ARCHIVED - Archiving Content ARCHIVÉE - Contenu archivé Archived Content Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available. Contenu archivé L’information dont il est indiqué qu’elle est archivée est fournie à des fins de référence, de recherche ou de tenue de documents. Elle n’est pas assujettie aux normes Web du gouvernement du Canada et elle n’a pas été modifiée ou mise à jour depuis son archivage. Pour obtenir cette information dans un autre format, veuillez communiquer avec nous. This document is archival in nature and is intended for those who wish to consult archival documents made available from the collection of Public Safety Canada. Some of these documents are available in only one official language. Translation, to be provided by Public Safety Canada, is available upon request. Le présent document a une valeur archivistique et fait partie des documents d’archives rendus disponibles par Sécurité publique Canada à ceux qui souhaitent consulter ces documents issus de sa collection. Certains de ces documents ne sont disponibles que dans une langue officielle. Sécurité publique Canada fournira une traduction sur demande.
86
Embed
Archived Content Contenu archivé - Public Safety Canada
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.
Contenu archivé
L’information dont il est indiqué qu’elle est archivée est fournie à des fins de référence, de recherche ou de tenue de documents. Elle n’est pas assujettie aux normes Web du gouvernement du Canada et elle n’a pas été modifiée ou mise à jour depuis son archivage. Pour obtenir cette information dans un autre format, veuillez communiquer avec nous.
This document is archival in nature and is intended for those who wish to consult archival documents made available from the collection of Public Safety Canada. Some of these documents are available in only one official language. Translation, to be provided by Public Safety Canada, is available upon request.
Le présent document a une valeur archivistique et fait partie des documents d’archives rendus disponibles par Sécurité publique Canada à ceux qui souhaitent consulter ces documents issus de sa collection. Certains de ces documents ne sont disponibles que dans une langue officielle. Sécurité publique Canada fournira une traduction sur demande.
Illk‘‘ I
kAtlasrnt ICI teitilIte
Atlantic
Law, Regulation, and Illegality in the
Nova Scotia Lobster Fishery'
KEN
7747 M3a 1988
Occasional Paper Series
The Atlantic Institute of Criminology receives sustaining contribution from the Ministry of the Solicitor General. This funding enables the Institute to carry out its chief functions of research and dissemination of information.
MINISTflY C:;": 1 • i SOLIC:IT GENCRAI. OF CANAQA
'19
P.1111e:71-te011E SOLLIC.',ITEUR
CANADA ; t.":::TARIO
KiA OP8
KC -7-7`4-7 Iv\
cil
Law, Regulation, and Illegality in the
Nova Scotia Lobster Fishery*
by
John L. McMullan Dept. of Sociology Saint Mary's University Halifax, Nova Scotia
David C. Perrier Dept. of Sociology Saint Mary's University Halifax, Nova Scotia
Norman Okihiro Dept. of Sociology Mount St. Vincent University
Halifax,Nova Scotia
The authors wish to thank Suzan Ilcan, Suzette Bury, Karin Hahn, and Patricia Munroe for their assistance in the preparation of this article and the Atlantic Institute of Criminology, Dalhousie University for funding the Piscatorial Crime Project. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Vth Congress of the Commission on Folk Law and Legal Pluralism, 12th International Congress or Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences, Zagreb, Yugoslavia, July, 1988.
Law, Regulation, and Illegality in the
Nova Scotia Lobster Fishery*
by
1
John L. McMullan Dept. of Sociology Saint Mary's University Halifax, Nova Scotia
David C. Perrier Dept. of Sociology Saint Mary's University Halifax, Nova Scotia
Norman Okihiro Dept. of Sociology Mount St. Vincent University
Halifax,Nova Scotia
The authors wish to thank Suzan Ilcan, Suzette Bury, Karin Hahn, ,and Patricia Munroe for their assistance in the preparation of this article and the Atlantic Institute of Criminology, Dalhousie University for funding the Piscatorial Crime Project. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Vth Congress of the Commission on Folk Law and Legal Pluralism, 12th International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences, Zagreb, Yugoslavia, July, 1988.
1 1
1 1 1
1 1
1
1
McMullan/Perrier
INTRODUCT ION
"Illegal lobster fishing feared" (The Chronicle-Herald, October 79)
"Concern of lobstermen grows over prospect for retaining status" (The Scotia Sun, February, 1981)
"Nine charged with piracy of Government vessel" (The Courier, May, 1983)
"Coastal Communities on Trial" (New Maritimes, October, 1983)
"Nova Scotia's lobster wars" (MacLeans, May, 1984)
"Minister concedes black market exists in fishery" (The Chronicle Herald, October, 1986)
As illustrated above, there is a growing and intense conflict between those
fishing the commons and state regulatory bodies, which has culminated in a
'law and order' problem in the Nova Scotia lobster fishery. Tensions
between fishers and government reached unparalleled heights when in
1983, boats were burned and fishery officers were assaulted. Disrespect for
rules, regulations, procedures and legislation is high. Violation3, proscc-utions
and convictions of fishers for lobster illegalities are increasing, as are the
politics of state penality.
The commercial fishers of many southwest coastal communities in Nova
Scotia are being labelled poachers and pirates by enforcement officers, the
media, government officials and industry spokespeople. Within their own
communities, however, they are frequently not regarded as criminals. The
rule of law and the customs of the commons are now in considerable dispute.
Central to this conflict has been a process of legal - Ideological censure
whereby infor mal, co m munity-based property rights, manage ment
McMullan/Perrier 3
strategies and folk forms of resource knowledge and use have been
contested, redefined and outlawed by new state property right claims and
social regulations about resource development.
The first part of the paper will map the history of government
legislation as it relates to lobster and other shellfish. This will be done in
order to provide an historical sense of the laws, customs and conflicts of the
fishery.
Next, a study of past and present trends in piscatorial crime will be
presented. This will involve an examination of government prosecutorial
reports from 1975 - 1986. We also analyze the character of contemporary
social conflict and the economic/legal/cultural motives for rule-breaking in
the fishery.
Finally, we examine the coercive capacity of the state as it relates to
fisheries enforcement.. This will involve a study of the enforcement branch
of the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (D.F.0.) and the problems
and social conflicts entailed in enforcing divergent customary and legal
nor ms.
The study focuses on the southwest region of the province since this is
the backbone of the lobster fishery and the place where illegality and social
conflict has been most enduring and acute.
