Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T10:31:48.120Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Law, Public Policy, and Industrialization in the California Fisheries, 1900–1925

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2012

Arthur F. McEvoy
Arthur F. McEvoy
Affiliation:
Arthur F. McEvoy is assistant professor of history atNorthwestern University.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Fisheries are paradigmatic of renewable resources because of their ecological delicacy, their vulnerability to the indirect effects of economic activity, and, above all, their nonexclusive or “common-property” nature. In this article, Professor McEvoy shows how the California fishing industry, drawing upon some of the most fertile renewable resources in the world, underwent massive, thoroughgoing modernization in the first quarter of this century, triggered by the mechanization of fishing and the coincident opening of worldwide markets to local fish processors. Public agencies charged with the oversight of the industry and the conservation of fishery resources made valiant efforts to keep pace with new problems thrust upon them by the sudden industrialization of fishing. Their failure to do so effectively illustrates in stark relief the nature of twentieth-century problems in the management of wildlife, air, water, and other shared resources in a competitive economy.

Type
Research Article
Information
Business History Review , Volume 57 , Issue 4 , Winter 1983 , pp. 494 - 521
Copyright
Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See generally Nash, Gerald D., State Government and Economic Development: A History of Administrative Policies in California, 1849–1933 (Berkeley, 1964).Google Scholar For the role of California courts in allocating resources, see Scheiber, Harry N. and McCurdy, Charles W., “Eminent Domain Law and Western Agriculture,” Agricultural History, 49 (1975), 112–30Google Scholar; McCurdy, , “Stephen J. Field and Public Land Law Development in California, 1850–1866: A Case Study of Judicial Resource Allocation in Nineteenth Century America,” Law and Society Review, 10 (1975), 235–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Feess, Gary, “The Tideland Trust: Economic Currents in a Traditional Legal Doctrine,” UCLA Law Review, 21 (1974), 827–91.Google Scholar

2 Nash, State Government and Economic Development, 196.

3 Ibid., viii.

4 On the law of wildlife, see Lund, Thomas A., American Wildlife Law (Berkeley, 1980)Google Scholar; Connery, Robert H., Governmental Problems in Wildlife Conservation (New York, 1935).CrossRefGoogle Scholar On the public trust doctrine, see Sax, Joseph L., “The Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resource Law: Effective Judicial Intervention,” Michigan Law Review, 68 (1970), 471–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Selvin, Molly, “The Public Trust Doctrine in American Law and Economic Policy, 1789–1920,” Wisconsin Law Review (1980), 1403.Google Scholar

5 Hardin, Garrett, “The Tragedy of the Commons,” Science, 162 (13 December 1968), 1243–48.Google ScholarPubMed On fishery problems generally, see Christy, Francis T. Jr, and Scott, Anthony, The Common Wealth in Ocean Fisheries: Some Problems of Growth and Economic Allocation, Resources for the Future (Baltimore, 1965).Google Scholar The problem of external diseconomies or “social cost” is treated in a general way by Coase, R. H., “The Problem of Social Cost,” Journal of Law and Economics, 3 (1960), 1–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Cheung, Steven N. S., “The Structure of a Contract and the Theory of a Non-Exclusive Resource,” Journal of Law and Economics, 13 (1970), 49–70.Google Scholar

6 Hardin, “The Tragedy of the Commons”; Ciriacy-Wantrup, S. V., Resource Conservation: Economics and Policies, 3d ed., University of California Division of Agricultural Sciences, Agricultural Experiment Station (Berkeley, 1968), 36–41Google Scholar; Laitos, Jan G., “Continuities from the Past Affecting Resource Use and Conservation Patterns,” Oklahoma Law Review, 28 (1975), 60–96.Google Scholar

7 Pigou, A. C., The Economics of Welfare, 4th ed., (London, 1950), 29–30Google Scholar; Musgrave, Richard A., The Theory of Public Finance: A Study in Public Economy (New York, 1969), 6–9Google Scholar; Hurst, J. Willard, Law and Markets in United States History: Different Modes of Bargaining Among Interests (Madison, 1982), 55–59.Google Scholar

8 Crutchfield, James A., “Economic and Political Objectives in Fishery Management,” in Rothschild, Brian J., ed., World Fisheries Policy: Multidisciplinary Views (Seattle, 1972), 75.Google Scholar

