Back to PCFFA Fishermen's News Archive
By Pietro Parravano
Late this past year, two forums were held -- at Fish Expo Atlantic in Providence and the Pacific Marine Expo in Seattle -- for fishermen to discuss unity among ourselves, the need to speak with one voice to address the issues confronting us nationally. Foremost on nearly everyone’s mind at these two sessions hosted by National Fisherman, was the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act or amendments to it, and the recommendations that are likely to be carried forward from the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans Commission.
The problem, of course, is that there is no organization at the national level representing commercial fishermen. As a result, the input from fishermen’s groups along the coasts to everyone from the head of NMFS, to the U.S. Trade Representative to members of Congress, is a confusing myriad of conflicting priorities and conflicting positions.
On individual issues we have seen fishing organizations come together on an ad hoc basis, such as this summer when Country-of-Origin-Labeling (COOL) for seafood was threatened and fishermen’s groups from around the nation pressed Congress not to delay fish labeling. Then there has been some organizing around Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization with a group called the Seafood Coalition, put together by the National Fisheries Institute (NFI), mostly to defend the current fishery management system (proposals for weakening provisions of the Sustainable Fisheries Act apparently have been scuttled). Meanwhile, some of the more activist fishermen’s groups, believing reforms are needed, have joined the Marine Fish Conservation Network. None of these ad hoc,single-issue efforts, however, are intended to provide a unified voice for those in the fishing fleet on more than an immediate issue, or for any sustained period.
It has been two decades now since there was any semblance of a national organization representing American fishermen. The last organization, which many groups here on the Pacific Coast participated in at one point or another – including United Fishermen of Alaska, North Pacific Fishing Vessel Owners Assn., Fishermen’s Marketing Association, Western Fishboat Owners Association, Oregon Trawl Commission (then the Otter Trawl Commission), Seafood Producers Cooperative (then the Halibut Producers Cooperative), the old All Coast Fishermen’s Marketing Association, Washington Trollers Association and PCFFA – was the National Federation of Fishermen (NFF). NFF had played a pivotal role representing fishermen during the debate, subsequent passage and early implementation of the Fishery Conservation & Management Act of 1976 (“Magnuson-Stevens Act”). NFF, however, was plagued with financial problems and its east coast membership outside of New England was non-existent. While it did provide something of a “national” voice, most fisheries, except west coast salmon, were doing well in the early 1980’s and the compelling reasons for a DC organization did not seem great enough to merit fixing NFF’s problems.
Another attempt was made in the early 1990’s, with help from National Fisherman, to form a national fishermen’s organization called the American Seafood Harvesters Association. That attempt, after two years spent organizing, fell short too because of lack of funds and the unwillingness on the part of fishing groups to support it, as well as from conflicts among the various fishing organizations. Perhaps ASHA’s greatest failing was trying to be too inclusive, attempting to bring in fishing groups that had no interest in being part of a national organization, or were even hostile to the existence of a national group that represented fishermen.
Many, of course, argue that fishermen already have a national voice through the National Fisheries Institute (NFI). However, NFI’s membership is primarily large seafood processors and importers, along with distributors and some of the big seafood restaurant chains. While some fishermen’s organizations do belong, NFI’s focus is primarily on the shore side aspects of the seafood and food industry, having largely different priorities and often times taking positions unfavorable to America’s fishermen. This is not to say NFI does not do a good job representing its primary members. Nor is it to say fishermen’s groups should not work with NFI, where they have issues of mutual interest or where belonging serves their needs as a fishing group or cooperative -- making and maintaining contacts with brokers, distributors or exporters, for example. Finally, NFI deserves a great deal of credit for pushing through the HACCP program for the inspection of the nation’s seafood, a system far superior to the current USDA inspection programs for meat and poultry.
The problem is the priorities and positions of some of the nation’s largest seafood processors, distributors, importers and fast-food fish restaurant chains are very different from those of working men and women in the fishing fleet. NFI’s positions on trade, labeling, aquaculture and processor quotas are antithetical to those of most fishermen. Moreover, the organization, perhaps owing to the large corporate nature of its primary members and their other interests, has not been a player (at least on the right side) in resource conservation issues, such as wetlands protection or pollution prevention, which are critical to assuring the safety and abundance of fish stocks, and ultimately the livelihoods of fishermen.