FISHERIES LEGISLATION AND REGULATION UP TO 1960
The birth of the Canadian commercial lobster fishery can be traced
back to the mid-nineteenth century. The first lobster cannery in Canada was
established in New Brunswick in 1845 and shortly thereafter one was
located in Yarmouth, Nova Scotia By 1851, there were 5 small canneries
operating in Western Nova Scotia servicing local markets. Following a
depletion in the lobster stocks in the eastern United States, American
McMullan/Perrier
entrepreneurs in 1869, moved into Nova Scotia and constructed large lobster
canneries capable of serving the U.S. market. (Found, 1912; Innis, 1954;
DeWolf, 1974; Scott and Tugwell, 1981). By 1873, the total number of
lobster canneries was 43, which accounted for 62.4 per cent of all lobster
canneries in the Maritime Provinces. According to Pringle, et al. (1983:2) "Of
the Nova Scotia canneries, 40 (93%) were located along the southeast coast
from Shelburne County through to Cape Breton County."
During the early years, operations were small and oriented to local
markets. But the decline in the New England fishery as a result of trade
embargoes following the American Revolution, combined with the flourishing
mercantile trade with Europe and the West Indies, transformed the lobster
fishery into a major supplier for markets in the United States and the United
Kingdom (Rutherford, et al.; 1967; Barrett, 1983; Innis, 1954). By 1873, the
south shore of Nova Scotia was one of the most productive lobster grounds in
the Maritime region. Lobsters were so abundant and easy to catch that they
were used to fertilize the land (Perley, 1852).
The overabundance of supply constrained the method of harvesting
the resource. At first lobsters were captured by hand or by gaff, hook or
spear. This was followed by the hoop trap, a number of which when hooked
together formed a trawl. This latter method corresponded with the growth
of lobster canning. According to Knight (1867:57): "By 1867 fishermen in
Nova Scotia knew of lobster traps but they were not used extensively as
they were considered expensive." The size of supply, the simple technology
and the reliance on local markets (prior to the era or cannery expansion)
meant that fishers received a low return for their catch.
This early period up to 1873, was characterized by a 'laissez-faire'
approach to state management. Lobstering was managed as a common
McMullan/Perrier 5
property resource. There were few regulations controlling the commons and
law and custom structured the rights of access, management, and stock
protection. Informal norms among fishers set the fishing boundaries,
defined the 'shares' of the commons, and limited the effort. Fishers
established formal and informal property rights to territoriality, to
community exclusivity and to information and management on what were
considered to be rights to particular local concentrations of fish (Acheson,
1972, 1975). As Anderson and Styles (1973) note, "territoriality was the
key to fish management, moreso than fishing effort or fish population
regulation." For lobster, which are relatively sedentary and seasonally
predictable in their location patterns, this allowed for a stable moral
economy on a harbour by harbour basis. Communities claimed to hold the
right of piscary even though they did not own the ocean waters. (McCay,
1984). Boats and gear were not usually restricted, and earnings and catch
sizes depended upon the skill, effort and equipment of the individual fishers.
In good seasons most would benefit while in bad seasons most suffered,
more or less equally. Many of the dozens of communities that made up this
coastal region of the province tended to create and sustain rather integrated
occupational fishing cultures marked by a definite insider/outsider
mentality. Not surprisingly, this involved close bonds of mutual regard and
care for the welfare of one another, a web of use-rights and folk knowledges
about the sea and its resources, and a code of fishing conduct (Miller and
VanMannen, 1979). Often this entailed knowing the areas of most lobster
concentration and the most economical ways of working pots and traps.
Since territory was so important in lobstering, harbours as well as
individuals within ports, upheld and defended boundary arrangements.
Interlopers, then and now were treated harshly. Acheson's observation
1
McMullan/Perrier
(1974:189) about the Main lobster fishery holds true for Nova Scotia, "Sooner
or later, however, someone - usually one man acting completely on his own -
will decide to sanction the interloper. First the violator may be warned,
usually by having his traps opened or by having two half-hitches tied
around the spindle of his buoys. If he persists, some or all of his traps will
be "cut off", the buoy, toggles, and warp cut off, and the trap pushed over in
deep water where he has little chance of finding it." If the problem was a
community transgression then the solution was frequently collective. This
'resolution' to territorial disputes was usually managed by displacing the
violator from effective competition or, when possible, preserving traditional
community boundaries. Indeed, managing conflicts and rivalries was a
method of defining property rights and sorting out who belonged and who
was "from away." At bottom, common use rights were not open access but
they were exclusive to communal defined groups and they appear to have
been co-equally shared and managed (Ciracy-Wantrup and Bishop, 1975).
Lobstering, of course, was but one linchpin in the fishers system. The
ready abundance of salmon, clams, mackeral, sea bass, cod, and multitude of
other ground fish meant that fishers adopted what McCay (1984:20) has
called a "pluralistic and opportunistic approach" toward the sea at their
doorstep. During the years 1850 - 1873 the "overriding objective was
freedom of action for fishermen" as well as the encouragement of a multi-
purpose fishery. (Lobster Fishery Task Force Report, 1975-4). Lobster
fishing was unfettered by legislation, regulation or procedural restriction.
This was reversed in the decades follo-wing. By the mid 1880's,
declining American stocks, the demand for live lobsters,• and innovative
lobstering methods raised the landings such that the total lobster catch
pealced in 1886 at 100 million pounds (see Figure 1). As Table 1 shows the
McMullan/Perrier 7
number of canneries also incTeased from 43 in 1873 to 182 in 1892, to a
high of 277 in 1900. This represented a 644 per cent increase over the 27
years. Prices also escalated. Prince (1899) reports that between 1870 and
1885 lobster prices per pound increased tenfold in the Maritime region,
Pringle, et al. (1983) say that the landed price of lobster rose by 200 per
cent in the same time period. Clearly, competition for live market lobsters
and the increased capacity of cannery operations culminated in very high
landings in the years between 1880 and 1895 (Figure 1).
It was during these last three expansionary decades that legislative
measures were introduced. An Order-in-Council of July 7, 1873, prohibited
the capture of soft-shelled lobsters, egg-bearing females, and lobsters less
than one and one half pounds in weight. This was followed by amendments
in 1874 and 1876, which resulted in closed seasons for soft-shelled lobsters
in July and August, and which restricted lobster size to at least nine inches in
length. Then in 1879 an extensive eight month closure for southern and
eastern sections of Nova Scotia was introduced. These measures met with
opposition from fishers and operators, who objected "to making lobster
fishing a part-time activity." (Venning, 1909). As Found observes (1912:18),
"there were complaints from fishermen, who depended upon sales for their
winter supplies," as well as criticisms against letting in 'outsiders' who were
gainfully employed in other occupations. Likewise, seasonal closures were
not appreciated because Atlantic lobster fishers were restricted to fish in
periods that overlapped with the demands of the U.S. market for live lobster,
and with the supply capacity of U.S. fishers. This resulted in very intense
and competitive harvesting within straightened seasonal closure periods.