9 Gordon, F. Scott, “The Economic Theory of a Common Property Resource; The Fishery,” Journal of Political Economy, 62 (1954), 124–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also Scott, Anthony, “The Fishery: Objectives of Sole Ownership,” Journal of Political Economy, 63 (1955), 116–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Turvey, Ralph, “Optimization and Suboptimization in Fishery Regulation,” American Economic Review, 54 (1964), 64–76Google Scholar; Smith, Vernon L., “On Models of Commercial Fishing,” Journal of Political Economy, 77 (1969), 181–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pontecorvo, Giulio, “Fishery Management and the General Welfare: Implications of the New Structure,” Washington Law Review, 52 (1977), 641–56.Google Scholar

10 California Coastal Zone Conservation Commissions, California Coastal Plan (Sacramento, 1975), 26Google Scholar; Rounsefell, George A., Ecology, Utilization, and Management of Marine Fisheries (St. Louis, 1975), 32–39Google Scholar; Ricketts, Edward F. and Calvin, Jack, Between Pacific Tides, 4th ed., (Stanford, 1968), 418–21.Google Scholar

11 Browning, Robert J., Fisheries of the North Pacific: History, Species, Gear, & Processes (Anchorage, 1974), 276.Google Scholar

12 The figures are drawn from U.S. Fish Commission (hereafter USFC), Report (1888), 22–23; ibid. (1901), 550. The total for California in 1899 represents the total landings reported by USFC less landings of oysters (which were transplanted from the East Coast and merely stored in San Francisco Bay), and salt cod and whale products (which came from Alaskan and Arctic waters). The share of total national production was derived from the series in Potter, Neal and Christy, Francis T. Jr, Trends in Natural Resource Commodities; Statistics of Prices, Output, Consumption, Foreign Trade, and Employment in the United States, 1870–1957, Resources for the Future (Baltimore, 1962), 302Google Scholar, Column F. California landings after 1916 are tabulated in Frey, Herbert W., ed., California's Living Marine Resources and their Utilization (Sacramento, 1971).Google Scholar

On the backwardness of California fisheries at the turn of the century, see USFC, Report (1888), 39, 134, 137–39; ibid. (1896), 632; David Starr Jordan, “The Fisheries of California,” Overland Monthly, 2d ed., 20 (1892), 476; Philip L. Weaver, Jr., “Salt Water Fisheries of the Pacific Coast”; ibid., 151.

13 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Special Report: Fisheries of the United States, 1908 (Washington, 1911), 25, 86Google Scholar; California Fish and Game Commission (hereafter CFG), Biennial Report (1918–1920), 54; U.S. Congress, House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and Committee on Commerce, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Sardine Fisheries Cong., 2d Sess. (10–11 March 1936), committee print, 10.

14 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Thirteenth Census of the United States Manufactures, 1909; Reports by States (Washington, 1912), 69–72Google Scholar; cf. Cochrane, Willard W., The Development of American Agriculture: An Historical Analysis (Minneapolis, 1979), 323.Google Scholar

15 Steinhart, John and Steinhart, Carol, “Energy Use in the US Food System,” Science, 184 (19 April 1974), 307–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 Soutar, Andrew and Isaacs, John D., “Abundance of Pelagic Fish During the 19th and 20th Centuries as Recorded in Anaerobic Sediments off the Californias,” U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (hereafter NMFS), Fishery Bulletin, 72 (1974), 270–72Google Scholar; cf. McEvoy, Arthur F., “Economy, Law, and Ecology in the California Fisheries to 1925” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at San Diego, 1979), 243–44Google Scholar; personal interview, Dr. Paul Smith, Fishery Biologist, NMFS-Southwest Fisheries Center, La Jolla, California, 16 December 1982.