So where does that leave us? I’ve been told that it’s impossible to get fishermen together because of all the different fishing gears and different fisheries. We seem to find more to disagree on than to discover that which bonds us. Maybe I’m still an optimist after only a quarter century of being a fisherman, but I still believe most fishermen have much in common, a bond far stronger than those things we may differ on. Sure there are lots of different fisheries and many different fishing gears. But stop and consider that many fishermen, at least here on the west coast, are engaged in a number of different fisheries using different fishing gears for each. Do we argue with ourselves (well, some do) or cut our boats in half because of it? There are any number of successful port and regional organizations that include different types of fisheries and different types of gear. Many of these organizations have been around for decades and have drawn their strength from their diversity. I know within my own organization we’ve got trollers and trawlers, trappers and gillnetters, seiners and longliners and that diversity has been our strength.
On the other hand, I have seen in fisheries such as crab -- everyone fishes the same species, using the same gear -- where fishermen have been at one another’s throats. The differences among us, I believe, are not so much our different fisheries or different gears, but when fairness and respect for one another is discarded, when the greed of a few preys on the needs of the many, and when suspicion wins out over trust.
In my travels around the country visiting ports from Maine to Hawaii, Florida to Alaska, when I served on the Pew Oceans Commission, what struck me in talking to fishermen in all of these areas was how much in common our values were, how much in common our problems were. As a delegate to the World Forum of Fish Harvesters & Fishworkers, I was struck at how fishermen from different nations, in all kinds of fisheries, utilizing all kinds of gears, in all sizes of boats, could find common ground among themselves and work together. Surely, if diverse fishing groups in our local ports and regions and on an international level could find a common bond among themselves to work together on issues of mutual interest, as well as finding organizational sanctuary to civilly discuss their concerns and differences, then why can’t U.S. fishermen do it?
Initially I felt that if fishermen and their organizations around the country could just get together on a single issue -- the preservation of fishing communities -- it would have value. After all, for most of us fishing is about more than just money, it is a lifestyle, independence, the way we’ve chosen to define ourselves. And our communities, our support networks, are an integral part of fishing.
But as I began thinking about what is entailed in the preservation of fishing communities, from assuring abundant fish stocks, to maintaining our port infrastructures and coastal access, to protecting and expanding our markets to provide consumers healthful and sustainably harvested seafood (with an emphasis on seasonal and local where possible), it occurred to me there are a number of issues of mutual interest that most fishermen should be able to get together and agree upon. Here is short list, and I’d be interested if Fishermen’s News readers have others to add to this list, or if they have significant disagreement with what I’ve come up with.
Aquaculture. The threat of aquaculture to our traditional fisheries, as well as our fish stocks, is no longer just a concern of salmon and shrimp fishermen. Plans are afoot for raising sablefish, halibut, cod, you name it, in netpens along the coast and in cages in the open ocean. Blackcod aquaculture is already beginning in British Columbia where growers expect to produce 14.5 million pounds within five years. Just a one million pound increase in production could result, according to a University of Washington study, in a 60 percent drop in price. No one knows what threat these fish farms are to wild stocks, but the collapse of BC’s pink salmon runs due to an infestation of sea lice attributed to salmon farms should be of concern to fishermen if a drop in price is not. Remember, too, California’s abalone population was not depleted solely due to fishing effort, but also because of a devastating disease introduced into the wild by aquacultured stocks.
The proposals by NOAA and the Bush Administration, reported here in Fishermen’s News over the past few months (e.g., “A Summary of NOAA’s OOA Draft Bill” on page 1 of the December 2004 FN ), for legislation to permit and promote aquaculture in our nation’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) should be a wake up call to all fishermen that our fisheries are threatened without tight controls over new fish farms in our coastal zone and open oceans. Folks in NOAA and the Administration are making hysterical claims of a “seafood deficit” and that the U.S. will be left behind if it does not act now to promote fish farms in the EEZ. This is a contrived crisis. As anyone who has studied the issue knows, the aquaculture the Bush Administration is promoting will actually result in a net loss of edible protein, and only exacerbate the world’s hunger problem, not make it better. So now, after years of discussion at the federal level, it appears this Administration is prepared to move ahead with ocean aquaculture with seemingly little regard for American fishermen and traditional fisheries, particularly if we’re not united to address it.
Trade. Coupled partially to the aquaculture issue is that of trade. We’ve already had a number of instances where countervailing duties have been applied to nations dumping farmed salmon (e.g., Norway) and shrimp (e.g., Vietnam) on the U.S. market. The question is, however, how long the U.S. will stand firm on these seafood trade issues, particularly if there is something the Administration wants from a nation that has had duties or sanctions placed on it, unless there is a strong and unified voice for fishermen. Don’t expect seafood importers, distributors, chain fast-food fish restaurants, or even U.S. processors engaged in secondary processing of imported fish, to support trade duties or sanctions on fish imports. It’s up to us as American fishermen.