Cannery operators also were not sanguine about restrictive efforts.
According to DeWolf (1974:18), they, for the most part, "did not comply with
1 1 1 a
1 1
McMullan/Perrier
regulations and both egg-carrying and short lobsters were packed." Rivalries
between fishers and operators became so intense over markets, quality and
stock conditions that common use rights within a laissez-faire system were
challenged. According to Scott and Tugwell (1981:26), "During the late
nineteenth century, the canner operators had actually established implicit
property rights over particular fishing grounds, often controlling a two to
four mile ocean frontage." This undermined the common use-rights of
fishers and privatized them.
Not surprisingly, resource depletion became a social tragedy of the
commons , amounting to a deprivation of common use rights. Figure 1 shows
that between 1885 - 1890, lobster landings fell from close to 100,000,000
pounds to about 57,000,000 pounds. The year 1887 marked the beginning
of this rapid decline in lobster catches. The increase in cannery capacity of
over 200% between 1873 and 1892 (Table 1) combined with the expansion
of the live lobster market, meant that stocks were heavily fished, not just
inshore but as well in the near shore.l• ' Technological innovations in the
form of gas engine boats and closed-end and hoop nets allowed fishers more
range, and efficiency. The new traps ensured that small lobsters did not
escape.
This decline brought about new legislation. In 1887, the Federal
government, upgraded their 1879 measures. They retained the prohibitions
on egg-bearing lobsters and those under 9 inches in length, and redefined
the closed season for southern and eastern Nova Scotia so that it was only for.
six months from July 1 to December 31. But. these efforts were too little too
late and did not reverse the resource depletion problem (DeWolf, 1974).
Between 1887 and 1927 no fewer than 9 commissions were appointed to
examine Maritime fishing. The Prince Commission, for example, found "The
McMullan/Perrier 9
(previous) regulations had neither been obeyed nor enforced. If enforced,
the canneries would have had to cease operations because of the lack of
legal-size lobsters" (DeWolf, 1974:21). In 1899 the boundaries of fishing
districts were redrawn. As Figure 2 shows, six new fishing districts were
established in the Maritime Provinces. Each were allocated their own lobster
size limit and season. No trap restrictions or lath spacing were included.
However fishing was not permitted in less than 2 fathoms of w.ater or closer
than 100 yards to a stationary salmon net, and capturing berried lobsters
was forbidden. (DeWolf, 1974). The contentious issue of size limit was not
addressed until 1909 1 when the size regulation governing lobster traps was
increased to one and one quarter inch spacing between the lathes and a
three inch mesh netting in the heads. This apparent conservation measure
did not result in the intended escape of lobsters and it was rescinded in
1914 (Scott and Tugwell, 1981:28).
Efforts at regulation in the form of district controls, season closures,
lobster size, and trap construction rules hàd only a minimal effect on stock
stabilization. Landings continued to fall from 1900 to 1920, while cannery
production increased, even though the number of canneries was starting to
decline. According to Found (1912:53) "[By 19121 Investment in 700
canneries was estimated at over $500,000 and in traps at $1.5 million.
Eleven thousand fishermen were engaged in the primary operations and
over 8,000 people were employed in the canneries."
The great decline in lobster landings that characterized the Maritimes
from 1890 onwards, turned around in 1925. The stocks seemed to
rebound,holding up well through the 1940's. DeWolf notes (1974:22) "At the
end of World War I, the lobster fishery moved toward a position of
equilibrium. Most technological changes in the method of fishing had been
1
1
McMullan/Perrier
introduced.... The lobster-producing areas of the Maritime provinces were
divided roughly into two sections, a market section in the south and a canner
secion in the north."
This equilibrium, however, did not occur in the canning sector.
Canneries declined from 152 in 1920 to 36 in 1945. This reduction was
caused by a lessened demand for canned lobster meat brought about by
competition in the European market from canned Japanese crab meat, and
the heavy import duties set by markets in Europe for canned lobster
(Rutherford et al, 1967; Pringle, et al. 1983). Overall throughout the war
years, slight fluctuations in lobster landings occurred. Landed values were
less certain in the depression years fluctuating from a high of $2.3 million in
1930 to low points of $1.2 million in 1933 and $1.5 million in 1940 (Table
2). Thereafter they show a steady increase from $5.8 million in 1945 to
$8.2 million in 1960 (Figure 3). The average price for Nova Scotia lobster
increased from 33.1 cents per pound in 1945 to 39.5 cents per pound in
1955. The increase in price was also reflected in increased employment in
the lobster industry from 8,000 in the mid 1920s to 9,800 in 1960 (DeWolf,
1974). By 1961 10,739 out of 11,330 inshore fishers fished lobster for part
of a year. Their net average income from all sources was $2,857 annually,
of which $1,790 came from the lobster fishery. The importance of the
lobster industry for all fishers was highest in the western and southern
districts of Nova Scotia where it accounted for 57.9 % of their total annual
earnings (Atlantic Develop ment Board, 1969:29).
The years between 1925 and 1960 were ones of increased state
intervention. The MacLean Commission in 1934 recommended that a
carapace length limit be enforced at three and one sixth inches along the
southwestern shore of Nova Scotia, and that fishers be prohibited from
McMullan/Perrier 11
taking lobsters in more than one season in any year. Then in 1947 the
lobster fishing districts again were redrawn (Figure 4)2 . This was followed
by further alterations in carapace size and overall length for both market
size and canner lobsters. This increase in the size limits for market lobsters
to three and one eighth inches and then three and three sixteenth inches
was largely because of changes in the U.S. regulations (Wilder, 1954). The
Maritime lobster fishery was dependent primarily upon the distribution
centers of Boston, Gloucester, and New York.. US. markets tended to set the
price structure and they determined the price spreads and movements.