17 U.S. Bureau of Fisheries (hereafter USBF), Report (1905), 55; Thompson, William F. and Freeman, Norman C., History of the Pacific Halibut Fishery, International Fisheries Commission Report 5 (Vancouver, 1930), 11, 30Google Scholar; Carstensen, Vernon, “The Fisherman's Frontier on the Pacific Coast: The Rise of the Salmon Canning Industry,” in Clark, John G., ed., The Frontier Challenge: Responses to the Trans-Mississippi West (Lawrence, Kansas, 1971), 65, n. 125.Google Scholar

18 Browning, Fisheries of the North Pacific, 12.

19 Ibid., 120, 150; Scofield, W. L., “Purse Seines and Other Round-Haul Nets of California,” CFG, Fish Bulletin, 81 (1951), 27Google Scholar; Fields, W. Gordon, “The Structure, Development, Food Relations, Reproduction, and Life History of the Squid Loligo opalescens Berry,” CFG, Fish Bulletin, 131 (1966), 17.Google Scholar

20 Gumina, Deanna Paoli, “The Fishermen of San Francisco,” Pacific Historian, 2 (1976), 18–19.Google Scholar

21 Clark, G. H., “Sacramento-San Joaquin Salmon (Onchorhynchus tschawytscha) Fishery of California,” CFG, Fish Bulletin, 17 (1929), 10Google Scholar; Frey, California's Living Marine Resources, 43.

22 Scofield, W. L., “Sardine Fishing Methods at Monterey, California,” CFG, Fish Bulletin, 19 (1929), 20.Google Scholar

23 Browning, Fisheries of the North Pacific, 119; Western Canner and Packer, 2 June 1910; McPherson, Harold E., “Cooperative Marketing as it Relates to the Fishing Industrv,” Out West Magazine, 42 (1915), 30.Google Scholar

24 CFG, Biennial Report (1918–1920), 73; ibid. (1920–1922), 78; Skogsberg, Tage, “Preliminary Investigation of the Purse Seine Industry of Southern California,” CFG, Fish Bulletin, 9 (1925).Google Scholar

25 Pacific Fisherman Yearbook (Seattle, 1916), 75.

26 Bitting, A. W., Appertizing; Or the Art of Canning; Its History and Development (San Francisco, 1937), 842Google Scholar; Pacific Fisherman Yearbook (Seattle, 1915), 76; ibid. (1917), 85.

27 Sutherland, Arthur T., “Earnings and Hours in Pacific Coast Fish Canneries,” U.S. Department of Labor, Women's Bureau, Bulletin, 186 (1941), 3Google Scholar; Pacific Fisherman yearbook (Seattle, 1917), 85; California State Board of Control, California and the Oriental (Sacramento, 1920), 52.Google Scholar

28 Carstensen, “Fisherman's Frontier on the Pacific Coast,” 61.

29 Rosenberg, Earl H., “A History of the Fishing and Canning Industries in Monterey, California” (Ph. D. dissertation, University of Nevada, Reno, 1961), 84Google Scholar; Ahlstrom, Elbert H. and Radovich, John, “Management of the Pacific Sardine,” in Benson, Norman G., ed., A Century of Fisheries in North America, American Fisheries Society Special Publication 7 (Washington, 1970), 186.Google Scholar

30 Richard Pourade, The History of San Diego, 5; Gold in the Sun (San Diego, 1965), 231; San Diego Union, 27 September 1890; ibid., 9 June 1893; Scofield, W. L., “California Fishing Ports,” CFG, Fish Bulletin, 96 (1954), 34, 40Google Scholar; John N. Cobb, “Pacific Salmon Fisheries,” USBF Document 1092, USBF, Report (1930), 438.

31 San Diego Chamber of Commerce, “San Diego's Most Important ‘Crop,’” mimeographed (San Diego, 1955)Google Scholar; CFG, Biennial Report (1914–1916), 115; Pacific Fisherman Yearbook (Seattle, 1917), 85.

32 Ahlstrom and Radovich, “Management of the Pacific Sardine,” 186; Rosenberg, “History of the Fishing and Canning Industries in Monterey,” 97.

33 Lang, C. W. and Fellers, R. S., “Commercial Packing of California Mackerel: Preliminary Report,” University of California Publications in Public Health, 1:5 (1929), 295Google Scholar; Coast Seamen's Journal, 4 October 1916; CFC, California Ocean Fisheries to the Year 1960 (Sacramento, 1960), 5–6.Google Scholar

34 Rosenberg, “History of the Fishing and Canning industries in Monterey,” 94; CFG, Biennial Report (1918–1920), 71; Starks, Edwin C., “A History of California Shore Whaling,” CFG, Fish Bulletin, 6 (1922), 12.Google Scholar

35 Pacific Fisherman Yearbook (Seattle, 1926), 110.

36 CFG, Biennial Report (1920–1922), 12.

37 Clark, “Sacramento-San Joaquin Salmon Fishery,” 10; CFG, Biennial Report (1920–1922), 12.

38 Milner B. Schaefer, “Management of the American Pacific Tuna Fishery,” in Benson, ed., A Century of Fisheries in North America, 237; Estes, Don, “Kondo Masaharu and the Best of all Fishermen,” Journal of San Diego History, 23 (1977), 11Google Scholar; Pacific Fisherman Yearbook (Seattle, 1925), 100, 104.

