 4117 2382 3020 3382 725 -- -- 1041 1955 13755 (750) 5230 14626 3811 298 3393 1040 2621 2679 693 -- — .1900 1956 13527 (800) 7631 15827 7639 727 4151 1772 2215 3049 — — — 1295 1957 14496 (900) 5651 15689 5741 660 3703 1359 1879 2364 — -- 1340 1958 16976 910 5610 14901 6992 521 3497 1179 2449 2085 -- — 2900 1959 20148 775 5609 14706 9443 773 3384 984 2232 2367 -- -- — ^ 4545 1960 18166 1789 8495 15733 6263 660 3972 1234 1973 2054 -- — 116 2946 1961 13070 3047 6782 16915 9498 670 5338 1534 1693 1698 . 17 87 119 2947 1962 10844 5321 4527 17786 10806 747 5904 1333 1910 1912 62 619 2259 4750 1963 11879 3685 5783 17981 8008 405 3963 1210 1344 2169 52 1005 3425 4305 1964 9119 2570 5739 18837 7052 298 4248 472 1162 1235 34 — 2326 3843 1965 6103 2346 4012 20401 8749 363 5035 1090 1528 1824 — 666 4382 3070 1966 4068* 3638 4067 18449 8346 385 4198 1229 2183 2131 76 1167 3405 3704 1967 8176 2087 7048 9838* 7734 401 4818 753 1358 1961 — 1238 4206 2487 1968 8667 3854 7315 13327 3325 197 3018 510 643 1022 11 381 2646 1566 1969 7089 2564 5718 19423 3266 554 4838 790 1506 1601 13 294 6338 1492 1970 3929 3255 4573 15167 2875 652 3806 720 1405 1717 15 4046 8698 1764 1971 2005 2664 3996 12847 2371 811 2589 1263 1446 1223 — 3611 9217 684 * Due to vessel share dispute the Seat t le f l e e t d id not depart fo r f i s h i n g grounds u n t i l May 1, although season opened March 25. * S t r i ke at Pr ince Rupert CO ro 133 of major new ha l ibut centres during the per iod contr ibuted to fu r the r increased decen t r a l i z a t i on o f the landing/process ing sec tor . There occur r -ed increased competit ion amongst the ha l ibu t ports fo r a share of to ta l catches throughout the per iod . The port to su f f e r most from such d i v e r -s i f i c a t i o n of landings was Sea t t l e . Sand Po in t , Alaska developed into a major centre fo r part of the pe r iod . However, heavy f i s h i n g pressure on Bering Sea stocks a f t e r 1963 resu l ted in a cons iderab le decrease in ca tch . Sand Po in t ' s ro le in the industry was centred around e x p l o i t a -t ion of the Bering Sea grounds. There fore , the port dec l ined with the decrease in catches from the Bering Sea. In 1970 landings at Kodiak surpassed those of Seat t le and replaced the l a t t e r as the second leading ha l ibut centre o f the Eastern P a c i f i c in terms of primary l and ings . As in previous pe r i ods , Seat t le maintained i t s dominant pos i t i on as the leading marketing and admin is t ra t i ve centre for the indust ry as a whole. Most of the ha l ibu t frozen in Alaska continued to be forwarded to f i n a l markets v ia Sea t t l e . Greater landings by the l a rger vessels outs ide the longer es tab l i shed centres occurred as a r e su l t o f decreased d i s p a r i t y in port ha l ibu t p r i ces and the extended length o f the f i s h i n g season. Table XIII shows the percentage of the to ta l catch landed at the leading ha l i bu t ports fo r var ious years throughout a l l four per iods . The dec l ine o f the o lder ports and the inc reas ing importance of emerging ports i s qu i te apparent. By the end of the 1952-1972 pe r i od , ports with r e l a t i v e l y large f l e e t s were no longer assured of large landings of 9 ha l i bu t . For example, Sea t t l e with a f l e e t o f approximately 50 vesse ls in 1971 rece ived only 4% o f the to ta l ca t ch , whereas Kodiak with a much Table XIII Percent of the Total Catch Landed Prince Peters-Year Seat t le Vancouver Rupert Ketchikan burg S i tka 1900 (50) (24) — — 1912 (37) 28 5 (9) 1 1920 27 7 41 13 1 2 1931 34 2 38 13 1 <1 1940 35 3 34 7 3 2 1951 17 5 44 9 5 3 1960 25 13 23 9 5 1 1971 4 8 27 5 5 3 Source: P a c i f i c Fisherman Yearbook(s). IPHC Reports. at Each Port f o r Various Years Sand Pe l ican Juneau Seward Kodiak Point Bel 1ingham — < 1 — — -- — — < 1 — — — — — 3 <1 — — — <1 3 <1 — — — 4 4 <1 — 1 <1 3 3 <1 <1 4 <1 3 3 8 20 1 6 135 smal ler f l e e t accounted for 20% of the to ta l ca tch . Better marketing f a c i l i t i e s at western loca t ions no longer favoured frequent movement be-tween home port and the major ha l ibu t producing grounds. The one exception being Pr ince Rupert with a f l e e t numbering approximately 80 vessels in 1971, most of which f i shed short d is tances from the po r t , and e lec ted to land t he i r catches at home por t . Spat ia l i n t e rac t i on between the catch ing and landing/process ing sectors of the ha l ibu t indust ry underwent fu r ther t ransformat ion dur ing the pe r iod . T h i s , in pa r t , was l a rge l y re l a ted to vessel behav ior , although fu r ther expansion in the co ld storage sector o f the i ndus t r y , increased decen t r a l i z a t i on o f landings amongst the var ious por t s . During the previous pe r i ods , exp lo i t a t i on of grounds west o f Cape Spencer was not accompanied by any major s h i f t in landings of ha l ibu t to that region despi te the presence of co ld storage f a c i l i t i e s . The s h i f t westward was r e f l e c t e d in fewer vesse ls e l e c t i ng to land catches at ports fu r ther south. For example, the number o f ha l i bu t vessel d e l i v e r i e s to Seat t le decreased from 514 in 1 9 5 2 1 0 to j u s t 22 in 1 9 7 2 . 1 1 By the end of the 1952-1972 per iod there was every i nd i c a t i on that these ports in western Alaska would continue to account f o r a l a rge percentage o f the to ta l annual ca tch . P r i o r to 1950 rec ip roca l port p r i v i l e g e s were maintained on a year to year bas i s . In 1950, the Convention Between the United States and Canada fo r the Extension of Port P r i v i l eges to Ha l ibut F ish ing Vessels was s igned. This move contr ibuted to a more harmonious f i s h e r y s ince i t es tab l i shed by Convention what was p rev ious l y an ad hoc arrangement. The Hal ibut Convention of 1953 changed the name of the ha l ibu t 136 regu la tory body from the Internat ional F i sher i es Commission to the Internat ional P a c i f i c Ha l ibut Commission (IPHC). The Commission was d i rec ted by the American and Canadian governments to take measures to provide fo r maximum susta inab le y i e l d s wi th in the f i s h e r y . As a r e s u l t , c e r t a i n sect ions o f grounds were only open fo r part of the f i s h i n g season, and in both areas (2 and 3) a sp l i t-season was in t roduced. In Area 2, an extra f i s h i n g per iod o f seven days l as ted un t i l 1960, a f t e r the main f i s h i n g season had ended. An Area 3, the same pattern of sp l i t-seasons was s t i l l in e f f e c t at the end of the 1972 f i s h i n g season. This management move was designed to concentrate e f f o r t in r e l a t i o n to a v a i l a b i l i t y of ha l ibu t at d i f f e r e n t times of the year over sect ions o f the grounds. Funct ional S t ructure The funct iona l s t ruc ture o f the indust ry remained unchanged from the previous per iod with the except ion o f an increas ing tendency to bypass the ha l ibu t exchange. At Pr ince Rupert in p a r t i c u l a r , members o f the Pr ince Rupert Fisherman's Co-Operative Assoc ia t ion were s e l l i n g t h e i r catch d i r e c t to the co-operat ive . Other vesse ls in the ha l ibu t f l e e t were a lso s e l l i n g d i r e c t to other f i rms in the indus t ry . This was causing concern because i t was f e l t that the exchange was mainta in ing p r i ces o f fe red to f ishermen. If more and more fishermen were to s e l l t h e i r catch d i r e c t to buyers then the whole marketing s t ruc ture would be placed in jeopardy. 137 Industry Control The shortened f i s h i n g season and the i n f l ux o f vesse ls in to the ha l ibu t f l e e t had placed the indust ry in a chaot ic cond i t ion by 1955. Catches had increased and heavy landings of ha l ibu t over the short f i s h -ing season decreased pr i ces cons iderab ly . For example, the average p r i ce of ha l ibu t landed at B r i t i s h Columbia ports decreased from 20 cents 12 per pound in 1950 to 13 cents per pound in 1955. Commencing in the 1956 f i s h i n g season the ha l ibu t f l e e t v o l u n t a r i l y i n s t i t u t e d a layover program to s t re t ch out the length o f the f i s h i n g season. This was an attempt to combat low pr i ces paid fo r heavy landings o f ha l i bu t . Each vessel in the en t i r e f l e e t was to remain in port seven 13 days a f t e r the completion o f each t r i p . This was increased to e ight days several years l a t e r . The layover program led t o : (1) an increase in the length of the f i s h i n g season, (2) a decrease in the number o f vessels in the f l e e t , (3) a reduct ion in p r i ce f l u c tua t i ons which accom-panied the shortened f i s h i n g season, and (4) a more o rder l y marketing procedure at the ha l i bu t po r t s . The i nc reas ing l y shortened f i s h i n g season had placed severe s t r a i n upon the ca t ch ing , p rocess ing , and marketing sectors of the indus t ry . The increase