When the Americans altered their size regulations, it impacted on Canadian
suppliers .DeWolf (1974:26) notes, "because this market for live lobsters
was so important, Canadian limits were adjusted to conform with these in
Massachusetts". Regulatory measures were extended also to the area of
"factor input limitation". Restrictions on gear, vessels, and on the right to
fish were announced. As Scott and Tugwell (1981:27) noted "A major
instance was that of 1945, when capital, vessel and gear mobility were
drastically restricted by the introduction of a regulation which stated that
no one could use in lobster fishing any boats, traps or other lobster fishing
equipment that had been used during that year in lobster fishing operations
in any other lobster district," This regulation proved unenforceable and it
was rescinded in 1959, although it resurfaced in the late 1960's in the form
of trap limitations.
The post World War II period ushered in "financial assistance
packages" for fishers including trap insurance plans, low interest loans for
gear, boats, and engines, vessel subsidies, as well as aid for bait, storage,
and ice equipment. By 1957, unemployment insurance premiums were
made available to fishers from December 1 to May 15.
wiuraunanrrerner 12
Tgken together, these programs, incentives and regulations were not
always Integrated, but th.ey did in a rather ad hoc way, replace. the laissez-
faire attitude underlying earlier government policy. A peculiar blend of
market regulations, conservationist constraints and restrictions on the rights
of producers resulted. As one Task Force Report (1975:5) notes, "This is
evident from our closed seasons which avoid conflicts with peak periods of
U.S. production, changes of size limits to conform with those in major
markets, and the introduction of licence limitation." The use and tenacy in
common of the fishers of southwest Nova Scotia have been transformed by
the forces of the marketplace and the corporate fishery. The common rights
of piscary were eclipsed by the development of private property use rights
and by state property relations. This resulted in a de facto and de jure
enclosure of the commons.
TRAP CONTROLS AND LICENSE LIMITATIONS: 1960- 1986
The period from 1960 - 1986 was one of increased state regulation.
Much new and revised legislation focussed on the traditional measures of
closed times and seasons, vessel registration, licensing of lobster fishers, as
well as the operation of lobster pounds and offshore lobstering. Major rule
changes prohibited possession of lobsters, using a vessel for transporting
lobsters without permission, hauling lobster traps on a Sunday, and fishing
by means other than lobster traps (Statute Revision Commission,
1977:5120-5122). Yet the panoply of regulations affecting size, season,
equipment, and quality were bolstered by a more ambitious and
dontroversial set of regulatory plans - tag trap limitations and limited entry
licensing.
Two reasons seem to underly these regulatory additions: rationalizing
harvesting and production, and protecting the resource. The first was
McMullan/Perrier 13
supposed to enhance the position of bona fide fishers by reducing costs and
increasing incomes over the long term. The second was supposed to ensure
that over-capacity in the fleet did not overfish the resource.
Landings were stable in the 1950s but they fell abruptly from 43.5
million pounds in 1960 to 27.9 million pounds in 1972. Landed value,
however, increased over the same time period by $15.3 million (DeWolf,
1984). Fleet capacity and mobility also increased. There were now larger
boats with more sophisticated engines, lorans, radar, depth sounders and
parlour traps. At the turn of the century most lobstering occurred within
20 miles of the coast; by 1970, the radius was 50 miles and beyond, and in
1971 an offshore lobster fishery was established. The issue of how many
fishers and boats would be allowed to operate and with how much
harvesting effort became the central issues. Regulating capacity without
limiting incomes and employment was the political agenda. Trap limits,
quotas, limited entry licencing, and buy back programs were the practical
strategies.
An earlier self imposed trap limit program in Cape Breton and in the
Lismore area of Nova Scotia in the 1950s had increased income by cutting
costs without reducing the catch (Task Force Report, 1975). In 1966, in
District 8, the first state imposed trap limit of 250 traps per boat, per fisher
was introduced. Then in 1968 limits of 300, 375 and 400 were set in the
Maritime Provinces. For districts 3, 4A and 4B in southwest Nova Scotia
they were between 250 and 375. (Table 4).
Trap limits were followed in 1969 by the licencing of boats rather
than fishers. Two classes of boat licences were created. Initially Class "B"
licenses were issued to all boats from which less than 100, 75 or 50 traps
were fished. Class "A" licenses were issued to almost all other boats from
McMullan/Perrier
which a number of traps greater than the upper limit for class "B" were
fished in 1968 (See Table 4 for Districts 3 and 4). If a fisher using a class
"B" boat stopped fishing, the license that went with that boat was not
renewed. On the other hand, if a fisher using a class 'A" license stopped
fishing, whoever bought his boat also acquired the class 'A" license. The
government reserved the right to purchase boats along with the associated
license (Canada Gazette, 1970; Scott and Tugwell, 1981:29). The limitations
placed upon class "B" boats were intended to phase out 'moonlighters' and
this strategy did reduce the numbers of part-time fishers. Since 1969 the
number of Class "A" lobster boats in the Maritimes remained constant at
about 8,800 while the number of Class "B" boats declined from about 1,100
to 600 (Task Force Report, 1975:61). It also resulted in "a decrease in the
number of lobster fishermen from 16,177 in 1960 to 12,543 in 1972"
(DeWolf, 1974:26).
Fishers incomes, however, did not seem to increase appreciably. By
1971, three years after trap limits were flaposed, it was revealed that 48%
of lobster fishing vessels in the Maritimes had gross returns of less than
$2,000 (DeWolf, 1974:46). In the following year less than 1% made over
$15,000 while only 3.6 % had gross returns over $10,000 (Mail Star,
1973:3). Data on lobster fishers' incomes for the Maritime Provinces for
1973 indicated that 30% of the lobster fishing enterprises (boats) grossed
less than $1,000 'while 64% grossed less than $5,000 and 7% made over
$10,000. The average income within the Maritime lobster fishing districts
for all boats in that year was $3,670. The highest proportion of enterprises
grossing over $5,000 were in lobster districts 1, 3, 4 and 7B (Table 3).
Conflicts between the offshore and the inshore sectors heated up when
the swordfishers were allowed to catch lobsters with traps in the offshore
15
1
1
the whole year round. Eventually the number of offshore boat licenses was
restricted to six and boat quotas were fixed. Similarly, in the early 1970's
there was a drift of other fishers (i.e. haddock and herring) into lobstering.
In turn, this resulted in rivalries and conflicts between fishers over a scarce
but increasingly valuable resource. The declaration of a 200 mile economic
zone in 1977 rapidly capitalized the primary and secondary fishing sectors.
