Back to PCFFA Fishermen's News Archive
Okay, so we’re too big to sit on a rent-a-Santa lap at the local mall and spill out a wish list of probably every toy ever invented that needs a battery, but we thought we’d make a holiday list anyway of things our industry really needs, not simply wants, this next year from a new Congress.
Our list to Congress is merely to address some overdue and long-unmet needs owed America’s oldest industry. Our list is to fulfill what is owed working fishing men and women in fulfillment of the nation’s stewardship responsibility for our public fishery resources.
Much of what we’re asking for here has been written about in Fishermen’s News over the past three years. Here’s our short list of seven things the next Congress and the current Administration can and should do for our fish and fisheries in the new year.
It’s time to deliver on financial disaster relief for fisheries. This last Congress, along with the Bush Administration, certainly took care of other natural disaster victims, such as farmers in the Klamath Basin, or some of the well-heeled and well-connected business interests whose profit expectations may have been dampened by federal actions; now it’s time to make sure fishermen receive just compensation - nothing more and nothing less. There are three groups needing help right now.
Disaster Relief for Pacific Coast Salmon Fishermen. The current financial disaster that has befallen salmon fishermen from Oregon and California is something we knew was about to occur as early as 2004. We got wind of the problem in March of 2004 and PCFFA wrote the Bush Administration in July of that year warning of an impending disaster and requesting preparations. In fact, the massive 70,000 adult spawner fish kill in September 2002 made this year’s downturn all but inevitable, and the PFMC itself warned the Administration of just this type of collapse in writing as early as December, 2002.
Yet like with Katrina, the Administration failed to respond to avert disaster. In fact, it was not until late this past summer – conveniently after the Congress had already acted on the Commerce, Justice, State (CJS) budget bill – when the Secretary of Commerce finally got around to admitting the obvious and declaring a “fishery failure.” And that was only after being physically surrounded by angry members of the California and Oregon Congressional delegations demanding action, and a not-so-friendly call from the Republican Governor of California swearing at him in a strong Austrian accent.
As we all know, fishing did not wipe out Klamath River fall-chinook precipitating the fishery closures from the Columbia to Monterey Bay; it was, rather, bad federal water decisions and inaction thereafter that led to the fish kills in-river. Barring the Klamath disaster, fishing communities should have been enjoying good seasons, recouping from less than average production during most of the past decade.
The losses to coastal fishing communities and the Tribes this year could easily exceed $100 million. Maybe that didn’t mean much to the Administration -- the losses, after all, were occurring in blue areas of blue states -- but for fishermen on the west coast, along with processors, port infrastructure, not to mention sport fishing businesses and Tribal economies, the losses over the past two years have been devastating.
In the Congress, the coastal Congressional delegation, led by Congressman Mike Thompson, and including literally every coastal and several inland Representatives in districts from Santa Barbara to Astoria, have asked for $80 million in disaster relief for affected west coast salmon fishing communities. Action on the House request was stymied, however, in part because no Republican in the affected areas – that is, the Klamath Basin – would sign on. That will not be a problem with the new majority in 110th Congress. In the Senate, there was bi-partisan support for disaster relief among the four Senators, as there was among the Governors of Oregon and California. Urgently needed relief for the salmon fishery should be one of the first actions of the new Congress.
Assistance for Shrimp and Other Gulf Fishermen. It is well over a year now since the shrimp and other fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico were nearly destroyed by hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Fishermen in Alaska and elsewhere did their part to help their brethren in the Gulf, but help from the federal government has been slow in coming, if at all, to many affected communities. Meanwhile the casinos are busy rebuilding.
Fishermen across the country should be demanding assistance to rebuild the shrimp and other affected fisheries of the Gulf, instead of letting the fishery and its infrastructure be replaced with gambling halls and tourist resorts. Not only is it the right thing to do to demand help for these fishermen, stop and consider if the federal government can get away with shirking on disaster assistance for this fleet, who is next? (See “Preparing For The Disaster Next Time,” FN October, 2005 at: www.pcffa.org/fn-oct05.htm.)
Helping Fishermen Through Rebuilding. Finally, some form of financial relief should be forthcoming – not just vessel buybacks – to help fishermen through in those fisheries where fishing has been curtailed to halt overfishing and/or rebuild stocks. The massive build-up of the nation’s fishing fleet, after all, came at the encouragement of a federal government that never bothered to do the research or stock assessments first to determine what level of fishing stocks could sustain.
Prolonging overfishing where it may be occurring or delaying stock rebuilding is not the answer, but tying up the fleet and putting fishermen out of business is no answer either. Assistance programs to help fishermen through -- perhaps with some research programs (see below) until stocks are rebuilt and can sustain greater fishing effort -- should be pursued to ensure there will be fishermen and a fleet there when the fish are back. This is particularly true in New England, but holds true for some other fisheries around the nation as well.