in the durat ion o f the ha l ibu t f i s h e r y no longer made i t poss ib l e fo r annual quotas to be taken before the peak of the salmon f i s h e r y . There-f o r e , a large number of salmon fishermen who engaged in the ha l ibu t f i s h e r y part-time no longer found i t worthwhile to f i s h fo r ha l i bu t . F igure 33 shows how the length of the f i s h i n g season fo r ha l i bu t increased g rea t l y a f t e r in t roduc t ion o f the layover scheme in 1956. * QUOTA NOT REACHED IN AREA 2 IN 1963, 1967 and 1971 ""•INCLUDES SPLIT-SEASON PERIODS 0» 139 Potent ia l e f f o r t was now spread over a longer pe r iod . As a r e s u l t the annual quotas were taken over a longer time pe r iod . The length o f the ha l ibu t season on grounds south of Cape Spencer increased from 36 days 14 in 1952 to 178 days in 1971. On grounds west of Cape Spencer i t increas-15 ed from 77 to 242.days fo r most grounds. Table XIV shows the number o f vesse ls and men engaged in the ha l i bu t f i s h e r y during the 1952-1972 per iod . The sharp downward trends r e f l e c t e d a pattern of increased s p e c i a l i z a t i o n wi th in the f i s h e r y , although more mult i-purpose vesse ls are being added to the Canadian sector of the indust ry in p a r t i c u l a r . For example, in 1960 there were 31 l o n g l i n e r s , 42 s e i n e r - l o n g l i n e r s , and 40 longl iner-packers in the B r i t i s h Columbia ha l ibu t f l e e t . ^ In a d d i t i o n , there was a high number of t r o l l e r -l ong l i ne r s in the f l e e t . In 1969 there were 28 l o n g l i n e r s , 52 se iner- long-l i n g e r s , and 59 t r o l l e r - l o n g l i n e r s in a much smal ler B. C. f l e e t . Some vesse ls in a l l of these categor ies engaged in packing salmon and herr ing 1 p from time to t ime. Because of a s ta te law r e s t r i c t i n g the s i z e o f the Alaska salmon f l e e t to vessel s i zes less than 49.5 f e e t , mult i-purpose vesse ls have not developed to the extent they have in B r i t i s h Columbia. This has therefore l im i t ed the number of vessels in the Alaska ha l ibu t f l e e t . In A l a ska , salmon i s k i ng , and most f ishermen, inc lud ing ha l ibut f i s h e r -men f i s h fo r t h i s spec ies . I f they wish to f i s h fo r both ha l ibu t and salmon from the same vessel i t must not exceed 49.5 f ee t . This exp la ins why most of the vesse ls at Southeast Alaska ports are conf ined to near shore waters and are i n d i r e c t l y forced to s e l l t h e i r catch at ports in the immediate v i c i n i t y . In western A l a ska , however, the dec l i ne o f the Table XIV Number of Vessels and Men Engaged in the Hal ibut F ishery 1952-1972, and Percentage o f the Catch From Each Area By Canadian and American F leets Tota l Vessels/Men Canadian American Tota l Area 2 Area 3 Area 2 Area 3 Catch Vessels/Men Vessels/Men Vessels/Men Vessels/Men OOOlbs Percent Of Catch Canadian American Area 3 Area Percent of Catch Canadian/American A l l Areas 1952 670 3403 233 1211 8 64 295 1243 134 885 62. 8 56.1 24.2 43.9 75.8 39.6 60.4 1953 691 3400 229 1151 20 159 273 1147 139 883 60. 5 55.8 28.0 44.2 72.0 42.9 57.1 1954 658 3274 224 1149 20 167 289 1238 121 720 71. 2 47.6 29.9 52.4 .70.1 38.9 61.1 1955 617 3069 189 959 24 203 281 1209 122 698 69. 0 45.5 30.8 54.5 69.2 37.6 62.4 1956 556 2724 155 829 17 134 285 1213 99 548 67. 5 42.6 33.5 57.4 66.5 38.1 61.9 1957 629 3046 171 859 27 206 351 1402 n o 595 61. 3 46.3 34.7 53.7 65.3 40.3 59.7 1958 574 2783 140 712 37 291 276 1135 121 645 65. 2 49.6 40.6 50.4 59.4 44.8 55.2 1959 554 2740 139 675 51 394 239 978 125 693 71. 7 46.7 41.2 53.3 58.8 43.5 56.5 1960 521 2518 130 558 61 467 205 798 125 695 71. 9 47.6 46.8 52.4 53.2 46.9 53.1 1961 510 2400 129 ^  493 66 495 198 754 117 658 69. 5 45.6 40.8 54.4 59.2 43.7 57.3 1962 557 2566 133 502 73 548 216 769 135 747 75. 1 49.3 44.2 50.7 55.8 46.0 54.0 1963 562 2600 154 565 82 632 185 661 141 740 71. 4 54.7 48.2 45.3 51.8 51.9 48.1 1964 412 2000 121 420 86 636 109 406 96 538 59. 9 57.8 55.0 42.2 45.0 55.9 44.1 1965 404 1916 107 367 82 611 125 441 90 497 63. 4 50.2 53.3 49.8 46.7 51.8 48.2 1966 487 2173 127 421 85 630 170 589 105 533 62. 2 48.9 52.8 51.1 47.2 51.2 48.8 1967 400 1852 82 315 69 512 142 483 107 542 55. 5 49.0 43.8 51.0 56.2 45.9 54.1 1968 307 1459 82 295 63 482 87 295 75 387 48. 8 63.8 58.7 36.2 41.3 60.2 39.8 1969 334 1532 80 287 64 478 117 378 73 389 58. 6 58.5 56.3 41.5 43.7 57.1 42.9 1970. 353 1533 102 353 53 406 127 413 71 361 54. 9 54.6 50.7 45.4 49.3 52.7 47.3 1971 311 1391 92 338 50 383 105 341 64 329 47. 3 47.3 49.8 38.9 50.2 54.6 45.4 Source: IPHC Reports. ° 141 king crab f i s h e r y has resu l ted in a number of vesse ls enter ing the ha l ibu t f i s h e r y . During the per iod the number o f vessels in both the United States and Canadian ha l i bu t f l e e t s dec l ined but at d i f f e r e n t r a tes . In the United States f l e e t a number of o lder vessels ( b u i l t in the 1920's) were r e t i r e d and not replaced r e su l t i ng in a sharp decrease in f l e e t s i z e . In Canada the to ta l reduct ion has been somewhat lower because o f government subs id ies towards the cost of f i s h i n g vessel cons t ruc t i on . As a r e s u l t there has been a steady increase in the Canadian percentage o f the Eastern P a c i f i c ha l ibut ca tch . The most severe dec l ine in ha l ibu t p r i ces in the regulated phase of the f i s h e r y occurred during the 1967 and 1968 f i s h i n g seasons. Ha l ibut pr i ces f e l l sharply over the whole region with the average landed p r i c e at Sea t t l e dropping from 36.2 cents per pound in 1966 to 25.3 19 cents in 1967 and 1968. The average p r i ce f o r ha l ibu t landed in B r i t i s h 20 Columbia dropped from 35.4 cents to 25.6 cents over the same per iod . Such a decrease in pr i ces was the r e s u l t o f expansion of the Newfoundland l ong l i ne r f l e e t which saw turbot product ion increase from 3.6 m i l l i o n 21 pounds in 1964 to 32.6 m i l l i o n pounds in 1967. Most o f th i s output was marketed in North American ha l ibu t markets under the trade name "Greenland h a l i b u t , " and competed in the wh i te f i sh market with P a c i f i c h a l i bu t . In f a c t , the turbot i s not a member o f the ha l ibu t f ami l y , but a low-priced f lounder spec ies . It appeared, however, that the consumer could not d i f f e r e n t i a t e between turbot and ha l i bu t because market surveys conducted by the P a c i f i c ha l ibu t indust ry "showed the consumer to be con-142 fused and dece i ved . " A dec i s ion of the United States Supreme Court made i t i l l e g a l f o r eastern buyers to s e l l turbot under the label "Greenland h a l i b u t . " Its marketing brand name change to Greenland turbot restored ha l ibu t p r i ces to previous l e v e l s . The reduct ion of the 1972 quota to 40 m i l l i o n pounds, the lowest in the regulated phase of the ha l ibu t f i s h e r y , promoted intense compet i -t ion between buyers fo r a share o f the ca tch . There was a lso increased competi t ion on the f i s h i n g grounds as well amongst f ishermen. The 1971 quota of 53 m i l l i o n pounds was not reached, and as a r e s u l t there was very l i t t l e f rozen ha l ibu t on hand at the beginning o f the 1972 f i s h i n g season. In a d d i t i o n , groundf ish product ion from eastern Canadian waters was down s i g n i f i c a n t l y . This favoured increased consumption o f ha l ibu t in the North American wh i te f i sh market. The Newfoundland catch a lone , which is almost e n t i r e l y marketed in the American ha l ibu t markets, was down from 705 m i l l i o n pounds in the f i r s t e ight months of 1971 to 459 m i l l i o n pounds over 23 the same per iod in 1972. Such a combination of f ac tors resu l ted in a phenomenal increase in the landed p r i ce of ha l i bu t . The average p r i ce 24 paid at Sea t t le in 1972 was 62.8 cents per pound compared with 36.0 cents per pound in 1971. In terms of returns to f ishermen, the increase in p r i ce more than compensated fo r the record low catch in the quota-regulated phase of the f i s h e r y . F igure 34 shows the trends in c a t ch , y i e l d , and e f f o r t f o r the 1952-1972 pe r iod . Greater yea r l y catches were taken from Area 3 than in the previous per iod and r e f l e c t e d the development of the Bering Sea grounds and greater e f f o r t being expended on grounds throughout the area. FIGURE 34. TRENDS IN CATCH, EFFORT, YIELD 1952-1972. CATCH (MILLIONS OF POUNDS) 10 AREA 3 „ • • 1 •X. 400 EFFORT (THOUSANDS OF SKATES) 300 200 CATCH PER SKATE (HUNDREDS OF POUNDS) 100 1952 1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 CATCH (MILLIONS OF POUNDS) " 400 EFFORT (THOUSANDS OF SKATES) - 300 200 CATCH PER SKATE (HUNDREDS OF POUNDS) " 100 1952 1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 CATCH EFFORT CATCH PER SKATE 144 Y ie lds decreased in part because of more e f f o r t