The trade issue is not simply one of the dumping of farmed fish on our markets. It also has to do with the standards we set for ourselves (or are set for us) to assure a sustainable harvest of fish with minimal impacts on the marine environment. Let’s face it, it costs more to restrain our fishing, to fish selectively and in a manner that doesn’t harm marine habitats. Although we all know that these additional costs now in catching fish are probably a good investment in assuring we are not faced with fishery or ecosystem collapses in the future, they can and do put us at a competitive disadvantage in the marketplace with fleets from other nations that do not exercise such care. The answer is not to lower our standards, but to assure that others who want to sell their fish into our markets are held to the same high standards.
This is why it is important that U.S. fishermen have a voice in trade discussions. In the bilateral and multilateral discussions the U.S. is having with other nations, in addition to World Trade Organization negotiations, it is important we have a voice at the table. Currently the only fishing industry group advising the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) is the National Fisheries Institute on behalf of its members. The World Wildlife Fund, too, is acting in an advisory capacity to the USTR on fishery issues, but they don’t represent fishermen. U.S. fishermen are not at the table, but the policies affecting our fisheries and our families are on the table. Certainly, on the issue of trade, most of our nation’s fishermen have a common bond and should be united, speaking with one voice.
Labeling. Thanks to the efforts of former South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle and Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, country-of-origin-labeling for most meats and fish was adopted in the 2002 Farm Bill. For meats the big food processors and grocers succeeded in delaying COOL until 2006 – and they’re still trying to rescind it – but thanks to the efforts of Senator Stevens, many fish products will, beginning in April, have to be labeled as to their country of origin and whether the product is wild or farmed. Keep in mind the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has opposed COOL and managed to delay the seafood implementation from September 2004 to April 2005, as well as removing canned, smoked or cured fish from its coverage. Given the strong opposition to COOL from food processors and the big grocers, plus a new Congress that’s likely to be less friendly to consumer right-to-know legislation (witness the defeat of Senator Daschle), it will be important for fishermen to have a united voice to protect this legislation. We need to monitor and strengthen its implementation to assure that U.S. consumers know whether the fish they’re buying were caught by American fishermen and whether those fish are wild. Here again is an issue most American fishermen can agree on and should be working together to promote.
Processor Quotas. There is a deep divide right now within the fishing fleet regarding individual fishing quotas (IFQs), but the one thing that does unite most fishermen is uniform opposition to the allocation of fishing quotas to shoreside processors. The allocation of fishing quotas to non-fishermen has the effect of turning fishermen into seagoing sharecroppers.
Make no mistake about it. The financial gains (by delivering fish when market conditions are best), the safety (ending “derby fisheries”) and whatever conservation might be achieved by dividing up and allocating fishing quotas to individuals are lost if quotas are held by fish processors. Supporters and opponents alike in the fishing fleet should be able to agree that processor quotas must be stopped and, if nothing else, there be national standards in place to limit the allocation of any fishing quotas strictly to working fishing men and women.
Coastal Development/Fishery Infrastructure. In many parts of the country, fishing communities and our fishery infrastructure is in danger of being displaced by coastal development. Resort hotels, tourism, second homes, recreational marinas, urban sprawl and the high cost of coastal properties all impinge upon and threaten the infrastructure of the fishing industry. From berths, to unloading docks, haul out facilities, fuel, ice and gear suppliers -- the infrastructure our industry depends on -- all are feeling the squeeze as more and more people visit the coast, or buy or build second homes there or make it their primary residence. It’s not just the infrastructure either. The high cost of coastal property is forcing shoreworkers, crew, even fishermen themselves to locate elsewhere away from their ports.
Even a state such as California, with its strong coastal act protecting commercial fishing facilities in the coastal zone, has a need for a strong fishermen presence to assure that the law protecting fishing facilities is not eroded. In other states the situation is far worse for the fleet. Certainly the need to protect fishing communities and the infrastructure within the coastal zone should be a common bond, one that binds fishermen together. Moreover, population growth and sprawl within the coastal zone are not just threats for fishermen, but for fish stocks as well through the loss of coastal wetlands and marshes, and increased pollution from urban runoff.