Fishers, especially those in the small boat sector, were urged by the
government to invest in new equipment and vessels. They borrowed large
amounts of money from the Fishermen's Loan Board, to finance these
ventures. In just one year after the extended economic zone (1978 - 79)
loan approvals by the Nova Scotia Fishermen's Loan Board increased by 259
percent (Davis and Kasdan, 1984:113). More and more fishers were
becoming dependent upon speCialized technologies and upon government
programs for the acquisition of these technologies.(Stiles, 1972; Ilcan, 1986)
Although these programs were designed to give fishers a chance to increase
their catches and incomes, they did force them into financially debt-
dependent positions (McMullan 1984) . The dollar value of loans increased
by. over 1,544 percent from 1955 to 1980. More importantly, the balance of
loans payable to lenders às a percentage of loans made, increased
dramatically from 0 percent to about 82 percent in the same 25 year
period. As Davis and Kasdan (1984:112) noted, "with increasing debt,
particularly indebtedness to government, has come increasingly dependence
on the financial resources controlled and extended by government. This
relationship is a tighening noose from the fishermen's perspective." In a
very short period of time, small boat fishers found themselves unable to
service their debt and on the brink of elimination from the industry.
McMullan/Perrier
In 1977 further changes were made to the "factor input regulations. "
Category "A" and "B" vessel classifications were revoked and the
government reverted back to the licensing of fishers. The previous trap
limitations placed on Category "A" and "B" boats remained, meaning that
category "A" fishers would be designated as employed full time in the
lobster fishery. Scott and Tugwell (1981:30) note: "Category A
licenses...shall not be issued to a person who (a) is fully employed in
employment other than primary industry employment or (b) has full-time
seasonal employment unless he can establish that his gross annual earnings
during the twelve-month period immediately preceding his application for
the license do not exceed what he would have earned if paid the minimum
wage plus twenty-five per cent during that period. " This licensing policy
mainly affected thos'e fishers in the low lobster producing districts, that is
areas 1 - mainland, 3, 4 - last, 5, 6B, 7A 7C (see Figure 2). The last residual
type of license adopted in 1978, Category "C", could only be given to a
person who acquired a registered lobster fishing vessel in a year
subsequent to 1968 and who was not eligible for either Category "A" and "B"
licenses. Initially, a Category 7C" license could only be issued in 1978 or any
subsequent year for fishing in district 1, 3, or 4, but as of 1979 or any
subsequent year, this license could be granted for fishing in any of the
Source: Pringle, J.D. et. al., 1983. An Overview of the Management of the Lobster Fishery in Atlantic Canada. Can. M2.."-.-Rep.-Fish. Aquat. Sci. 170:vii, p. 103.
- McMullan/Perrier
TABLE 2
LANDED VALUE OF LOBSTERS FOR MARITIME PROVINCES BETWEEN 1920 AND 1970 ($ MILLIONS)
YEAR NOVA SCOTIA NEW BRUNSWICK PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND TOTAL
Source: DeWolf, 6. 1974. The Lobster Fishery of the Maritime Provinces: Economic Effects of Regulations. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Bulletin 187, Ottawa, Environment Canada, p. 24.
47.
48. McMullan/Perrier
TABLE 3
PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF GROSS LOBSTER RECEIPTS PER ENTERPRISE I3Y LOBSTER DISTRICT IN MARITIME PROVINCES FOR
* Information fori 986 'includes file information from January to September.
Source: Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans. Prosecutorial Records 1975-86, Halifax, N.S.
CP (N)
(6) Sex Male 98.7% Female 1.3% (Nz:530)
McMullan/Perrier 58.
TABLE 13
DISTRIBUTION OF LOBSTER OFFENCES IN DISTRICTS 3, 4A AND 48 (1976-86)
Characteristics
0.0 5.6 4.7 5.5
(1) Year of Report 1975 1976 1977 1978
1979 4,7 1980 5.3 1981 5.8 1982 10.4
1983 9.2 1984 15.4 1985 18.6 1986* 14.7 (Nr.531)
(2) Statistical District of Report Shelburne/ Queens (County) 46.95g
Yarmouth/Digby/Annapolis/Kings 49.3% Lunenburg/Halifax/Colchester/Cumberland. 3.4% Other .4% (Nr.531)
(3) Lobster District of 3 4A 46 Other (a) offender's address 2.9% 57.6% 35.4% 4.2% (b) Community fqearest Offence 2.5g') 47.5% 33.8% 16.0%
(Nr.523) (N:479)
(4) Some Home/Offence Statistical Subarea Same 79.2% Different 20.8;',P) (Nr.331)
(5) Same Home/Offence Lobster District Same 94.8% Different 5.2% (N:330)
(7) Age of offender at Year of Report Under 20....4.8% 40-49...20.3% 20-29..33.15c1 .7 50-59...11.3% 30-39..23.8% 60-69...5.2%
Over 70..1.5T:, (N.-:478)
(8) Major First Offence Categories Illegal Fishing 28.2% Undersized Lobsters 33.4% Licence Violations 17.6% Time/Place Violation. 6.9% Avoidance Of f ence 4.0% Trap Gear Offence 9.9% (N7.524)
*Information for 1986 includes file information from January to September only. Source: Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans. Prosecutorial Records 1975-86, Halifax, N.S.
McMullan/Perrier 59.
TABLE 14
PROFILES OF MAJOR OFFENCE CATEGORIES IN DISTRICTS 3, 4A AND 45 (1976-86) Characteristics Illegal Undersize Licence Time/ Avoid Trop!
Fishing Lobster Violation Place Offence Gear A, ce. gz.' ce eo ev ce % ce ea
1. Season Open 11.8 43.0 44.9 46.1 42.2 34.0 (N) (110) (158) (09) (26) (19) (50)
2. Offender is a Commercial Fisher* 22.3 57.1 80.4 50.0 57.1 84.6
(N) (148) (175) (92) (36) (21) (52) 3. Age of Offender
*Derived from the offence report and fishing licence data. *Includes only commercial boots with CFV numbers " Includes small boots, punts, skiffs, etc... 'without CFV numbers. @ Includes the accused and all those involved from the offence description, not just those charged
McMullan/Perrier 60.
TABLE 15
DEPT. OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS RELATED BEHAVIOR BY MAJOR OFFENCE CATETOR1ES _ Characteristics Illegol Undersize Licence Time/ Avoid Trop/
Fishing Lobster Violotion Ploce Offence Ger cr éo co
*Based on researcher-coded analysis of written descriptions of the offence by the fishery officer. Note sample size is affected by the number of incomplete descriptions.
e Includes dumping and removal of evidence. + Includes cases where offender(s) were not charged with assault.