All we ask from Congress is that fishermen be given the same treatment, the same level of assistance, as others in this country who have befallen similar misfortunes.
We need programs that will fix fish problems, not skirt, prolong or worsen them. By programs, we don’t mean here just legislation, but the funding and implementation that goes with it. We don’t really need more funds for some of these fisheries, just a focus on the problem. In some instances there could be taxpayer savings if the crux of these fish problems were addressed and not danced around .
On the Columbia, for example, re-operating many of the dams and taking down the four lower ones on the Snake would make far more economic sense and be far more effective than the various barging and trucking programs going on now. A recently released report, called “Revenue Stream,” examines the economic impact of dam removal and salmon recovery on the Pacific Northwest. In addition to taxpayer savings, the study finds increased tourism, new outdoor recreation, and improved sport and commercial fishing opportunities would generate nearly $20 billion in new revenue for the region. (See “The Bush Administration Outlines New Salmon Policy: Save Dams, Shut Down Fisheries,” FN March, 2006, at: www.pcffa.org/fn-mar06.htm).
Moreover, it makes no economic sense to maintain Lewiston, Idaho as a deepwater port (when was the last time you heard a sea shanty about Lewiston?) from the point of taxpayers or fish. Lewiston makes no more sense as a seaport than would Fresno or Weaverville.
It’s not just on the Columbia where the Administration and the last Congress was pouring money down a rathole to avoid confronting the causes of salmon declines. The same thing has been happening with CALFED in California’s Central Valley (the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and tributaries) system. CALFED has spent billions avoiding a nearly 20 year-old scientific report finding that the San Francisco Bay and Delta are receiving inadequate freshwater inflows – an annual average deficit of 1.6 million acre-feet, in fact. Instead, CALFED -- which was supposed to restore Bay-Delta wildlife and fishery resources and provide a stable (not additional) water supply for the state -- is now a vehicle to promote even more water diversions.
Worse, the fishery agencies are party to this, overruling their own scientists and playing handmaiden for water districts and developers. The State of California, through its new water plan, has identified conservation, reuse and desalination as the means for achieving a stable water supply, but the agencies are still hooked on drawing more water from an already over-drafted system, endangering the West Coast’s second great salmon system as well as estuarine-dependent species such as Dungeness crab and herring.
All we ask from this new Congress is that biological science, not political science, be the measure by which we develop, fund and implement fish protection. And, we can think of no better places to start than on the Columbia, the Central Valley system and the Klamath.
While efforts are being made to address fishing impacts on fish stocks, habitat and other marine life here in the U.S., the fight for marine conservation will still be lost if something is not done about water pollution. This is an issue that is critical for the fishing industry; it affects both the health and abundance of our fish stocks, and their safety in the marketplace.
The issue has gotten some lip service from the two Ocean Commission reports, a recent United Nations’ paper, and even this past month’s report in the journal Science (the one warning we could lose our fish stocks by 2048 unless something is done) but little of substance is being done to combat water pollution, at least from the marine conservation end. The U.S. Clean Water Act has done much over 30 years to address municipal sewage and other point sources of pollution, but non-point sources, the sheer volume from increased population, and new forms of waste mean the Act needs better implementation, strengthening, and funds appropriated to ensure improvements are carried out.
Specifically, there is no aggressive plan in place to force municipalities to control stormwater runoff, as the population continues to grow along the coast, nor are sufficient funds available to assist municipalities in capturing and treating or reusing that runoff.
New sources of pollution, such as human hormones, along with the drugs and cosmetics that enter the waste stream are finding their ways into rivers affecting fish populations, even causing widespread sex changes. This isn’t good for the fish and probably isn’t good for those who eat them either, but the problem continues to grow, not subside. Sewage treatment plants must be able to treat these new chemical sources in waste-water. A mandate and money are needed.
Agricultural runoff also continues to be a problem. The Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico isn’t getting any smaller. Does it have to be Texas-size before anything is done? But it’s not just in the Gulf, there are mini-dead zones around the country now from Narragansett and Chesapeake Bays to the Klamath River (and the Dead Zone in the summer off Oregon – its cause, history and frequency is still being debated). These Dead Zones are just that and they’re already affecting shrimp and salmon fisheries.
Nor is the problem with agricultural runoff just nutrients or sediment. It’s also pesticides. The pesticide problem is likely to get worse with the U.S. Department of Agriculture seemingly in the back pocket of bioengineering firms producing genetically engineered plants that can withstand heavier doses of pesticides. Make no mistake, Monsanto and others are not promoting genetically-engineered plants because they are more nutritious or can grow under more extreme weather conditions. The plants are modified so more pesticide can be put on them and that’s more pesticide that ends up in our rivers, bays and oceans poisoning fish.