being employed on less abundant stocks over a much longer f i s h i n g season. On grounds south of Cape Spencer (Area 2) there occurred a sharp decrease in the amount of gear employed over that of the previous per iod . Average y i e l d s per skate remained f a i r l y s tab le a f t e r 1962, but the yea r l y catch dec l i ned . It may have been that quotas on these grounds were set too high in the i n i t i a l years of the pe r iod . I f t h i s were the case , fewer f i s h would have been added to the ha l ibu t populat ion in the years immediately a f t e r , e s p e c i a l l y i f e f f o r t were maintained at high l e v e l s . The Small Boat Sector In the i n i t i a l phase of the f i s h e r y the abundance of ha l i bu t on inshore grounds made i t poss ib le fo r small boats o f less than 5-10 tons to engage in the ha l ibu t f i s h e r y . With the development of a deep-sea f i she r y a f t e r 1910, with most vesse ls operat ing from the major ports of S e a t t l e , Vancouver, Pr ince Rupert, and Ketchikan, the ro le of the small boat f i s h e r y dec l i ned . In essence, t h i s gave r i s e to c e n t r a l i z a t i o n o f landings by the regu lar ha l i bu t f l e e t . The .spatial range of the small boats l im i t ed them to near shore grounds, and with the poss ib le exception of Alaskan waters, dep le t ion o f stocks on these banks no longer made fo r an in tens ive small boat f i s h e r y . Ha l ibut banks in Alaska waters are more extensive than those fu r ther south. There fore , they were not as ex tens i ve l y over-f ished as the sma l l e r , more souther ly grounds. As a r e s u l t , the small boat sector of the Alaska ha l ibu t f i she r y proved to be longer l a s t i n g than that f a r the r south. The presence o f deep-water channels in Southeast A l a ska , in which ha l ibu t 145 genera l l y stayed throughout the year without much of fshore movement, a l so favoured the small boat f i she r y in A laska . By 1931, however, the small boat sec tor of the Eastern P a c i f i c ha l ibu t f i she r y was only taking 25 approximately 3% of the to ta l ha l ibu t ca tch . 26 In add i t ion to the 500-600 one and two man boats which have benef i ted from increased ha l ibut stocks on inshore grounds s ince quota r e g u l a t i o n , a large number of vessels in the salmon t r o l l i n g f l e e t account fo r inc identa l catches of ha l i bu t . Most e f f o r t by the l a t t e r i s exerted in the spr ing months before the peak o f the salmon season, in years when salmon runs are poor, or when ha l ibu t p r i ces are h igh. A l -though they employ less e f f o r t and gear , t h e i r to ta l percentage of the ha l ibu t catch increased from 3% in the 1931-1935 per iod to 10% in the 27 1950-1955 pe r iod . Larger and more e f f i c i e n t t r o l l e r s in the P a c i f i c Salmon f l e e t have a l so contr ibuted to such an increase in t h e i r l and ings . E s s e n t i a l l y , the small boat sector of the part-time ha l ibu t f l e e t c a r r i e s out a near-shore f i she r y over grounds throughout the reg ion . Although the l a rges t volumes of t h e i r catch are landed at the many salmon and ha l i bu t camps along the c o a s t l i n e , some of the catch may be landed d i r e c t l y at the major po r t s . In B r i t i s h Columbia alone in any given year there may be 25 or 30 loca t ions at which small quan t i t i e s of ha l ibu t are landed. Most o f these i so l a t ed s ta t ions are predominately engaged in handling salmon. Cen t r a l i z a t i on wi th in the salmon canning industry has contr ibuted to a decrease in the number of such l o ca t i ons . For example, such cannery s i t e s as Klemtu, Namu, and Butedale which no longer support canneries a l l had ha l ibu t holding f a c i l i t i e s in 146 conjunct ion with salmon processing f a c i l i t i e s . Between 1940 and 1960, ha l ibu t landings at Butedale amounted to over 100 thousand pounds annua l l y , although they were f a r greater during the 1913-1931 phase of the f i s h e r y . Improvements in vessel design and r e f r i g e r a t o r f a c i l i t i e s have grea t l y increased mob i l i t y w i th in the salmon t r o l l i n g f l e e t . The i r r e l a t i v e l y small ca r ry ing c a p a c i t i e s , however, combined with t h e i r small crew s i z e (1-2 men), do not present the type of sca le of operat ions which i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the regular ha l ibu t f l e e t . This a lso holds fo r the small boat sector o f the ha l ibu t f l e e t . The l a t t e r 1 s existence in the f i she r y i s p r imar i l y due to a v a i l a b i l i t y of ha l ibu t on grounds less than 10-15 mi les from bases of opera t ion . The i r low operat ing c o s t s , together with high pr i ces received fo r h a l i b u t , make i t poss ib le fo r them to remain in the f i she r y even when catches are sma l l . Most f i s h -ermen in the small boat sec tor of the indust ry may only engage in the f i s h e r y par t-t ime, and t h e i r numbers f l u c tua te from year to year in the same manner as those engaged in the l a rge r vesse l-s ized f l e e t . The operat iona l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the small boat sec tor i s r ep -resenta t i ve of the i n i t i a l phases of the ha l ibu t f i s h e r y , when day-to-day operat ions were conducted from small f i s h i n g s t a t i ons throughout the en t i r e reg ion . In an unregulated f i s h e r y t he i r r o l e would have dec l ined to the point where i t would be no longer f e a s i b l e fo r them to engage in f i s h i n g operat ions . In the case o f the P a c i f i c ha l i bu t f i s h e r y , however, quota regu la t ion has cont r ibuted to increased landings by the small boat sector of the f l e e t . Unl ike vesse ls in the t r o l l i n g f l e e t , f o r example, the P a c i f i c t rawler f l e e t i s not permitted to r e ta in inc identa l catches o f h a l i b u t . The Commission (IFC) p roh ib i ted the re tent ion of o t t e r trawl-caught ha l ibu t 147 29 in 1944, but t h i s has not prevented the expansion of the t rawler f l e e t . From b i o l o g i c a l evidence i t was shown by the Commission that o t t e r trawls are less s e l e c t i v e than s e t l i n e gear ( long l ines ) and account fo r a very high propor t ion of immature ha l i bu t . Consequently, a l l ot ter-trawl caught ha l ibu t must be returned to the sea. Trawler f ishermen, however, have s ince advocated that they be permitted to re ta in inc identa l catches of h a l i bu t . The Bering Sea F ishery Although i so l a t ed t r i p s to the Bering Sea ha l i bu t grounds had been 30 made as ea r l y as 1930 , development o f the f i s h e r y in these waters only commenced in 1952. Improved ha l ibu t stocks on the o lder grounds a f t e r 1932; the lack of adequate marketing and o u t f i t t i n g f a c i l i t i e s at f a r w western Alaska l o c a t i o n s ; and p r i ce d i s p a r i t y in favour of the southern ports were fac tors which a f f ec ted the r e l a t i v e l y l a te development o f the Bering Sea f i s h e r y . With the cons t ruc t ion of co ld storage f a c i l i t i e s at Sand Point in the ear l y nineteen f i f t i e s , f ishermen sh i f t ed more e f f o r t to the Bering Sea grounds. Table XV shows the number o f vesse ls operat ing in the Bering Sea between 1952 and 1972, and the North American catch from the area. Canadian vessels were l a t e in exp lo i t i ng those grounds which was the r e su l t of t h e i r increased tendency to f i s h grounds west of Cape Spencer a f t e r 1958. Such a move co inc ided with the add i t ion o f subs idy-bu i l t vesse ls to the Canadian f l e e t . A greater number of vesse ls in excess o f s i x t y tons were added and th i s made i t poss ib le to more e f f e c t i v e l y e x p l o i t grounds at increased distances from B r i t i s h Columbia por t s . Table XV Number of Vessels Operating in Bering Sea and Catch ('000 l b s . ) from Region During 1952-1972 United States Canada U.S. and Canada Year No. of Vessels Catch ( lbs . ) No. of Vessels Catch Total Vessels Total 1952 9 251 9 251 1953 6 227 — — 6 227 1954 2 41 — — 2 41 1955 1 45 — — 1 45 1956 3 177 2 3 5 260 1957 1 39 — — 1 39 1958 7 965 14 1211 21 2176 1959 19 1777 20 2391 39 4157 1960 35 2308 31 3341 66 5649 1961 34 2040 27 1928 61 3968 1962 43 3820 33 3499 76 7322 1963 51 3323 53 4784 104 8136 1964 36 1072 32 1256 68 2328 1965 19 745 15 590 34 1335 1966 4 557 11 638 15 1195 1967 17 1287 19 1108 36 2395 1968 11 653 17 668 28 1321 1969 7 565 16 668 23 1233 1970 6 245 13 889 19 995 1971 4 137 13 729 15 866 1972 4 475 7 253 11 728 Source: Technica l Report No. 8 IPHC. For Years 1952-1960. G. Morris Southward, IPHC. For Years 1961-1972. CO 149 Because o f increases in the pr i ce o f ha l ibu t landed at ports r e l a t i v e l y c lose to the Bering Sea, l i t t l e benef i t was der ived from landing