FISHERY OFFICERS PERSONAL RANKING OF ORIGIN AND NATURE OF DIFFICULTIES HINDERING ENFORCEMENT OF LOBSTER REGULAT IONS
Dept. of Fisheries 1 Insufficient Manpower 69.4 ex Oceans Poor Equipment 12.2
Inadequate Budget 10.2 Complexitg of Regulations 8.2
(49)
Fishers 2 Overfishi ng 53.4 Poor Attitude towards Conservation 23.3 Non-cooperation 20.0 Better Equipped & Organized 3.3
(30)
Fisher Communities 3 Support for Illegal Fishing 70.0 Negative Attitude to DFO 30.0
(20)
McMullan/Perrier
TABLE 20
FISHERY OFFICERS PERSONAL RANKING OF FORMS OF NON-COOPERATION IN ENCOUNTERS WITH LOBSTER VIOLATORS
64.
Forms of Non-cooperation
Fishery Officers' Ranking (N)
Verbal Abuse 1 88.1 (42) Avoidance ,-)
4 83.9 (31) Threats to Person 3 74.3 (35) Evasion 4 63.0 (27) Threats to Property 5 51.5 (33) Physical Assault 6 13.9 (36)
TABLE 21
FISHERY OFFICERS' PERSONAL RANKING OF THE MANNER IN WHICH OCCUPATIONAL PROBLEMS AFFECT PERSONAL LIFE
Manner of Fishery Officers' Affecting Home Life Ranking (N)
Subject of Gossip 1 45.0 (40) Abusive/Threatening Telephone Calls 2 41.5 (41) infringement on Family Time 3 37.8 (37) Threats to Property 4 18.9 (37) Threats to Family 5 7.9 (38) Harassment of Children 6 5.1 (39)
McMullan/Perrier
TABLE 22
FISHERY OFFICERS PERSONAL RANKING OF METHODS USED IN DETECTING LOBSTER VIOLATIONS
Methods of Fishery Officers' Detection Ranking 57, (N)
Patrols 1 95.7 (47) Fisher Informants 2 93.6 (47) Other Law Enforcement Agencies 3 87.8 (41) Members of the Public 4 84.1 (44) Zenith 40000 5 32.1 (20)
TABLE 23
FISHERY OFFICERS' PERSONAL ASSESSMENT OF SANCTIONS FOR LOBSTER VIOLATORS
Type of Assessment For Fishers For Non-fishers Sanction of Sanctions
Fines Adequate & Applied 26.1 33.3 Adequate & Not Applied 6.5 4.4 Inadequate & Applied 63.0 60.0 Inadequate & Not Applied 4.4 2.2
(46) (45) Suspensions Adequate & Applied 26.2 9.1
Adequate & Not Apglied 47.6 27.3 Inadequate & Applied 9.5 45.4 Inadequate & Not Applied 16.7 10.2
(42) (11) Forf eitures Adequate & Appli ed 46.9 64.5
Adequate & Not Applied 25.0 9.7 Inadequate & Applied 12.5 16.1 Inadequate & Not Applied 15.6 9.7
(32) (31)
65.
McMullan/Perrier 66..
FOOTNOTES
1. Pringle et al. (1983) indicated that as early as 1890 the mean weight
of lobsters used in the canning operations was 45 kilograms, whereas
market lobsters were about 68 kilograms. This suggests that the
fishery no longer was based on older stocks of lobsters and that
upward's of ten lobsters rather than two or three were required to fill
a 45 kilogram can.
2. The following lobster districts were created with some changes made
in 1968 (4a and 4b), and 1982 (5a and 5b).
District 1
The area on and along that portion of the coast or waters thereof of
the Province of New Brunswick embraced and included within the
C.ounty of Charlotte, and the islands adjacent thereto, including the
Island of Grand Manan.
District 2
The area on and along that portion of the coast or fhP waters thereof
of the Province of New Brunswick embraced and included within the
County of Saint John.
District 3
The area on and along that portion of the coast or waters thereof of
the Provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia embraced and
included within the County. of Albert, New Brunswick and those
portions of Cumberland and Colchester Counties bordering on the Bay
of Fundy and tributary waters, as well as the Counties of Hauts.
Kings and Annapolis the waters of the Annapolis Basin and Digby Gut, as well as the entrance thereto, and of that portion of Digby County
67 McMullan/Perrier
that is east of a line drawn north one-half east magnetic from the
eastern side of Burns Point, Digby County, Nova Scotia.
District 4A
The area on and along that portion of the coast or the waters of the
Province of Nova Scotia, embraced and included within that portion of
County of Digby that is west of a 1ine drawn north one-half east
magnetic from range markers placed by a fishery officer on the
Eastern side of Burns Point, Digby County, the County of Yarmouth
and that portion of Shelburne County that is west of a line drawn due
south magnetic from Baccaro Point, Shelburne County.
District 4B
The area on and along that portion of the coast of the waters of the
Province of Nova Scotia, embraced and included within that portion of
the County of Shelburne that is east of a line drawn due south
magnetic from Baccaro Point, Shelburne County, the Counties of
Queens,nuf-Lunenburg and that portion of Halifax County that is west
of Cole Harbour, including Cole Harbour to a point designated by
range markers placed by a fishery officer.
District 5A
The area on and along that portion of the coast or the waters of the
Province of Nova Scotia from a point designated by range markers
placed by a fishery officer at Cole Harbour, Halifax County, to a
straight line drawn 150 0 true from a point at Necum Point,
Guysborough, latitude 4457'18" North and Longitude 6209'05" West.
District 5B
The area on and along that portion of the coast or the waters of the
Province of Nova Scotia from a straight line drawn 150^ true from a
McMullan/Perrier 68
point at Necum Point, Guysborough County, latitude 4457'18" North.
and longitude 620905" West, to a straight line drawn east southeast
magnitude from Ragged Head, Guysborough County as designated by
two range markers placed by a fishery officer.