The health warnings on fish from Puget Sound to Santa Monica Bay should tell us that as an industry we need to do something and we need to demand something - whether its cleaning up toxics flowing directly into streams or stopping stuff spewing out of smokestacks increasing the amount of mercury that ends up in the environment and the fish we catch.
Sadly, Big Green has mostly abdicated from the fight against water pollution. The cash cow now for these groups working in the marine arena is MPAs. “Marine Protected Area” is a misnomer for what are simply no fishing zones, but some PR type has successfully hyped these as “marine reserves” or “marine wilderness,” but with absolutely no protection from pollution and thus having about the same degree of effectiveness as the Maginot Line against the Blitzkreig. But Big Green and a lot of marine scientists have been shown the money – and an MPA is the deliverable a foundation board may be demanding, where fighting water pollution is a long haul and no longer sexy.
The good news is there are now a number of riverkeeper and baykeeper organizations around the country focused on water pollution, and they should be good allies for the fishing community to work with on Clean Water Act issues.
Our ask to Congress is to strengthen the Clean Water Act and provide the funds needed for municipalities and farms to stop polluting. It’s a simple message: pollution isn’t good for fish and it isn’t good for the fishing economy.
We need aquaculture legislation that establishes standards by which we demand fish farms, whether in the coastal zone or the open ocean be operated responsibly. The aquaculture bill put in by the Bush Administration in this past Congress, S. 1195, was a boondoggle with no standards, no transparency, and just a blanket “trust us” from the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, and the National Marine Fisheries Service. (See “Analyzing the Administration's Ocean Fish Farming Legislation,” FN August, 2005, at: www.pcffa.org/fn-aug05.htm).
If we are really serious about wanting to increase protein production from the oceans, if we are serious about wanting to address the nation’s “seafood deficit,” then strong national standards must be in place and adhered to in order to be sure aquaculture in marine waters will compliment, not threaten, marine fisheries. This means standards to 1) prevent pollution; 2) prevent the spread of disease or parasites to wild fish stocks; 3) prevent escapes; 4) prohibit the use of non-native or genetically-engineered species in any open water body; 5) provide for the establishment of siting criteria and a maximum number of operations in a given area; 6) prevent interference with, or the displacement of, commercial fishing operations or other lawful maritime uses; and 7) prohibit any type of aquaculture operation that does not increase the net amount of usable protein – in other words, no more feeding wild stocks, or even soy, to farmed fish and thereby diminishing usable protein available to humans.
In addition to these standards, any aquaculture legislation should be aimed at protecting small operators, whether fishermen or fish farmers, to prevent consolidation and large aquaculture conglomerates that dominate much of aquaculture elsewhere in the world. The legislation needs to provide for a process too for planning and approval that is transparent. As flawed as it may be, the Magnuson-Stevens Act probably provides one of the most open and publicly accessible systems in government, and for that reason marine aquaculture should be brought under the auspices of the MSA.
All we ask from Congress is aquaculture legislation that is protective of our existing wild stock fisheries, compliments those fisheries and adds to -- not diminishes -- world protein production.
We’re not big fans of individual fishing quotas (IFQs). They’ve displaced fishermen in a number of fisheries (the BSAI crab fishery, for example); they’ve made a few wealthy, leaving the rest out of a fishery and out of a job; and often quota has fallen into the hands of non-fishermen, including processors and bankers, thereby turning fishermen into seafaring sharecroppers. Indeed, given the recent news out of New Zealand, IFQs haven’t even done a very good job of protecting fish stocks, which was the only reason any in the conservation community bought the concept.
However, there may be some fisheries where some form of individual quota, or community quota, system may be preferable and desired by fishermen. At this time we don’t know if Congress will act on Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization in the lame duck session. But whether it does or not in the final throes of the 109th, it is important that strong national standards be put in place for IFQs, either as part of the MSA reauthorization or as separate legislation amending the act this next year. (See “Will Fishermen Be Losers In This MSA Reauthorization Round?,” FN June, 2006, at: www.pcffa.org/fn-jun06.htm).
Congressman Tom Allen had a bill in this past Congress that would have addressed many of the issues we think fishermen are concerned with. All we ask of Congress are standards that will protect fishermen where these systems are put in place, including: 1) requiring a referendum among fishermen who are active participants in any fishery proposed for IFQs – to vote yea or nay on any program; 2) requiring quota shares be held only by active fishermen, whether captains or crew on board fishing vessels – no processors, no bankers, no absentee quota holders; 3) requiring a cap on how much quota any one individual may own or control; 4) requiring a system to fairly and equitably apportion quota among active fishermen and; 5) mandating a periodic review of any system to assure it meets its goals, which should include conservation, safety at sea, and a higher quality/value product.