catches at ports a cons iderab le d is tance away. In a d d i t i o n , there was l ess competit ion in the stormy A leut ian region and vessels could benef i t from p o t e n t i a l l y higher catches. Over f i sh ing on the Bering Sea grounds, however, led to a sharp decrease in catch and as a r e su l t fewer vesse ls were venturing into the area by the end of the 1952-1972 pe r iod . In order to make fo r a more even d i s t r i b u t i o n o f f i s h i n g e f f o r t over the P a c i f i c ha l ibut grounds and to gain greater knowledge of the Bering Sea ha l ibu t s tocks , the Ha l ibut Commission encouraged movement of North 31 American vesse ls in to the area. For example, the f i s h i n g season s ta r ted e a r l i e r than on the southern grounds. Russia commenced o t te r trawl operat ions f o r groundf ish in the Bering Sea in the l a te nineteen f i f t i e s . In 1961 the Japanese began ha l ibu t operat ions in the area and in that year produced 24.2 m i l l i o n pounds 32 of ha l i bu t . Continued operat ions in succeeding years reduced stock l eve l s in the Bering Sea cons iderab ly . Internat ional P a c i f i c Ha l ibut Commission tagging experiments had shown that ha l ibu t stocks in the 33 Bering Sea contr ibuted to stock s i z e on grounds west of Cape Spencer. There fo re , by the end o f the 1952-1972 per iod such ove r f i sh ing was r e f l e c t e d in record low quotas fo r the indust ry as a whole. Movement o f Japanese v e s se l s , in p a r t i c u l a r , in to the Bering Sea caused grave concern to those involved in the North American ha l ibu t indus t ry . In 1962, the Convention fo r the High Seas F i she r i es o f the North P a c i f i c Ocean of Canada, Japan and the United States agreed that ha l ibu t stocks of the eastern Bering Sea d id not q u a l i f y fo r abstent ion 150 as s p e c i f i e d in the Internat ional Convention fo r the High Seas F i she r i e s 34 of the North P a c i f i c Ocean. Since 1965 ha l ibu t stocks of the Bering Sea have been managed j o i n t l y by the Internat ional P a c i f i c Ha l ibut 35 Commission and the Internat ional North P a c i f i c F i she r i es Commission. The catch in the area has been taken by Japan, Canada, and the United S ta tes . As a r e s u l t , the North American ha l ibu t f l e e t has to compete with a fo re ign f l e e t fo r catches in the Bering Sea and no longer has complete contro l over the en t i r e P a c i f i c ha l ibu t f i s h e r y . Extension of the North American ha l ibut f i she r y in to the Bering Sea was ca r r i ed out only by the l a rges t vesse ls in the ha l i bu t f l e e t . In a d d i t i o n , the King crab f i she r y in Western Alaska waters expanded cons iderably a f t e r 1960 and some of the vesse ls engaged in th i s f i she r y s h i f t e d to ha l i bu t in the o f f-season. This trend acce lera ted a f t e r 1967 when king crab stocks began to show evidence of dep l e t i on . Most o f the vesse ls operated on the grounds along the southeastern edge o f the Bering Sea cont inenta l she l f . In t h i s l o c a l i t y temperature condi t ions fo r ha l ibu t are more favourable than over most areas o f the shallow she l f o f the reg ion . Consequently, ha l ibu t f i s h i n g in the Bering Sea was concentrated, ra ther than spread over r e l a t i v e l y large expanses of f i s h i n g ground as was the case in the Gu l f o f A laska . As a r e s u l t ha l ibu t stocks in the former area were subject to in tens ive f i s h i n g e f f o r t . Development o f the Bering Sea grounds increased the d istance between the o lde r ports and the catch area fo r those vesse ls e l e c t i ng to exp lo i t these grounds. Such extension of e f f o r t saw f i s h i n g a c t i v i t y being ca r r i ed out approximately 2500 mi les from Seat t le and 151 Vancouver, and approximately 1800 miles from Prince Rupert and Ketchikan. It was no longer economical ly worthwhile to d e l i v e r every t r i p to the southern por ts . Instead, vesse ls would d e l i v e r several or more catches of ha l ibu t at ports in western Alaska fo r every t r i p de l i ve red to southern ports such as S e a t t l e , Bel l ingham, and Vancouver. The f i n a l t r i p of the season was usua l l y landed at the home port o f the given vesse l s . Vancouver based boats , however, favoured ports on Puget Sound i f there was a p r i ce discrepancy in favour o f the l a t t e r . The increased sca le o f operat ions of the f a r western co ld storage sec tor was s u f f i c i e n t to br ing about a reduct ion in operat ion costs and reduct ions in t r anspor ta t ion costs of ha l ibu t being shipped to the 37 southern ra i lhead por t s . Much of the a c t i v i t y was centred at Kodiak 38 where 18 f i s h plants were operat ing in 1966, some of which were in the ha l ibu t bus iness . The southern based vesse ls were f requent ing the port with large numbers of ha l ibu t d e l i v e r i e s taken in western waters. This led to Kodiak developing into the second leading ha l ibu t centre o f the Eastern P a c i f i c in terms of primary land ings . The emergence of a dominant ha l ibu t centre in west centra l Alaska was o f great s i g n i f i c a n c e . It culminated the general westward s h i f t s which had occurred in the catching and process ing sec to r s . As a r e s u l t major ha l ibu t ports were located along the r eg ion ' s coas t l i n e from Cape F l a t t e r y to fa r western waters. This r e f l e c t ed the o r i en t a t i on of the catching and process ing sectors to raw mater ia l supply . Other f a c t o r s , however, such as the length of the f i s h i ng season, p r i ce d i s p a r i t y , and f l e e t compet i t ion helped shape spa t i a l i n t e r a c t i on wi th in the indust ry during the pe r iod . 152 References 1. B e l l , F. Heward, "Eastern P a c i f i c Hal ibut F ishery 1888-1966." F ishery Lea f l e t 602, U.S. Dept. of the I n t e r i o r , U. S. F ish and W i l d l i f e Se rv i ce . Bureau o f Commercial F i she r i es Wash. D.C. August 1968. p.7. Information fo r 1967-1971 Suppl ied by G. M. Southward, Internat ional P a c i f i c Ha l ibut Commission. 2. Hardman, W. H. "The S i z e , Age and Sex Composition of North American Se t l i ne Catches of Ha l ibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus s teno lep i s ) in Bering Sea, 1964-1970." Technical Report No. 8 (IPHC). S e a t t l e , 1970. p.3. 3. Internat ional P a c i f i c Ha l ibut Commission. Annual Report. 1972. p. 12. 4. Ib id , p.12. 5. I b id , p. 12. 6. P a c i f i c Fisherman Yearbook. 1953. p. 225. 7. Internat ional P a c i f i c Ha l ibut Commission. Annual Report 1971. op. c i t . p. 12. 8. Internat ional P a c i f i c Ha l ibut Commission. Report No. 25. "Regulat ion and Invest igat ion of the P a c i f i c Ha l ibut F ishery in 1956." S e a t t l e , 1957. p .9 . 9. Information suppl ied by Mr. H. E. Lokken, Manager, F i sh ing Vessel Owner's As soc i a t i on . S ea t t l e . 10. P a c i f i c Fisherman Yearbook. 1953. p. 233. 11. Information suppl ied by Mr. H. E. Lokken. 12. Urquhart , M.C. and Buckley K.A.H. (eds.) H i s t o r i c a l S t a t i s t i c s o f Canada. Sponsored by Canadian P o l i t i c a l Science Assoc i a t i on and Soc ia l Science Research Counci l o f Canada. The Un i ve r s i t y Press. Cambridge. 1965. p. 395. 13. P a c i f i c Fisherman Yearbook. 1957. p. 197. 14. IPHC. Annual Report. 1971. p.8. 15. Ib id , p.8. 153 16. Ib id . p. 13. 17. Western F i s h e r i e s , Vo l . 62. No. 2. May 1961. p. 35. 18. Federal Department of F i she r i e s and Fores t ry . Economics Branch. P a c i f i c Region. " F i she r i e s S t a t i s t i c s of B r i t i s h Columbia 1969." p.14. 19. Information suppl ied by Mr. H. E. Lokken. 20. Western F i s h e r i e s , Vo l . 78. No. 2 May 1969. p. 43. 21. Information suppl ied by Economics Branch, Department of F i s h e r i e s , St . J ohn ' s , Newfoundland. 22. B e l l , F. Heward, In A Century o f F ish ing in North America. Norman G. Benson (ed) Spec ia l Pub l i ca t ion No. 7. American F i she r i e s Soc ie ty . Wash. 1970. p. 221. 23. The F inanc ia l Post. Oct. 28, 1972. p. C-4 24. Information suppl ied by Mr. H. E. Lokken. 25. B e l l , F. Heward, B i o l og i ca l and Economic Aspects o f F i she r i e s Management. Un ive rs i t y of Washington, Sea t t l e . 1959. p. 58. 26. B e l l , F. Heward, and G. St . P i e r r e . "The P a c i f i c Ha l ibu t " Technica l Report No. 6. IPHC. Sea t t l e . 1970. p. 14. 27. B e l l , F. Heward. " B i o l o g i c a l and Economic Aspects of F i sher i es Management" op. c i t . p. 58. 28. Information suppl ied by Mr. N. R. Chr i s t ensen , Canadian F ish ing Company L td . Vancouver. 29. Internat ional P a c i f i c Ha l ibut Commission. Report No. 23. "The Incidental Capture of Ha l ibut by Various Types o f Gear . " Sea t t l e . 1956. p. 37. 30. P a c i f i c Fisherman Yearbook. 1931. P- 185. 31. P a c i f i c Fisherman Yearbook. 