Resource Protection. Most fishermen recognize (or should recognize) that commercial fishing hinges first and foremost on abundant fish stocks. There is no end to the ranting in the fishing industry against government, sports fishermen, consumer advocates, environmentalists, blaming one or all for the maladies befalling fishermen. The fact is, however, even if all these folks went away and we had unfettered fishing, it wouldn’t mean much if there was nothing to catch. It is also a fact that if there are abundant fish stocks, it’s more likely fishing regulations will be liberalized, sports fishermen will not be clamoring for the allocations awarded the commercial fishing sector, and environmentalists will not be castigating fishermen. The problem is that government cannot be trusted by itself to protect the fish stocks we depend upon.
Even the most dedicated fishery agency seldom can withstand pressure from other government bodies, the administration it serves, or powerful political outside influences seeking to erode habitat protections without a unified fishery constituency to support protection. Worse is when we find fishery agencies that have simply sold out or become actively hostile to fish protections. Nowhere is this better exemplified than in the Bush Administration’s recent string of salmon decisions regarding dams and their operations on the Columbia, flow issues in the Klamath and Central Valley, the counting of hatchery fish for Endangered Species Act purposes, and the elimination of up to 90 percent of salmon streams for designation as critical habitat. If fishermen do not speak out to protect the fish stocks they depend on, who will?
The trouble with fishermen claiming they’re “conservationists,” or “environmentalists” is that it’s not credible if there’s no action to follow up the claim.
Yes, there are several fishing groups that are working to protect their stocks and habitats. A number of Alaskan fishing groups have worked through the years, for example, to protect the Tongass from mining and logging and have fought offshore oil development. The Alaska cod longliners worked to develop methods, and the regulations to go with them, to protect seabirds. Washington Trollers have been active on toxic issues and, along with the gillnetters, have worked tirelessly for fish passage and salmon protections on the Columbia. Crabbers, along with the Columbia River gillnetters, have fought Corps of Engineers plans for dredging of that river that would threaten salmon habitat and crab fishing grounds.
On the eastern seaboard, Maine lobstermen and Massachusetts’ hook-and-liners, among other New England fishermen, have been engaged in cooperative research programs aimed at better understanding and protecting stocks. On the Chesapeake, the Maryland Watermen’s Association has been actively working to protect wetlands, prevent pollution and restore the Bay’s crab and oyster populations. Some fishing groups in Florida have been working on coastal development and pollution issues and in Texas, shrimper Diane Wilson has gone to jail numerous times protesting pollution threatening fisheries in the Gulf. And, most Fishermen’s News’ readers are familiar with PCFFA’s involvement in the legislative and legal arenas, as well as that of the Institute for Fisheries Resources in protecting watersheds, developing resource information systems (i.e., Klamath Resource Information System, or “KRIS”), conducting studies for dam removals, and in fostering collaborative research.
The problem is these fishing groups are a minority. Thus, fishermen claiming to be concerned with conservation rings hollow for too many organizations. Too often it’s just empty rhetoric. My own belief, however, is that a lot more fishermen would be doing more than just talking about resource conservation if they had assistance and support.
I know both the Pew Oceans Commission, which I served on, and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy generated a fair amount of controversy within the fishing fleet. While there may be disagreements among the fleet with the commissions regarding the characterization of the problems, and some of their recommendations such as marine protected areas, certainly there should be agreement among fishermen with the Pew and U.S. Commission on the problems created by coastal sprawl, the land based threats to marine resources, the threats of aquaculture, and the need for pollution prevention. These issues of pollution and threats to fish habitat should bring most fishermen together. We’re the ones, after all - not government bureaucrats, not academics, not environmentalists - that will lose most if fish stocks decline or they become so contaminated they’re unsafe to sell. Pollution and habitat protection issues should unite most fishermen in a common cause.
Collaborative Research. Another issue I have found agreement on among most fishermen in my travels around the country has been the need for collaborative research. Few doubt the wisdom of this; it even has supporters in government and among many in the environmental community. The idea of utilizing fishermen’s knowledge and combining that with the academic training of scientists is an effective means of conducting studies and stock assessments from a cost, time and accuracy standpoint. Not all fishery research, after all, requires a specialized research vessel or teams of PhD’s. Collaborative research, utilizing fishermen’s vessels and their knowledge, also has the added advantage of providing employment for many and a use for their vessels during periods of restricted fishing and stock rebuilding, helping to assure there will be a fishing fleet around when stocks rebound.
Collaborative research is nothing new. The American Fishermen’s Research Foundation (AFRF) has been engaged in such endeavors, studying albacore, since the late 1960’s. The more recent success in New England and some of the collaborations begun on the west coast, looking at groundfish and salmon, hold considerable promise, winning praise from scientists and fishermen alike. This, too, is a unifying issue and should bring us together to work to assure there is funding for this research to continue and expand in the future.