39 Starks, “History of California Shore Whaling,” 7, 12.

40 1919 California Statutes 1203.

41 Ahlstrom and Radovich, “Management of the Pacific Sardine,” 186.

42 1921 California Statutes 459; CFG, Biennial Report (1922–1924), 49.

43 Ahlstrom and Radovich, “Management of the Pacific Sardine,” 187–88; Nash, State Government and Economic Development, 299–302.

44 W. L. Scofield, “Sardine Fishing Methods at Monterey,” 14.

45 CFG, Biennial Report (1920–1922), 86; ibid. (1922–1924), 495.

46 Greene, B. D. Marx, “An Historical Review of the Legal Aspects of the Use of Food Fish for Reduction Purposes,” California Fish and Game, 13 (1927), 1.Google Scholar

47 Idyll, C. P., The Sea Against Hunger (New York, 1970), 136–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

48 Schaefer, “Problems of Quality and Quantity in the Management of the Living Resources of the Sea,” in Ciriacy-Wantrup, S. V. and Parsons, James J., eds., Natural Resources, Quality and Quantity: Papers Presented Before a Faculty Seminar at the University of California, Berkeley, 1961–1965 (Berkeley, 1967), 99.Google Scholar

49 U. S. Congress, House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, “Report to Accompany HR 200, Marine Fisheries Conservation Act of 1975,” 94 Cong., 1st Sess., House Report 94–455 (1975), 36.Google Scholar On the collapse of the sardine fishery generally, see Garth I. Murphy, “Population Biology of the Pacific Sardine (Sardinops caerulea),” California Academy of Sciences, Proceedings, 4th ed., 34:1 (1966); Radovich, John, “The Collapse of the California Sardine Fishery; What Have We Learned?” in Glantz, Michael H. and Thompson, J. Dana, eds., Resource Management and Environmental Uncertainty: Lessons from Coastal Upwelling Fisheries (New York, 1981), 107–36.Google Scholar

50 San Diego Union, 1 January 1917.

51 Pacific Fisherman Yearbook (Seattle, 1920), 128.

52 Mullendore, William Clinton, History of the United States Food Administration (Stanford, 1941), 35.Google Scholar

53 Pacific Fisherman Yearbook (Seattle, 1922), 80; Rosenberg, “History of the Fishing and Canning Industries in Monterey,” 109; U.S. Bureau of the Census, Biennial Census of Manufactures, 1921 (Washington, 1924).Google Scholar

54 Scofield, W. L., “Marine Fisheries Dates,” mimeographed (Sacramento, 1957), 12.Google Scholar

55 Rosenberg, “History of the Fishing and Canning Industries in Monterey,” 97; W. L. Scofield, “Sardine Fishing Methods at Monterey,” 15, 17.

56 Pacific Fisherman Yearbook (Seattle, 1928), 143.

57 Skogsberg, “Preliminary Investigation of the Purse Seine Industry,” 10–11; CFG, Biennial Report (1922–1924), 68.

58 Blackford, Mansel G., The Politics of Business in California (Columbus, Ohio, 1977), 30.Google Scholar

59 Gumina, “Fishermen of San Francisco Bay,” 13.

60 Ibid., 15–16; W. L. Scofield, “Marine Fisheries Dates,” 18; Cinel, Dino, From Italy to San Francisco; The Immigrant Experience (Stanford, 1982), 218–21.Google Scholar

61 See text below, at notes 73–76.

62 San Francisco Examiner, 8 September 1920.

63 USFC, Repon (1878), xlv–lvi; Nash, State Government and Economic Development, 293.

64 Idyll, C. P., “Fisheries and Aquatic Resources: Coastal and Marine Waters,” in Clepper, Henry, ed., Origins of American Conservation (New York, 1966), 85–86.Google Scholar

65 McEvoy, Arthur F., “In Places Men Reject: The Chinese Fishermen at San Diego, 1870–1893,” Journal of San Diego History, 23 (1977), 17–18Google Scholar; Chinn, Thomas W., ed., A History of the Chinese in California: A Syllabus (San Francisco, 1969), 41.Google Scholar