1959. P- 199. 32. P a c i f i c Fisherman Yearbook. 1962. P- 167. 33. Hardman, W. H. , "Re la t ionsh ip of Ha l ibut Stocks in Bering Sea as Indicated by Age and S ize Composit ion" Technical  Report No. 4. IPHC. S e a t t l e , 1969. p. 1. 154 34. B e l l , F. Heward, In "A Century o f F ish ing in North America" o p . c i t . p. 220. 35. B e l l , F. Heward, "Agreements, Conventions, and Trea t i es Between Canada and the United States o f America with Respect to the P a c i f i c Hal ibut F i s h e r y . " Report No. 50. IPHC. Sea t t l e . 1969. p. 21. 36. Dunlop, Henry A . , et a l . " I n ve s t i ga t i on , U t i l i z a t i o n , and Regula-t i on of the Hal ibut in Southeastern Bering Sea" Report No. 35. IPHC. S ea t t l e . 1964. p. 12. 37. Information suppl ied by Mr. Donald McCleod, Manager, A t ! i n F i she r i es L td . - Pr ince Rupert, Subsiduary of the New England F ish ing Company L td . 38. C h a f f i n , Y . , A l a ska ' s Southwest - Koniaq to King Crab. Pub-l i shed by Cha f f in Inc. Kodiak, A laska . 1967. p. 72. 155 Chapter VII Summary and Conclusions Examination of the h i s t o r i c a l economic development of f i s h i n g com-plexes suggests a concent r i c r ing pattern of expansion and development. Evo lut ion of the spa t i a l s t ruc tu re of the Japanese skipjack-tuna f i s h e r y , the Peruvian anchovy f i s h e r y , the Newfoundland cod f i s h e r y , the P a c i f i c salmon f i s h e r y , and most deep-sea f i s h e r i e s o f the world bear out such a pattern of development. Such a concent r i c pattern is assoc ia ted with resource a v a i l a b i l i t y , resource d e p l e t i o n , nature of f i s h i n g grounds, i n s t i t u t i o n a l c o n t r o l , changing technology, e t c . Changes or v a r i a t i on in these fac tors eventua l l y determine the spa t i a l s t ruc tu re of a given f i s h i n g complex and i n t e r a c t i on between var ious sectors of the resource-based complex. A c t i v i t i e s assoc ia ted with ex t r ac t i ve indust ry tend to co inc ide s p a t i a l l y with raw mater ia l supply. In the case of a f i s h i n g complex the nature of the resource presents d i f f e r e n t problems than would be the case with a f o r e s t r y resource , f o r example. In the case o f the l a t t e r , resource inventor ies are more e a s i l y monitored and c o n t r o l l e d . The common property nature of marine resources places l i m i t a t i o n s upon optimum e x p l o i t a t i o n . T h i s , in i t s e l f , has important imp l i ca t ions f o r the spa t i a l and economic aspects of a f i s h e r y . Economic and b i o l o g i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f a given f i s h e r y , in t u r n , are a func t ion of i n t e n s i t y o f resource e x p l o i t a t i o n . V a r i a b i l i t y o f stock s izes o f a f i s h resource , such as h a l i b u t , over expanses o f f i s h i n g grounds has an important bearing on the type and 156 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the f i s h i n g complex which develops. Harvest ing and l oca t i ona l dec i s ions must be made in l i g h t of f i s h a v a i l a b i l i t y and a c c e s s i b i l i t y . The harvest ing o f pe lag ic spec i e s , however, might c a l l fo r a d i f f e r e n t set of cons t ra in t s than would be the case f o r demersal species such as h a l i b u t . Most pe lag ic species such as salmon and tuna tend to range qu i te f r e e l y over broad expanses of ocean. Demersal species on the other hand are f a r more l o c a l i z e d . In the case of the P a c i f i c h a l i b u t , f o r example, vesse ls are forced to search out and capture d i f f e r e n t stocks of ha l ibu t which may occupy var ious grounds. With the P a c i f i c salmon, however, the f i s h e r y could be prosecuted in such a manner that vesse ls would only have to await the a r r i v a l o f the resource.: at Salmon r i v e r s throughout the reg ion . The spa t i a l s t ruc ture o f the ha l ibu t industry at a l l four stages of development is i l l u s t r a t e d in F igure 35. In genera l , i t shows the extension of the f i s h e r y and re la ted a c t i v i t i e s in response to resource a v a i l a b i l i t y and a c c e s s i b i l i t y . Deplet ion of the more souther ly grounds and subsequent development o f new grounds led to a genera l l y northwester ly s h i f t in e f f o r t and of the co ld storage sec to r . The increased range o f the catch ing sec tor was a funct ion of f l e e t compet i t ion , f i s h i n g c o s t s , and vessel des ign . F igure 36 shows the degree of c e n t r a l i z a t i o n of landings by port at each stage o f development. In essence, increased decen t r a l i z a t i on of landings occurred at each stage with the extension o f f i s h i n g a c t i v i t y . There was, however, a time lag between extension o f f i s h i n g operat ions to the more wester ly grounds and the rise of important landing ports near these grounds. Th is was l a r g e l y r e l a ted to p r i ce d i s p a r i t y in favour of 1888-1912 L E G E N D ^ R A I L H E A D L O C A T I O N PORTS # S E C O N D A R Y PORTS • FISHING S T A T I O N S (MINOR PORTS) • C O L D S T O R A G E FACILIT IES r r n LIMIT O F FISHING O P E R A T I O N S ^ R A N G E O F FISHING V E S S E L S B A S E D A T E A C H PORT T Y P E - - -> V E S S E L S E L E C T T O L A N D PART O F Y E A R L Y C A T C H A W A Y F R O M H O M E PORT 1913-1931 1932-1951 FIGURE 35. SPATIAL STRUCTURE OF THE INDUSTRY 1888-1972. 159 the more souther ly por t s . By the end of the study per iod th i s was not the case to such a large ex tent , and as a r e su l t other a c t i v i t i e s besides actual f i s h i n g operat ions were more c l o s e l y or iented to raw mater ia l supply. The concent r i c pattern of development a r i s i n g from spa t i a l extension of the P a c i f i c ha l ibu t f i s h e r y i s conceptua l ized in Figure 37. E s s e n t i a l l y , the stage by stage evo lu t ion was accompanied by resource dep le t ion under in tens ive f i s h i n g , a dec l ine in the number of small p o r t s , an increase in the spa t i a l range o f the catch ing sector wi th in cost and techno log ica l c o n s t r a i n t s , and the emergence of major ha l ibu t ports c l o s e r to the f i s h i n g grounds. The amount o f e f f o r t expended in each stage was l a r g e l y a func t ion of compet i t ion between vesse ls f o r a share of the ha l i bu t ca t ch . I n s t i t u t i ona l con t ro l s placed cons t ra in t s on l e ve l s of e x p l o i t a t i o n and proved to have important imp l i ca t ions f o r t ransformat ion wi th in the ha l ibu t complex. Stage I (1888-1912) of the P a c i f i c ha l i bu t f i s h e r y was charac te r ized by v i r g i n stocks which could be harvested with r e l a t i v e l y low l e v e l s of technology. The major cons t r a in t placed upon rap id e x p l o i t a t i o n of the resource was re l a ted to market demand. E f f i c i e n t t r anspor ta t ion l i nk s were a p re- requ i s i t e fo r i n i t i a l development and expansion o f the f i s h e r y . The per iod was dominated by corporate involvement at a l l l e v e l s . Reduction of f i s h i n g costs and increased demand f o r ha l i bu t led to more a t t r a c t i v e oppor tun i t i es fo r the independent fishermen in the indus t ry . Because of the nature of f i s h stocks and short range of the vesse ls in the f l e e t , spa t i a l operat ions of the catch ing sector were qu i te l i m i t e d . A large number of f i s h i n g s ta t ions were es tab l i shed from which a day-to-day f i s h e r y 160 STAGE I STAGE II 1888-1912 1913-1931 EVOLUTIONARY STAGES OF THE PACIFIC HALIBUT FISHERY (1888-1972) 9 MINOR PORTS MAJOR PORTS RANGE OF THE CATCHING SECTOR FIGURE 37. CONCEPTUAL M O D E L O F I N D U S T R Y E V O L U T I O N 1888- 1972. 161 was ca r r i ed on. The major ports of S e a t t l e , Vancouver, and Tacoma emerged as the centra l nodes wi th in the f i s h e r y . Un t i l the f i n a l years of the pe r i od , the independent f l e e t was not s u f f i c i e n t l y large to compete with the company-owned f l e e t s . Increased northward migrat ion of the catching sector in response to resource dep le t ion of nearby grounds had increased the f i s h e r y range of the l a rge r vesse ls to approximately 600 mi les from the major ports. This led to expansion of the co ld storage to northern points and heralded the future use of such ports as Pr ince Rupert and Ketchikan. Stage II (1913-1931) of the f i s h e r y saw extension of f i s h i n g operat ions to a l l the ha l ibu t grounds with the except ion of those in the Bering Sea. This resu l ted in grounds approximately 2000 mi les from Seat t le and Van-couver .being exp lo i t ed . Rapid expansion of the independent f l e e t resu l ted in g rea t l y increased competi t ion fo r annual catches . This fu r the r hastened the dep le t ion of ha l i bu t stocks throughout the r e g i o n , and led to the s ign ing of the Ha l ibut Convention in 1923. Deplet ion o f stocks on inshore grounds led to the dec l ine of the small boat f i s h e r y . In a d d i t i o n , expansion of the f i s h e r y to o f f shore grounds led to the in t roduc t ion o f the l ong l i ne r vesse ls into the f i s h e r y of the company steamers. Completion of the r a i l l i n k to Pr ince Rupert in 1914 provided the ha l ibu t f l e e t with a s t r a t eg i c base of ope ra t ions , and had important imp l i ca t ions f o r spa t i a l i n t e r a c t i on wi th in the indus t ry . The second per iod was therefore charac te r ized by g rea t l y increased investment to meet increased expansion requirements and market demands. T h i s , however, led to underemployment o f l abour , c a p i t a l , and equipment wi th in the indust ry by the end of the pe r i od . 