District 6A
The area on and along that portion of the coast or the waters of the
Island of Cape Breton, beginning at a straight line drawn due south
magnetic from Indian Point, Cape Breton, running northward to Cape
St. Lawrence, Inverness County, and westwardly to a straight line
drawn from a point in the Gulf of St. Lawrence five nautical miles
bearin.g 315 - true from a point at High Capes Inverness County as
marked by a fishery officer in Latitude 46-58'42" North longitude
6040'00" West, to the said point at High Capes, Inverness County,
and including St. Paul Island, Whycocomagh Bay, and that portion of
the waters of the Bras D'Or Lakes lying north of a straight line drawn
from Irish Cove, Cape Breton County, Nova Seetia-te--Alba Inverness
County, Nova Scotia.
District 7A
The area on and along that portion of the coast or the waters adjacent
to the Counties of Guysborough and Richmond in Nova Scotia south of
the Canso Cause -way and lying between a straight line drawn east
southeast from Ragged Point, Guysborough County, said line
designated by two range markers placed by a fishery officer, and a
straight line drawn south magnetic from Indian Rock off Point
Michaud, Richmond County, and including the waters and coastline of
Bras d'Or Lakes south of a straight line drawn from Irish Cove, Cape
Breton County to Alba, Inverness County.
69. McMullan/Perrier
District 7B
The area on and along that portion of the coast or the waters of the
Province of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island bounded by the
waters of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, including George Bay, and in the
said waters within the following boundaries: north of the Canso
Causeway, west of a straight line drawn from a point in the Gulf of St.
Lawrence five nautical mil bearing 115 true from a point at High
Capes, Inverness County, Nova Scotia as marked by a fishery officer
in latitude 465842" North longitude 6040'00" West to the said point
at High Capes, Inverness County, Nova Scotia, south of a straight line
drawn from a point in the Gulf of St. Lawrence five nautical miles
bearing 315' true from the said point at High Capes, Inverness
County, Nova Scotia to a point five nautical miles north magnetic from
North point Lighthouse, Prince Edward Island (the said point being at
latitude 4T0825" North and Longtitiude 6402'10" West); and as of a
line commencing at the Government Wharf, Pugwash Harbour, No-
Scotia and following he channel of Pugwash Harbour seaward to the
point of intersection with the line established by the range lights
situated on the southwest side of Pugwash Harbour (the said point
being in latitude 45-51'48" North and Longtitude 63-41'12" West),
thence along the said line to the point of intersection with a straight
line drawn from Bergman's Point, Cumberland County, Nova Scotia to
the entrance to Victoria Harbour, Queen's County, Prince Edward
Island (said point being at latitude 4553'09" North, and longitude
6341'49" West) and thence along the latter line to the said entrance
to Victoria Harbour.
70. McMullan/Perrier
District 7C
The area on and along that portion of the coast of the Province of New
Brunswick bounded by the waters of the Gulf of St. Lawrence North
and West of a line drawn from a point five nautical miles north
magnetic from North Point Lighthouse, Prince County, Prince Edward
Island (the said point being in latitude 470825" North, longitude
6402'10" West),; to a point marked by a fishery officer at Eel River,
Kent County, New Brunswick and West of a straight line drawn from
latitude 4708'25" North and longitude 6402'10" West, to latitude
4808'00" North and longitude 6402'10" West to the Provincial
boundary line dividing the Provinces of Quebec and New Brunswick.
District 8
The area on and along the coast or the waters thereof of that portion
of the Strait of Northunberland between a straight line on the
northwest drawn from Eel River, Kent County, New Brunswick, to a
point in the Gulf of---ft -haverence five nautical miles north magnetic
from Point Light, Prince Edward Island and thence in a straight line
to North Point Light, Prince Edward Island and a line on the south-
east commencing at the Government Wharf, Pugwash Harbour, Nova
Scotia, thence following the channel of Pugwash Harbour seaward to
the point of intersection with the line established by the range lights
situated on the south-west side of Pugwash Harbour, the said point
being in latitude 4651'48" North and longitude 63'41'12" West,
thence along the said line to the point of intersection with a straight
line drawn from Bergman's Point, Cumberland County, Nova Scotia to
the entrance to Victoria Harbour, Queens County, Prince Edward
Island, said point being latitude 45'53'09" North and longitude
7 1 . McMullan/Perrier
6341'49" West and thence along the latter line to the said entrance
to Victoria Harbour.
3. Prior to 1977, records of violations of fishing regulations by the
federal government were sporadically maintained. With the creation
of DFO, an attempt was made to centralize the collection of data at
regional headquarters. Fishery officers were required to submit
violation reports which, besides demographic and fishery-licence
information on the accused, included in most cases an open-ended
description of the particulars of the offence and follow-up
prosecution information including court disposition and sentence.
Offence records for Southwest Nova Scotia were maintained in the
Halifax regional office, with the records dating back to 1977. DFO
officials, however, were more confident about the inclusiveness and
the comprehensiveness of the reports in the period from 1980 to the
present. To ensure that all the i data available were collected,
researchers also examined files kept in local fishery offices, but
additional cases were found. The 531 offenses data thus represent
the most comprehensive and systematically-collected data about
offenses available. Unfortunately, there is no independent source of
offence data against which to check the inclusiveness of the cases,
and, of course, there is no way to control for variations in reporting
practices of individual fishery officers and offices.
While much of the information obtained was straightforward,
information concerning the particulars of the offence were in the
form of descriptions by fishery officers written shortly after the
offence. Two full time research assistants were hired and trained to
code the data, using a pre-coded research instrument. The major
McMullan/Perrier
limitation in this area appears to be the variability in the quality of
the original offence reports from officer to officer and from report to
report. In this regard, however, these reports are not unlike police
statistics (c.f. Silverman and Teevan, 1975; Nettler, 1984).
It is not completely clear what criteria were used to determine
how many reports were filed in a given situation. Generally, it
appeared that when two or more persons were charged, a separate
offence report was filed for each person, in much the same way that
crimes against the person are treated in the Canadian Uniform Crime
Reporting system. It is important to note, however, that in many
cases where only one person is charged, more than one person may
have been involved as illegal (and legal) fishing tends to be done in
small groups with the backing of the community. In addition,
violation reports are frequently the result of a number of previous
related incidents finally resulting in,a written report and chrge. They
obviously represent only the most serious offenses or those in which
it was felt that an official sanction was required. It is worth noting
that most fishery officers are recruited from the local area and have,
or develop extensive knowledge of fishing practices in the
co m munity.
Offenses that are reported by fishery officers may also involve
police officers and may be recorded by the police. Unlike the police,
however, who are mandated to report offenses regularly and
systematically to Statistics Canada, the data anlyzed in this paper are
collected locally by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for its
own use and at this point there is no basis for comparison with other
regions or other studies.
