Extended fishery jurisdiction in canada and the united states

Abstract

The 200‐mi fishery zone is a reality presenting opportunities for coastal states to create new institutions or pursue new management strategies. The strategies followed by the United States and by Canada in the initial stages of their extended‐jurisdiction management programs have similarly stated goals yet offer a number of striking contrasts in development and application. These domestic fishery management programs are discussed in their sociolegal and historical contexts. The domestic legal authority for the management programs is reviewed, planning procedures and available sanctions are outlined, and the control of domestic and foreign fishing is discussed. Finally, an argument is advanced for greater participation in the development of fishery management plans and a possible system for implementation is suggested. It is concluded that the American management system is open, decentralized, and highly structured. In contrast, the Canadian system is closed, relatively centralized, and very flexible. Both approaches are considered extreme yet there is no evidence of the development of new procedures for management decision making.