162 Stage III (1932-1951) saw l i t t l e s i g n i f i c a n t change in the spa t i a l s t ruc ture of the i ndus t r y , but increased f i s h i n g e f f o r t was expended on western grounds. The i n s t i t u t i o n of annual quotas led to a sharp dec l ine in the durat ion of the f i s h i n g season and led to severe compet i t ion . Restorat ion of ha l ibu t stocks provided incent ive f o r a large number o f vesse ls to enter the f i s h e r y . This put added s t r a i n on the landing and marketing sec tors of the indus t ry . As a r e s u l t the indust ry was forced to operate in a very uneconomical manner. Increased f i s h i n g costs assoc ia ted with extreme f l e e t compet i t ion o f f s e t the gains which were achieved through stock r e s t o r a t i o n . E s s e n t i a l l y the per iod was marked by a se r i e s of c r i t i c a l events. Record low pr i ces in the non-pioneer phase of the indust ry dur ing the ea r l y years o f the 1932-1951 per iod contrasted with high p r i ces and the l a rges t vessel s i z e f l e e t in the h i s t o r y o f the f i s h i n g in the f i n a l years of the pe r i od . Stage IV (1952-1972) saw the problem of excessive entry in to the f i s h i n g being c u r t a i l e d by the adoption of a voluntary between-trip layover program. This proved to be a very successfu l measure aimed at r e s to r i ng order to the problem-plagued f i s h e r y . Extension o f the f i s h e r y to the Bering Sea grounds was shor t- l i ved because of fo re ign f l e e t involvement in the ha l ibu t f i s h e r y fo r the f i r s t t ime. This led to de-p l e t i on of the Bering Sea grounds and a f fec ted stock l e ve l s outs ide these grounds as w e l l . Extreme competit ion from other wh i t e f i sh species r e -su l ted in a sharp decrease in landed pr i ces f o r h a l i b u t . By the end of the per iod catches were f a r below record high catches which were a t ta ined dur ing the mid-nineteen f i f t i e s when stocks were tested at maximum susta ined l e v e l s . The 1971 quota was not reached and led to the IPHC 163 se t t i ng the lowest quota in the regulated phase of the f i s h e r y dur ing the 1972 f i s h i n g season. Accompanying such low quotas were record high p r i c e s , which r e f l e c t e d to a c e r t a i n ex tent , the premium pr i ces demanded by the wor ld ' s l im i t ed supply of a h igh ly valued food f i s h . The evo lu t ion o f the spa t i a l s t ruc tu re of the P a c i f i c ha l i bu t f i s h e r y represented indust ry response to a v a i l a b i l i t y o f the ha l i bu t resource over d i f f e r e n t expanses of f i s h i n g grounds at var ious s tages . The t ime-distance-cost f a c to r between producing grounds and ports proved very c r i t i c a l in a f i s h e r y that was charac te r ized by in tens ive vessel compet i t ion f o r a share of the ca t ch . The competive pos i t i on o f i nd i v idua l ports was l a rge l y a funct ion of ha l i bu t p r i ce d i f f e r e n t i a l s between them. The durat ion of the f i s h i n g season and the amount of e f f o r t expended, however, was to have important bearing on vesse l-por t i n t e r a c t i o n . The northwester ly s h i f t o f the cold storage sector accompanied the increased tendency o f vesse ls to minimize the d is tances between the producing grounds and the landing/process ing sec tor of the indust ry . Within c e r t a i n p r i ce and cost cons t ra in t s the f l e e t attempted to maximize the u t i l i t y of var ious ports and f i s h i n g grounds (F igures 35 and 36). Greater vessel mob i l i t y and range at each subsequent stage of deve lop-ment reduced the t ime-distance-cost f a c to r of f i s h i n g operat ions because o f innovat ions in vessel and engine des ign . The a v a i l a b i l i t y of bet te r market oppor tun i t i es at the more souther ly loca t ions ( e .g . S e a t t l e , Vancouver, Pr ince Rupert ) , minimized westward s h i f t s in the landing/ process ing sector over much of the study pe r i od . Once in terven ing market oppor tun i t i es occurred at points c l o se r to the producing grounds ( e .g . Kodiak) , a s h i f t to new landing ports occur red . The l a rger vesse ls in 164 the ha l ibu t f l e e t could r ead i l y adapt t h e i r operat ions to e x p l o i t the resource , but the smal ler vesse ls in the f l e e t were f a r more s p a t i a l l y cons t r i c t ed (Figure 37). Figure 38 shows the increased tendency fo r vesse ls to land t h e i r catch away from the longer es tab l i shed po r t s . Technologica l adaption ( e .g . change in vessel type) proved to be a very important f a c to r in a f f e c t i n g the degree of spa t i a l i n t e r a c t i on wi th in the ha l i bu t complex. The d i s t r i b u t i o n of the ha l ibu t resource over r e l a t i v e l y conf ined f i s h i n g grounds placed spa t i a l l i m i t a t i o n s on the spa t i a l s t ruc ture o f the industry and i n t e r a c t i on between components which comprised the ha l i bu t complex. Deplet ion of stocks on the inshore grounds, f o r example, no longer made i t poss ib le fo r small boats to engage in the f i s h e r y and led to a dec l i ne in small f i s h i n g s ta t ions from which these vesse ls operated and landed t h e i r ca t ch . At the other extreme, the development o f h igh ly e f f i c i e n t and mobile vesse ls wi th in the f l e e t made i t poss ib l e fo r a greater range of l o ca t i ona l and landing s i t e s to be se l e c t ed . In essence, home port t i e s were no longer maintained when resource e x p l o i t a t i o n occurred at cons iderab le d is tances from home po r t , and in terven ing ports o f f e red compet i t ive oppo r tun i t i e s , e .g . s u p p l i e s , port and marketing f a c i l i t i e s , and favourable ha l i bu t p r i c e s . Approximately seventy years a f t e r i n i t i a l commercial e x p l o i t a -t i on of the ha l i bu t resource , a l l ha l i bu t grounds o f the Eastern P a c i f i c had come under vary ing degrees of f i s h i n g pressure . Deplet ion of the v i r g i n stocks occurred at a very f a s t pace but regu la t ion o f the f i s h e r y a f t e r 1924 helped res tore stocks to genera l l y healthy l e v e l s . As a r e su l t high catches and y i e l d s were maintained throughout the greater part o f the regulated phase of the f i s h e r y (F igures 39 and 40) . C A T C H (MILLIONS OF POUNDS) 168 Industry cooperat ion and government i n t e r a c t i on at the in te rna t iona l l eve l provided the basis around which e f f e c t i v e management of the resource occur red . The r e s to ra t i on of ha l ibu t stocks i s a c l a s s i c example of what can be achieved i f soundly based steps are taken in time to protect endangered f i s h s tocks . Industry approval o f IPHC regu la tory measures w i l l no doubt help reverse the catch dec l ines which occurred in the f i n a l two years of the study pe r i od . Unl ike most deep-sea f i s h e r i e s of the wor ld , the P a c i f i c ha l i bu t f i s h e r y continued to be f ree of fo re ign f i s h i n g pressure and only to a very l im i t ed extent in recent years . The common property nature of the P a c i f i c ha l i bu t resource , l i k e most marine spec i e s , a f f ec ted economic returns which were generated wi th in the f i s h e r y . In the ea r l y years of development when y i e l d s were h igh , and f i s h i n g costs r e l a t i v e l y low, the catch was shared by a small number o f vesse l s . Markets were slow deve lop ing , however, and because of over-product ion , p r i ces paid to fishermen remained r e l a t i v e l y low. With increased dep le t ion of stocks and the need to go f a r the r a f i e l d to take ca tches , f i s h i n g costs increased . In a d d i t i o n , a much longer time per iod was required to take annual catches . Decreases in catches were accompanied by genera l l y increased ha l i bu t p r i ces at dockside (F igure 41) . This provided incent i ve fo r a l a rge r number of vesse ls and fishermen to enter the f ishery . As a r e s u l t , the landed value of the catch was spread over a much l a rge r f l e e t . Regulat ion o f f i s h e r i e s on a quota bas is i s one o f the most e f f i c i e n t measures to regulate f i s h stocks and maintain maximum sustained y i e l d s . With no r e s t r i c t i o n s on vessel entry in to the ha l ibu t f i s h e r y , the quota system was accompanied by increased compet i t ion . Under in tens ive f i s h i n g CATCH (MILLIONS OF POUNDS) NUMBER OF VESSELS (HUNDREDS) "•"——LENGTH OF FISHING SEASON (DAYS) AVERAGE PRICE (CENTS PER POUND)* "BASED ON B.C. PRICES 1888 1894 1900 1906 1912 1918 1924 1930 1936 1942 1948 1954 1960 1966 FIGURE 41. TRENDS IN NUMBER OF VESSELS, LENGTH OF FISHING SEASON, AVERAGE YEARLY PRICE 1888— 1972. 