72.
McMu llan/Perrier
The reason for this apparent 'cooperation between fishers and
fisheries officers may be because the enforcement of size regulations
for lobsters is the one area where state policy and fishers tend to
agree.
5. For one earlier example consider the mass demonstration in 1977 in
Shelburne, Shelburne County against the D.F.O. efforts to develop an
offshore lobster fishery. During the demonstration, fishers assaulted
the property of the fish buyer who was cooperating with the offshore
scheme, destroyed traps and threatened to burn and sink boats. The
events received local and national media attention. Indeed the issue
of offshore licenses for lobstering surfaced again in 1987 and 1988
when the D.F.O. issued four new licenses. The result was political
protests from inshore lobster fishers and the withdrawal of the
licenses.
6. In tables 17 to 23, the reader will find: (A) the number of people (N)
who included that subcategory in their response: and/or (B) the
percentage (%) of those that gave that subcategory its attendant
ranking. For example, in table 17, 41 respondents included clerical
duties in their response and 97.6 percent of them ranked it first.
73.
74. McMullan/Perrier
REFERENCES
Acheson, J.M. 1972 "The Territories of the Lobstermen", Natural History,
81:60-69.
1975 'The Lobster Fiefs: Economic and Ecological Effects of Territoriality in the Main Lobster Industry'', Human Ecology 3(3):183-207.
Andersen, R. and G. Stiles 1973 "Resource Management and Spatial Competition in
Newfoundland Fishing: An Exploratory Essay'', in P.H. Fricke (ed.) Seafarer and Community, Croom-Helm, London.
Apostle, R., L. Kasdan and A. Hanson 1984 "Political Efficacy and Political Activity Among Fishermen in
Southwest Nova Scotia: A Research Note". JournaLof Canadian • Studies 19 (1) pp. 157-65.
Atlantic Development Board (Canada) 1969 Fisheries in the Atlantic Provinces, Background Study, No. 3,
Ottawa.
Atlantic Fishermen 1986 (May 23)
Barrett, J. 1983 Uneven Development, Rent and the Social Organization of
Capital: A Case Study of the Fishing Industry of Nova Scotia, Canada", Unpublished D. Phil. Dissertation, University of Sussex, Brighton, England.
Box, S. 1983 Power. Crime and Mystification. London: Tavistock.
Found, W.A. 1912 "The Lobster Fishery of Canada" In Sea - Fisheries of Eastern
Canada, Commission of Conservation, Canada, Ottawa: Mortimer Company.
Grady J. and J. Sacouman 1983 "Piracy and Grassroots Unity - Coastal Communities on Trial",
New Maritimes, (October).
Ilcan, Suzanne 1986 "Independent Commodity Production in the Nova Scotia
Fishery". Gorsebrook Research Institute for Atlantic Canada Studies. St. Mary's University, Halifax, Nova Scotia.
Ilcan, Suzanne 1987 "An Historical Account of Social Legislation in the Nova Scotia
Lobstery Fishery". Report prepared for the Piscatorial Crime Project.
Innis, H.A. 1954 The Cod Fisheries: A History of an International Economy,
Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Kearney, J. 1984 Workifig ibgether: A Study of Fishermen's Response To
Government Management of the District 4A Lobster Fishery, Universite Sainte-Anne, Pointe-de-I"Eglise, N.-E, September.
Knight, T.F. 1867 Shore and Deep Sea Fisheries of Nova Scotia. A Grant, Halifax:
Provincial Government Publication.
MacLeans 1984 "Nova Scotia Lobster Wars", May 28 ,
Maclean Commission 1928 Report of the Royal Commission Investigating the Fisheries of
the Maritime Provinces and the Magdalen Islands. Kings printer, Ottawa.
MacPherson 1978 Property: Mainstream and Critical Positions: Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
McMullaniteorrior
McCay, Bonnie J. 1984 "The Pirates of Piscary: Ethnohistory of Illegal Fishing in New
Jersey". Ethnohistory 31 (1) pp. 17 - 37.
McEachern, D.B. 1969 Progress Report on the Trap Limit and License Control Survey,
Maritimes and Newfoundland Lobster Fisheries, Economics Branch, Fisheries Service, Department of the Environment, Ottawa.
McMullan, J.L. 1984 "State, Capital and Debt in British Columbia Fishing Fleet, 1970-
1982". Journal of Canadian Studies, Vol. 19:1 pp.65-88.
McMullan, J. 1987
L. "State, Capital and the B.C. Salmon - Fishing Industry" in P. Marchack, N. Guppy and J.McMullan (eds) Uncommon Property Toronto: Methuen, pp. 107-152.
Miller, Marc L. and J. Van Maanen 1979 "Boats Dont Fish, People Do": Some Ethnographic Notes on the
Federal Management of Fisheries in Gloucester", Human Organization, Vo. 38 (4) Winter: 377-385.
Marchak, P.M. 1987 "Uncommon Property" in P. Marchak, N. Guppy and J. McMullan
Stiles, G. 1979 "Labour Recruitment and the Family Crew in Newfoundland", in
R.R. Anderson (ed) North Atlantic Maritime Cultures, the Hague: Mouton: 189-208.
Yenning, R.N. 1909 The Marine and Fisheries Committee and Lobster Fishery, Goy,
Print. Bureau, Ottawa.
Wilder, D.G. 1954 The Lobster Fishery of the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence. Fish.
Res. Board. Can., Circ. 24:16p.
ATLANTIC INSTITUTE OF CRIMINOLOGY
- OCCASIONAL PAPER SERIES -
It is the policy of the Atlantic Institute of Criminology to encourage and carry-out research and informational projects covering a broad range of criminal justice, socio-legal and social deviance topics. The purpose of this Occasional Papers Series is to disseminate the findings and recommendations of forums and studies„completed or still in progress, dealing with such issues, in the Atlantic Region. Since these matters normally have operatjonal implications for the professional community, every effort 1S ead.e , to .ensure the availability of these findings to thatqpudy.dranstituent'S: (especially those who have actively pàrticipated) as well'as'policy makers and academics in other ?parts of the country.
Dr. Robert C. Kaill Director
soLGEN CANADA
LIB,/11
ii ii iii I "
0000013082
.1
DA TE
KEN 7747
M3a 1988
KEN 7747 M3a 1988
Law, regulation, and Ill- egality
in the Nova Scotia fishery.
ti SUE 0 TO
Law, regulation, and ill-egality in the Nova Scotia fishery.