The primary reason so many marine fisheries have gotten into trouble is because the information on, and status of, these stocks was inadequate. If we hope to manage our fisheries on a sustainable basis, it will take more than just legislation mandating it. It will take research to understand the life histories and behavior of the fish and their environment, and regular assessments to determine their status.
As has been proven in New England, much of this can be done efficiently and in a cost effective way when there is collaboration between fishermen and scientists. This has been demonstrated with lobster and groundfish and there may be an opportunity soon here on the west coast for collaboration between fishermen and scientists developing genetic stock identification (GSI) for salmon management. Some work has already taken place this past year involving Oregon trollers (through the Oregon Salmon Commission) and Oregon State University. (See “Scientific Advancements Could Revolutionize Fishery Management,” FN September, 2006, at: www.pcffa.org/fn-sep06.htm).
Collaborative research has additional benefits as well. It can incorporate fishermen’s knowledge in assessing MPA sites and, more importantly, conducting assessments thereafter to determine what, if any, conservation benefits may be had from this greatly hyped tool. The work in research, whether it be fishermen using their vessels, their knowledge or engaged in day-to-day research or assessment operations, can also provide additional income where fishing has been curtailed.
All we ask from Congress is an opportunity to expand around the coasts the successful fishermen-scientist collaboration that has occurred in New England, including the development of new genetic-based techniques to improve fishery management.
For nearly 200 years, the United States provided its commercial fishermen and merchant seamen “maintenance and cure” through a system of hospitals (first called the “marine hospitals,” later renamed the U.S. Public Health Service) and contract physicians. This health care system made life at sea, the long hours and danger, transient stays in various ports, and the lack of eligibility for state workmen’s compensation coverage, possible to endure.
Since the closure of the USPHS system to fishermen and seamen in 1981, however, fishermen have found private health insurance to be costly, if even available, and much of the coverage has come through a spouse’s program, working for a non-fishing employer. Many in the fleet have had to forego coverage. (See “It's Time for Health Care for Fishermen,” FN July, 2006, at: www.pcffa.org/fn-jul06.htm).
A few years ago, Massachusetts developed a health care program for fishermen, and now for all residents of that state. The newly formed Commercial Fishermen of America (CFA) has made the establishment of a national health care program for fishermen the first issue it is taking on.
We couldn’t agree more with CFA that this is a priority and that Congress, whether as part of the MSA reauthorization or other legislation, needs to exercise the wisdom of John Adams and restore health care to America’s working fishing men and women.
Finally, we are not asking for hand-outs, subsidies or welfare here. In the case of disaster relief it’s something that we provide every American suffering a natural disaster or suffering the adverse effects of federal actions. In the case of the Clean Water Act and conservation of fish stocks, this is part of the national mandate to exercise responsible stewardship over public resources, which include water and fish.
Both the Pew Oceans Commission and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy have recommended the establishment of a trust fund to financially support the nation’s ocean programs. A similar proposal for a fisheries trust fund was put forward here in Fishermen’s News three years ago (See “Planning and Paying for Future Fisheries Research,” FN August, 2003, at: www.pcffa.org/fn-aug03.htm). That proposal, using a 2.5% ad valorem fee on all seafood sold in the U.S., would generate approximately $3 billion annually (more than triple NMFS’ current budget) that could fund fishery research and restoration programs, development of responsible forms of aquaculture, development of new and more selective fishing gears and management techniques, fishermen’s health care and, maybe, even a portion of fish harvest insurance (like crop insurance in agriculture) to help fishermen weather low catches or poor market conditions.
And so, finally, from the new Congress we ask that as we work to make our fisheries sustainable you provide us the tools to make our fishery programs financially self-sustaining through the establishment of a dedicated fishery trust fund.
That’s our Christmas list of asks. The good thing with the Congress, unlike a letter to Santa, is if no one responds to our list we can go sit on their doorsteps demanding action, and if we don’t get results we can vote them out of office. That doesn’t work at the North Pole.
But most important of all is that what we’re asking for in this fishing wish list is not just for us. Rather it’s for future generations of Americans who want to fish, who want to enjoy seafood, or who just want to know there are schools of fish and fleets of fishermen still left. It doesn’t matter if batteries aren’t included.
Happy Holidays.
Zeke Grader is the Executive Director for the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations (PCFFA), with offices in San Francisco, California. Glen Spain is the Northwest Regional Director for PCFFA, located in Eugene, Oregon. PCFFA can be reached in San Francisco at (415) 561-5080, and in Oregon at (541)689-2000, or by email to: fish1ifr@aol.com. PCFFA’s Home Page is at: www.pcffa.org.
Back
to PCFFA Fishermen's News Archive