1972 S 170 e f f o r t the annual quotas were taken in fa r less time (F igure 40). T h i s , in i t s e l f i s a p o s i t i v e aspect of f i s h e r i e s regu la t ion but wi th in l i m i t a -t i o n s . In the case o f the P a c i f i c ha l ibu t f i s h e r y , as the f i s h i n g season shortened, more vesse ls entered the ha l ibut f l e e t . Most of the vesse ls enter ing the f i she r y were vesse ls from the salmon f l e e t of the reg ion . The market was not capable of absorbing the g rea t l y increased catches a f t e r stocks had improved and the en t i r e catch was taken over a very short f i s h i n g season. The imp l i ca t ions of t h i s were twofold. F i r s t l y , heavy landings of ha l ibut over a much shor ter f i s h i n g season tended to depress pr ices at the landing por t s . Secondly, l ess o f the catch could be ab-sorbed f resh over a short landing pe r iod . As a r e s u l t , greater amounts of ha l ibu t had to be held in co ld storage f o r a longer durat ion of time which a l so tended to depress ha l ibu t p r i c e s . There fo re , unless measures were taken to s t re t ch out the length of the f i s h i n g season, f u l l economic benef i t s were not being der ived from the f i s h e r y . From an industry viewpoint the i n s t i t u t i o n of the second voluntary between-trip layover program in the four th stage of the f i s h e r y , had important imp l i ca t ions f o r the ha l ibu t indust ry as a whole. Heavy landings assoc ia ted with stocks being f i shed at maximum susta inab le y i e l d l e ve l s had created chaos w i th in the indust ry . The increase in the durat ion of the f i s h i n g seasons which fol lowed tended to res tore s t a b i l i t y to the ha l ibu t f i s h e r y . Apart from pr i ce dec l ines re l a ted to external f a c t o r s , the industry fared qu i te well in the f i n a l phase o f the study pe r i od . The f i she r y was charac te r ized by genera l l y high ha l ibu t p r i c e s . A large reduct ion had occurred in the number o f vesse ls engaged in the f i s h e r y . The increased length o f the f i s h i n g season no longer made i t poss ib l e f o r 171 salmon fishermen to r ead i l y engage in ha l ibu t opera t ions . The catch was being taken with less e f f o r t , y i e l d s had s t a b i l i z e d , and the regu la r ha l ibu t f l e e t was bene f i t i ng from conservat ion and regu la tory measures designed to create a greater degree of s t a b i l i t y with the indust ry . The development and expansion of the P a c i f i c ha l ibu t f i s h e r y evolved around c r i t i c a l f ac to rs assoc ia ted with resource a v a i l a b i l i t y and resource a c c e s s i b i l i t y . Although these two f ac to rs determined the behavior o f f i s h i ng vessels in the ha l ibu t f l e e t to a large extent , i t was vessel response to economic and time cons t ra in ts which determined the importance o f var ious ports in the indust ry . Th is was manifested throughout the four stages of development. As a r e s u l t , a combination o f resource a v a i l a b i l i t y resource a c c e s s i b i l i t y , technolog ica l change, and i n s t i t u t i o n a l cont ro l s determined the degree o f spa t i a l i n t e r a c t i on wi th in the industry as a whole. Th is in turn e f fec ted change in the spa t i a l and func t iona l s t ruc tu re of the P a c i f i c ha l i bu t f i s h e r y throughout i t s evo lu t ionary stages. 172 B ib l iography A. Books Bardach, J . E. Harvest o f the Sea. Harper and Row New York, 1968. Berry , B. J .L . , and D.F. Marble (Eds.) Spat ia l Ana lys is -- A Reader in S t a t i s t i c a l Geography. Prent ice Hal 1, New Je rsey , 1968. Bingham, J.W. Report of the Internat ional Law of P a c i f i c Coastal . F i she r i e s " Standford Un ive rs i t y P ress , C a l i f . , 1938. B u n g e , W. Theore t i ca l Geography. Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1962. Car ro thers , W.A. B r i t i s h Columbia F i she r i e s . The Un i ve r s i t y o f Toronto P ress , Toronto , 1941. C h r i s t y , F.T. and A.D. Scot t . The Common Wealth in Ocean F i s h e r i e s : John Hopkins P ress , Ba l t imore , 1965. Cooley , R.A. P o l i t i c s and Conservat ion. Harper and Row, New York, 1963. C o u l l , J .R . The F i she r i e s o f Europe. G. Bel l and Sons L t d . , London, 1972. C r u t c h f i e l d , J . A . and G. Pontecorvo. The P a c i f i c Salmon F i she r i e s John Hopkins P ress , Ba l t imore , 1969. C r u t c h f i e l d , J . A . The F i s h e r i e s : Problems in Resource Management. Un ive rs i t y of Washington Press , S e a t t l e , 1965. E s t a l l , R.C. and R.O. Buchannan. Indust r ia l A c t i v i t y and Economic Geography. (Hutchinson Un i ve rs i t y L i b r a r y , London. 1961.) Freeman, O.W. The P a c i f i c Northwest. Wi ley, New York, 1954. Hardwick, W.C. Geography of the Forest Industry o f Coastal B r i t i s h Columbia. Canadian Assoc i a t i on of Geographers, B r i t i s h Columbia D i v i s i o n , Occasional Papers in Geography, No. 5, 1963. Harvey, D. Explanat ion in Geography. Edward A rno ld , London, 1969. H i l l , A.V. T ides of Change. A Story o f Fishermen's Co-operatives in B r i t i s h Columbia! Pr ince Rupert Fisherman's Co-operative A s s o c i a t i o n , Pr ince Rupert, 1967. Hoover, E.M. The Economics of Loca t ion . McGraw-Hil l , New York, 1948. 173 Inn is , H.A. The Cod F i s h e r i e s . Un i ve rs i t y of Toronto Press , Toronto, 1940. I sa rd , W. et a l . Indust r ia l Complex Ana lys is and Regional Development. Cambridge: Technology Press of Massachusetts I ns t i tu te o f Technology, 1959. Johnston, D.M. The Internat ional Law of F i she r i e s Yale Un i ve rs i t y Press , New Haven and London, 1965. Losch, A. The Economics of Locat ion . John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1967. Manchester, L. Canada's F i she r i e s . McGraw-Hil l , Toronto , 1970.' Morgan, R. World Sea F i s h e r i e s . Methuen, London, 1956. M o r r i l l , R.L. The Spat ia l Organizat ion of Soc ie ty . Wadsworth Pub. C o . , Belmont, C a l i f . , 1970. Murata, K. Areal Study and Locat ion Theory -- Some Methodological Examination of Economic Geography. The Serv ice Counci l of Japan, Economic Ser ies No. 23, Tokoyo, 1959. Spangler , M. New Technology and Marine Resource Development. Praeger, New York, 1970. Thoman, R.S. The Geography of Economic A c t i v i t y , McGraw-Hil l , New York. 1968. Thompson, W.F. The E f f ec t of F ish ing on Stocks of Hal ibut in the P a c i f i c . Un i ve rs i t y o f Washington Press , S e a t t l e , 1950. Tomasevich, J . In ternat iona l Agreements on Conservation of Marine Resources -- With Specia l Reference to the North P a c i f i c . Food Research I n s t i t u t e , Standford Un i v e r s i t y , C a l i f o r n i a , 1943. Warntz, W. Toward a Geography o f P r i c e . Un ive rs i t y of Pennsylvania Press , Chatam, 1959. Wick, C. I . Ocean Harvest -- Commercial F i sh ing in P a c i f i c Waters. Super ior Pub. Co ; . , S e a t t l e , 1946. 