Collaborative Management. Finally, I think there is a common interest among all of the fishermen I have met to participate in the management of their fisheries. While we may disagree on how well the council’s are working or what reforms may be in order, I believe there is agreement among most that the regional fishery councils provide a form of collaborative management. The Pew Commission, which raised issues about conflicts of interest, nevertheless recognized the value of fishermen sitting on regional councils. The challenge before us is how to make the councils and our state processes (for state managed fisheries) more of a collaboration that will work better for fishermen, our fish stocks and their environs. An additional challenge is how to make the management more localized so local fleets and local communities can benefit from their stewardship.
Recently scientists funded by the European Union (EU) have developed a North Seas Fisheries Ecosystem Plan (FEP) for the “creation of stewardship roles for those living and working in close contact with the sea, similar to those adopted by landowners and farmers to maintain the countryside…” The North Sea FEP argues that a mixture of measures is required to achieve a sustainable fishing industry, as no single measure is likely to be the cure. Called for in this plan is the encouragement of “fishermen to take on a ‘stewardship’ role to protect the marine ecosystem;” an increased role of stakeholders in developing fisheries policies; and the use of “incentives to promote the use of less destructive fishing techniques, e.g. nets with larger mesh and spatial restrictions of bottom trawls.”
Most fishermen I know are desirous of and see the need for being engaged as active participants in the decisions affecting their fisheries. If European fishermen are to be active in the management of their fisheries shouldn’t we be also? Here, too, is an issue I think we can agree upon.
There are thus a number of issues that should bring most fishermen together, and serve as a base for national unity, even a single voice for our cause in DC and across the nation. But unity cannot work if it’s to be merely a form of joint denial, attempting to ignore or hide the problems facing many of our fisheries. As an industry, fishermen are not going to have credibility with policy makers or the public if all we do is deny obvious problems. Nor are we doing ourselves any favors tolerating fishing that may harm other fishermen or that destroys habitats vital for our stocks, or destroys the good name of fishermen. The public, and most agencies and environmentalists, will be sympathetic to fishermen who acknowledge problems that may exist and try to fix them; but to deny the obvious is to bring down the wrath of government, the conservation community and the public in the form of restrictions, closures and even a loss of markets.
In an effort to achieve unity we should always be mindful of those who would use it as a means of silencing their fellow fishermen. Unity is not a code of silence.
In the context of the discussions initiated by National Fisherman, I think it is time for us to begin reaching out to find those common bonds we have, those issues that unite us. We are fortunate to have in our industry some excellent trade publications, with the process started by National Fisherman, and the articles carried here in Fishermen’s News. I hope that many of us in this calling, this profession we call fishermen, can reach out and come together and speak with one voice on behalf of that which we cherish.
In my travels across the country, and in my meetings with the public each weekend selling fish at my farmer’s markets, it’s become obvious also that it’s time we begin reaching out to other interests -- many whom we may have battled in the past -- to work together, to establish winning coalitions. As food producers we have much in common with family farmers, organic growers and small ranchers in maintaining fair prices for independent food producers. We should reach out to fish processors and other sectors of the fish business when it comes to protecting and improving upon the infrastructure in our industry. We should reach out to recreational fishing organizations, working together to protect our ocean waters and our joint access to them. We should reach out to consumer groups working to assure consumers have access to information on fish, including health information that can guide them in their choices. Although some fishing groups already are, others need to reach out to the conservation community, forming alliances to protect our aquatic environments vital to fishermen’s livelihoods. Finally, we need to reach out to those government agencies that are sympathetic to the plight of fish and fishermen to lend them support, or where agencies may be hostile, to find sympathetic souls within those agencies as we try to effect change.
This coming year, and probably for a number of years to come, fishermen will be faced with staggering, seemingly insurmountable problems. We obviously can’t win them alone. We need to reach out to other groups on an issue-by-issue basis seeking allies, building coalitions. But first we must reach out among ourselves to come together on the many issues that bind us, that ultimately unify us. I don’t think it’s too late, but later it may be. The time is now. Let us be the first American fishermen in this century to establish a group for the fishermen, by the fishermen. It is up to us.
Pietro Parravano lives and fishes in Half Moon Bay, California. He is the President of the Institute for Fisheries Resources and the former President of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations. He is also an elected member of the San Mateo County Harbor District, and a former member of the Pew Oceans Commission and U.S. delegate to the World Forum of Fish Harvesters & Fishworkers. To contact him email him at: fish3ifr@mindspring.com.