66 CFG, Biennial Report (1914–1916), 90.

67 Nash, State Government and Economic Development, 296; CFG, Biennial Report (1914–1916), 80.

68 Thompson and Freeman, History of the Pacific Halibut Fishery, 11; CFG, Biennial Report (1916–1918), 50–51; Cushing, David, Fisheries Resources of the Sea and their Management (Oxford, 1975), 26.Google Scholar

69 CFG, Biennial Report (1916–1918), 50; ibid. (1920–1922), 82; W. L. Scofield, “Marine Fisheries Dates,” 5, 49.

70 U.S. Congress, Senate, “Fertilizer Resources of the United States,” 62nd Cong., 2d sess., Senate Document 190 (1911), 5–6Google Scholar; W. L. Scofield, “Marine Fisheries Dates,” 26.

71 Ahlstrom and Radovich, “Management of the Pacific Sardine,” 186.

72 Thompson and Freeman, History of the Pacific Halibut Fishery, 10; Nash, State Government and Economic Development, 299; CFG, Biennial Report (1916–1918), 51; see generally McEvoy, “Scientific Research and the Twentieth Century Fishing Industry,” California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations, Reports, 23 (1982), 48–55.

73 Pacific Fisherman Yearbook (Seattle, 1917), 64.

74 1915 California Statutes 713.

75 1917 California Statutes 803; Blackford, Politics of Business in California, 31; Plehn, Carl C., “The State Market Commission of California: The Beginnings,” American Economic Review, 8 (1918), 9–10Google Scholar; San Francisco Examiner, 18 August 1916; California State Market Commission, State Fish Exchange, Annual Report (1917), 19.

76 California State Fish Exchange, Annual Report (1917), 8; ibid. (1918), 112–13, 121, 149–50; ibid. (1919), 3; Blackford, Politics of Business in California, 35–38; San Diego Union, 6 April 1919.

77 California State Fish Exchange, Annual Report (1918), 98, 103; ibid. (1919), 106. On temperature changes and the distribution of commercial fishes, see Hubbs, Carl L., “Changes in the Fish Fauna of Western North America Correlated with Changes in Ocean Temperature,” Journal of Marine Research, 7 (1948), 459–82Google Scholar; Radovich, John, “Relationships of Some Marine Organisms of the Northeast Pacific to Water Temperatures, Particularly During 1957 Through 1959,” CFG, Fish Bulletin, 112 (1961).Google Scholar

78 San Francisco Chronicle, 1 August 1918; ibid., 3 August 1918; San Francisco Examiner, 6 February 1918; California Sute Fish Exchange, Annual Report (1918), 131.

79 CFG, Biennial Report (1916–1918), 7.

80 California Constitution (Mason, 1946), art. 4, sec. 25; art. 11, sec. 11.

81 Ex parte Maier, 103 C 476, 37 P 402 (1894); People v. Truckee Lumber Company, 116 C 397, 48 P 374 (1897).

82 Ex parte Maier, 103 C 476, 483.

83 Geer v. Connecticut, 161 F 519, 529 (1896). For the subsequent history of the Geer ruling, see Connery, Governmental Problems in Wildlife Conservation, 57–88; Coggins, George Cameron, “Wildlife and the Constitution: The Walls Come Tumbling Down,” Washington Law Review, 55 (1980), 295.Google Scholar

84 California Constitution (California State Senate, 1975), art. 4, sec. 251½, superseded in 1966 by art. 4, sec. 20(a); art. 1, sec. 25.

85 Matter of Application of Parra, 24 C 339, 141 P 393 (1914); Ex parte Cencinino, 31 C 238, 160 P 167 (1916); Paladini v. Superior Court, 178 C 369, 173 P 588 (1918); in re Marincovich, 48 C 474, 192 P 156 (1920); ex parte Makings, 200 C 474, 253 P 918 (1927).

86 State v. Hume, 52 Ore. 1, 95 P 808 (1908).

87 Matter of Application of Parra, 24 C 339, 141 P 393 (1914).

88 People v. Monterey Fish Products Company, 195 C 548, 234 P 398 (1925).

89 1921 California Statutes 459.