174 B. Government Pub l i ca t ions Alexander, A.B. Pre l imi nary Examination of Ha l ibut F ish ing Grounds of the P a c i f i c Coast. U.S. Bureau of F i s h e r i e s . Document 763. Government P r in t ing O f f i c e , Washington, 1912. Alexander , A .B . Notes on the Ha l ibut F ishery of the Northwest Coast in 1895. U.S. Commission of F ish and F i s h e r i e s . Document 359. Government P r in t ing O f f i c e , Wash-ing ton , 1888. Beverton, R . J .H. , and S.J . Ho l t . On the Dynamics of Explo i ted F ish Populat ions. M in i s t r y of A g r i c u l t u r e , F i she r i e s and Food. ( F i sher ies Invest igat ions Ser ies 2, Volume 19) H.M.S.O- London, 1957. B r i t i s h Columbia Department of F i s h e r i e s . Annual Reports. Government of the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, V i c t o r i a , 1902-1935. B r i t i s h Columbia Bureau of Economics and S t a t i s t i c s . The Commercial F i sher i es o f B r i t i s h Columbia. Government o f the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, V i c t o r i a , 1963. Broca , P. de. The Hal ibut F ishery of the United S ta tes . Report o f the U.S. Commission of F ish and F i sher i es fo r 1873-74 and 1874-75. Government P r in t ing O f f i c e , Washington, 1876. Canada. Department of F i s h e r i e s . The Commercial F i she r i e s of Canada. Government o f Canada, Ottawa, 1956. Canada. Canada. Canada. Canada. Department of F i s h e r i e s . Annual Reports , 1931--. of Canada, Ottawa, 1931-1972. Government Department o f F i s h e r i e s . Trends in the Development of the  Canadian F i s h e r i e s . Government of Canada, Ottawa, 1967. Department of Marine and F i s h e r i e s . Annual Reports. Government of Canada, Ottawa, 1874-1930. F i she r i es Research Board. Productive Capacity of Canadian  F i s h e r i e s . F i she r i e s C i r c u l a r Number 64, Nanaimo, B.C. 1961. C r u t c h f i e l d , J . A . and A. Ze l l ne r . Economic Aspects of the P a c i f i c Ha l ibut F i shery . (F ishery Indust r ia l Research Volume I, Number I). U.S. Government P r in t ing O f f i c e , Washington, 1963. \ 175 F r i c k , H.C. The Optimum Level of F i she r i e s E x p l o i t a t i o n . Journal F i she r i e s Research Board o f Canada 14(5). Government of Canada, Ottawa, 1957. G i l b e r t , D. The Future of the F ish ing Industry of the United S ta tes . U. S. F ish and W i l d l i f e Se r v i ce , F i she r i e s News Se r v i ce , Volume IV. Government P r in t ing O f f i c e , Washington, 1943. Her r ington, W.C. Some Methods o f F ishery Management and The i r Usefulness in a Management Program? U.S. F ish and W i l d l i f e Se rv i ce . Specia l S c i e n t i f i c Report 18: 3-22, 55-59. Government P r in t ing O f f i c e , Washington, 1943. Krause, K.E. Cod and Ha l ibut F i sher i es Near the Shumagin Is lands. B u l l e t i n o f the U.S. F i sher i es Commission fo r 1881. Government P r i n t i ng O f f i c e , Washington, 1882. Pau l i k , G.J . Exp lo i t a t i on of Mu l t ip l e Stocks by a Common F ishery . Journal F i she r i es Research Board of Canada 24(12): 2527-2537. Government o f Canada, Ottawa, 1968. R icker , W.E. Re lat ion o f Catch Per Unit of E f f o r t to Abundance and Rate of E x p l o i t a t i o n s . Journal F i sher i es Research Board o f Canada 5(1) : 43-70. Government o f Canada, Ottawa, 1940. S i n c l a i r , S. L icence L im i ta t ion — A Method of F i she r i es Management. Canada Department o f F i s h e r i e s . Government of Canada, Ottawa, 1960. United States Bureau of F i s h e r i e s . B u l l e t i n o f the United States Fish Commission. Volume I-Volume 69. 1879-1971. Government P r i n t i ng O f f i c e , Washington, 1879-1971. United States Bureau of F i s h e r i e s . Reports of the Commission of F i s h e r i e s . 1872-1940. Government P r in t ing O f f i c e , Washington, 1872-1940. United States Congress and Senate Committee on Commerce. The East Bering Sea Hal ibut F ishery . Government P r in t ing O f f i c e , Washington, 1963. United States Department of the I n t e r i o r . Food F ish S i tua t ion and Outlook -- Current Economic Ana l y s i s . U.S. F ish and W i l d l i f e Se rv i ce . Government P r in t ing O f f i c e , Washington, 1968. \ 176 C. Pe r i od i ca l s Ackerman, E.A. "Deplet ion in New England F i s h e r i e s " , Economic Geography, XIV ( A p r i l , 1938) 233-238. Adams, J . Q . "The P a c i f i c Coast Ha l ibut F i s h e r y " , Economic Geography, II (Apr i l 1935) 247-257. A l l e n , E.W. " F i s h e r i e s Geography of the North P a c i f i c Ocean", Geographical Review, XLIII (January, 1953) 558-563. B laut , J .M . "Space and Process" Profess ional Geographer XIII ( Ju ly , 1961) 1-7. Cahnman, W.J. "Out l ine o f a Theory of Area S t u d i e s " , Annals o f the Assoc ia t ion of American Geographers, XXXVIII (March, 1948) 233-243. Campbell , B. "The Role of the Fishermen in the Economy o f B r i t i s h Columbia" , Transact ions . Th i r teenth B.C. Natural Resources Conference, V i c t o r i a , 1961, 247-261. C r u t c h f i e l d , J . A . "Va luat ion of F ishery Resources", . Land Economics, XXXVIII (May, 1962) 145-154. C r u t c h f i e l d , J . A . "An Economic Evaluat ion o f A l t e rna t i v e Methods of F ishery Regu la t ion " , Journal of Law and  Economics, IV (October, 1961) 131-143. C r u t c h f i e l d , J . A . " C o l l e c t i v e Bargaining in the P a c i f i c Coast F i she r i e s -- The Economic I ssues " , Indus t r i a l Labour Re la - t i o n s , Review 8 ( Ju ly , 1955) 542-566. Fullenbaum, R.F. et a l . "Symposium on Commercial F i s h i n g " , Journal of P o l i t i c a l Economy. LXXX ( July/August, 1972) 761-778. Gordon, H.S. "Economic Theory of a Common Property Resource: the F i she r y " , Journal of P o l i t i c a l Economy, LXII ( A p r i l , 1954) 124-142. Graham, H.W., et a l . "Keynote Symposium — Trends in Marine F i she r i es on North American Coas t s " , Transact ions -- American  F i sher i es Soc i e t y , LXXXXVII (January, 1968) 77-92. Hewes, G.W. "The F i she r i es o f Northwest North Amer i ca " , Economic Geography, XXVIII (January, 1952) 66-73. \ 177 Internat iona l P a c i f i c Hal ibut Commission. Reports. No. 1. 1928. I r regular 1928-1946; Annual 1947 — . No. 1-20. Sea t t l e . Internat ional North P a c i f i c F i she r i es Commission. B u l l e t i n No. 1 — (June, 1955 —). Reports (October, 1954--) Vancouver. I r e l and , G. "The North P a c i f i c F i s h e r i e s " , American Journal o f Internat ional Law, XXXVI ( Ju ly , 1942) 400-424. Ketchen, K. "The Trawl F ishery fo r P a c i f i c Cod" , Western F i s h e r i e s , LXXIII (March, 1967) 36-45. Koopmans, T . C . and M.J. Beckman. "Assignment Problems and the Locat ion of Economic A c t i v i t i e s " , Econometrica, XXV (January, 1957). 53-76 Lukerman, F. "On Exp lanat ion , Model, and D e s c r i p t i o n " , P rofess iona l Geographer, XII ( January, I960) 1-6. Lukerman, F. "The Concept o f Locat ion in C l a s s i c a l Geography", Annals of the Assoc i a t i on o f American Geographers, LI (March, 1961) 194-210. Mathieson, R.S. "The Japanese Salmon F i s h e r i e s : A Geographical A p p r a i s a l " , Economic Geography, XXXIV (January, 1958) 352-361. Mathieson, R.S. "The Alaska Salmon Industry -- Prologue and P rospec t " , Yearbook o f the Assoc ia t ion of P a c i f i c Coast  Geographers, XVI (Yearbook, 1954) 35-45. Murphy, G.I . " F i she r i e s in Upwell ing Regions" , Geoforum, II ( F a l l , 1972) 63-71. Payne, R.L. "Technology in the B r i t i s h Columbia F ish ing Indust ry " , T ransac t ions . S ixteenth B.C. Natural Resources Conference, V i c t o r i a , 1964, 306-311. Pearse, P.H. " Ra t i ona l i z a t i on of Canada's West Coast Salmon F i s h e r y " , Economic Aspects o f F ish Product ion. ( Internat ional Symposium on F i she r i e s Economics: Par is 1971) 0ECD, P a r i s , 1972, 171-202. Rawstron, E.M. "Three P r i n c ip l e s o f Indust r ia l Loca t i on " , Economic Geography, XXIII ( Ju ly , 1947) 169-180. R i cker , W.E. " E f f e c t s of P ro tec t i ve and Regulatory L e g i s l a t i o n Upon the P a c i f i c Herr ing and Ha l ibut F i s h e r i e s " , Canadian F ish C u l t u r i s t VIII (October, 1953) 13-19. 178 Ryther, J . H . "Photosynthesis and F ish Production in the Sea" , Science CLXVI (October, 1969) 72-76. Schaefer , M.B. "Some Methods of Est imat ing E f f ec t s of F i sh ing .on F ish Popu la t i on " , Transact ion -- American F i sher i es  Soc ie ty . LXXXVII (January, 1968) 231-241. S co t t , A.D. "The F i shery : The Object ives of Sole Ownership", Journal of P o l i t i c a l Economy, LXIII ( A p r i l , 1955) 116-124. : Smith, V .L . "On Models o f Commercial F i s h i n g " , Journal of P o l i t i c a l Economy, Vo l . LXXVII (March, 1969) 181-198. Turvey, R. "Opt imizat ion and Suboptimizat ion in F ishery Regu la t ion " , American Economic Review, LIV (March, 1964) 64-76. Ul lman, E.L. and W. Isard. "Towards a More Ana l y t i c a l Economic Geography: The Study of Flow Phenomena", Annals of the  Assoc ia t ion of American Geographers, XXXXI (June, 1951) 179-187. 179 D. Unpublished Mater ia l s A l ve r son , D.L. et a l . "A Study of Demersal Fishes and F i she r i e s o f the Northwest P a c i f i c " I ns t i tu te of F i s h e r i e s , Un i ve r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. H.R. MacMil lan Lectures in F i s h e r i e s , Vancouver, 1964. Deutsch, J . et a l . "Economics o f Primary Production in B r i t i s h Columbia" Special C o l l e c t i o n s , Un i ve rs i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, 1959. Kasahara, H. " F i she ry Resources of the North P a c i f i c Ocean", Ser ies of Lectures Presented at Un i ve rs i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, January and February, 1960. I ns t i tu te of F i s h e r i e s , Un i ve rs i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, 1961. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0101448/manifest

Comment

Related Items