90 People v. Stafford Packing Company, 193 C 719, 227 P 485 (1924); People v. Monterey Fish Products Company, 195 C 548, 234 P 398 (1925).

91 Coast Seaman's Journal, 10 January 1917.

92 California Attorney General, Opinions, 7 (1946), 293–98.

93 Pacific Fisherman Yearbook (Seattle, 1929), 72.

94 Larkin, , “An Epitaph for the Concept of Maximum Sustained Yield,” American Fisheries Society, Transactions, 106 (1977), 4, 6Google Scholar; see generally Larkin, , “Maybe You Can't Get There From Here: A Foreshortened History of Research in Relation to Management of Pacific Salmon,” Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 36 (1979), 98–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Crutchfield, James A. and Pontecorvo, Giulio, Pacific Salmon Fisheries: a Study of Irrational Conservation, Resources for the Future (Baltimore, 1969).Google Scholar

95 Schaefer, “Management of the American Pacific Tuna Fishery,” 247; U. S. House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, “Report to Accompany HR 200,” 97. On the “tuna-porpoise” controversy, see Hyde, Laurel Lee, “Comment: Dolphin Controversy in the Tuna Industry: The United States' Role in an International Problem,” San Diego Law Review, 16 (1979), 665–704Google Scholar; Bean, Michael J., “The Developing Law of Wildlife on the National Forest and National Resource Lands,” Journal of Contemporary Law, 4 (1977), 58.Google Scholar

96 CFG, Biennial Report (1928–1930), 13. By 1938 CFG was writing in terms of a “threatened collapse”; ibid. (1936–1938), 64.

97 Frey, California's Living Marine Resources and their Utilization, 56–57.

98 Paulik, Gerald J., “Anchovies, Birds, and Fishermen in the Peru Current,” in Murdoch, William W., ed., Environment: Resources, Pollution, and Society (Stamford, Connecticut, 1971), 156Google Scholar; Idyll, C. P., “The Anchovy Crisis,” Scientific American, 228 (June 1973), 28–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Borgstrom, Georg, “Ecological Aspects of Protein Feeding—The Case of Peru,” in Farvar, M. Taghi and Milton, John P., eds., The Careless Technology: Ecology and International Development (Garden City, New York, 1972), 771.Google Scholar

99 U. S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, “Implementation of Northern Anchovy Fishery Management Plan,” Federal Register, 43:141 (21 July 1978), 31660, 31671Google Scholar; personal interview, Dr. Dan Huppert, economist, NMFS-Southwest Fisheries Center, La Jolla, California, 17 December 1982.

100 Personal interview, Dr. Paul Smith, fishery biologist, NMFS-Southwest Fisheries Center, La Jolla, California, 16 December 1982.

101 Royce, William F. and Hansen, Edward, “Food Fishery Policies in the Western United States,” Washington Law Review, 43 (1967), 239Google Scholar; Larkin, , “Fisheries Management—A Essay for Ecologists,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 9 (1978), 67–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Cf. Walker, Richard A., “Wetlands Preservation and Management on Chesapeake Bay: The Role of Science in Natural Resource Policy,” Coastal Zone Management Journal, 1 (1973), 92–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

102 Baser, Steven I., “‘Fast-Fish and Loose-Fish’: Extended Fisheries Jurisdiction and the Need for an Improved California Fisheries Management System,” Southern California Law Review, 49 (1976), 578–79.Google Scholar

103 See Warner, Langdon S., Finamore, Barbara A., and Bean, Michael J., “Practical Application of the Conservation Aspects of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act,” Harvard Environmental Law Review, 5 (1981), 30–70Google Scholar; Laitos, Jan G., “Legal Institutions and Pollution: Some Intersections Between Law and History,” Natural Resources Journal, 15 (1975), 423–51Google Scholar; Walker, Richard and Storper, Michael, “Erosion of the Clean Air Act of 1970; A Study in the Failure of Government Regulation and Planning,” Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, 7 (1978), 189–257Google Scholar; Bowden, Charles, Killing the Hidden Waters (Austin, 1977)Google Scholar; Ehrlich, Paul and Anne, Extinction: The Causes and Consequences of the Disappearance of Species (New York, 1981)Google Scholar, chapter 8, infra, Ehrlich, Ehrlich, , and Holdren, John P., Ecoscience. Population, Resources, Environment (San Francisco, 1977), 2–4.Google Scholar