THE PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION
OF
FISHERMEN'S
ASSOCIATIONS
From Fishermen's News of March, 2001
Best Viewed With Netscape
Back to
PCFFA Home Page
Back to
PCFFA Home Page by Pietro Parravano, Zeke Grader, Glen Spain, and Natasha Benjamin
This is our short list of things we'd like to see the 107th Congress and the new Administration take on this year to assist America's oldest industry. It's not exactly a new list, but these are all matters important to our west coast and nation's beleaguered fishing industry that need addressing. This new Administration and Congress has a golden opportunity to make a real difference but lacks a fisheries agenda. Here is our proposed agenda:
The rationale for a major federal appropriation for a vessel buyback program in the west coast groundfish fishery was spelled out in last month's issue (The Fishermen's News, "Five Initiatives for 2001," February 2001). The fact is, and its been recognized by both the industry and the Pacific Fishery Management Council, there is fleet harvest capacity far in excess of what groundfish stocks can currently sustain and still maintain economically viable fishing. Furthermore, as was pointed out in last month's article, the groundfish problem is everyone's problem; if there is not soon a retirement of as much as half of groundfish fleet's catch capacity - actually taking those boats out of fishing permanently - the problem is going to spread as those vessels are forced to look to other fisheries.
Getting the $350 million or whatever it will take to eliminate the right number of boats and their permits is not going to be easy, but we need to begin banging now on both the Pacific Council and the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, which have to date shown no leadership, to start helping us to get Congress to act in this real emergency. There is clear federal culpability for the groundfish disaster and its time the federal government takes responsibility. What we need to do as an industry is make sure the government takes that responsibility and that Congress appropriates the necessary funds. This is a "gotta do this thing" item for suffering fishing communities.
Last month the United Nations' Food & Agriculture Organization (FAO) issued its report on the dangers of commercial fishing with a finding that over 70 fishermen are lost daily in fishing activities around the globe. Great strides have been made in improving safety in our own nation's fishing fleet, but one of the problems that continues to hamper many fishermen is the high cost of the mandated equipment, particularly with cutbacks in catches, falling prices for some fish and increased fuel costs. The FAO report probably also means that any exemptions from existing U.S. fishing vessel safety standards are highly unlikely. The good news is that U.S. Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) has introduced legislation, S.162, that would give fishermen tax credits for the installation of new safety gear. Unfortunately, the tax credit in Collins' current bill is only $1,500 which will not buy much equipment. But Collins' bill is worthy of support, particularly if the credit can be increased to a more realistic amount such as $3,000. If Congress is serious about tax relief this year, this is one piece of legislation that can really help many small and mid-sized fishing vessel owner/operators.
The recent OPEC cutbacks in production have helped cause an increase in the price of home heating oil, gas at the pump, and diesel at the fuel dock. This, in turn, has caused some, such as oil companies and their friends in Congress, to begin clamoring to open new federal lands for drilling, including the outer continental shelf (OCS) for oil and gas exploration. Currently there is a moratorium along most of the west coast to new OCS development, to protect against offshore oil drilling. This is a moratorium most commercial fishermen supported, and for good reason. It is up to the fishing industry now to weigh in again on this issue with support for continuing that moratorium, which has to be renewed annually.
We should note, too, that our industry's support for the OCS moratorium is neither a case of our being insensitive to the needs of others or being hypocritical because we also need fuel for our boats. The fact is, the amount of oil available from OCS leases is extremely small, but the risks of new drilling in sensitive coastal waters are extremely high for both the fishing industry and the marine environment. The price of energy and its availability can be better dealt with by increased conservation, such as increasing fuel economy standards for cars and tax credits for home insulation, as well as promoting alternative and clean sources of energy, such as solar and wind for land-based electrical consumption.
Forget all the hype given recently to marine protected areas by some scientists and environmental organizations. If we're going to protect the marine environment, it's not going to happen by making 20 or 30 percent of the ocean off limits to fishing, but by protecting all ocean waters so that fishing can exist at all, and that means first and foremost preventing pollution. Since oil is a major pollutant in the marine environment, measures are needed to reduce that pollution, whether it be from urban runoff or accidents at sea. Steps that can be taken to lessen the risk of accidental spills are to: a) reduce oil spills by limiting offshore oil drilling; and b) reduce spills caused by vessel sinkings, groundings or collisions. In addition, therefore, to continuing the moratorium on any new OCS leasing, we also need measures to improve safety standards for oil tankers to reduce the incidence of oil spills generally.
Of immediate need, given a recent bad Supreme Court decision, is Congressional legislation that would allow states to set higher safety standards for oil tanker shipments in their state waters then the very minimal federal law requires. Late in the 106th Congress, Senator Slade Gorton (R-WA) introduced S 2506 and Representative Jack Metcalf (R- WA) introduced HR 4385, to give states more authority in setting safety standards. If we are to prevent more major oil spills, particularly along the west coast, states should be allowed to adopt reasonable safety standards, especially considering the enormous fisheries damages that such accidents can have on coastal economies. However, with the December, 1999 INTERTANKO v. Locke decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, it is clear that it will take a Congressional action to make these sorts of common sense state-based tanker safety standards possible. Additionally, Congress should fast-track conversion of the oil tanker fleet to double-hulled vessels, which is going very slowly, by requiring it within five years for all tankers plying U.S. waters.
Great strides have been made in the salmon recovery effort along the west coast, but there is a need to continue these efforts in order to have a sustainable and plentiful resource. We need to reintroduce and pass Representative Mike Thompson's (D-CA) salmon restoration authorization measure (first introduced in the 106th Congress as HR 2798). Thompson's legislation would authorize fixed amounts for salmon restoration annually to west coast states and was passed in the House, but stalled in the Senate late last year. Its good not to be doing long term salmon restoration plans solely on annual appropriations without underpinning authorizing legislation.
In order to effectively continue salmon restoration, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Endangered Species Act (ESA) program needs to be fully funded. In the past these programs have been grossly underfunded. Additionally Congress should make block grants available to states for salmon recovery planning to help local governments with limited resources develop and then implement locally-based salmon recovery plans.
The situation on the Columbia River is pathetic. Congress needs to keep the funding coming for programs that will be effective for salmon restoration. At a minimum this means funding the current Columbia River salmon restoration plan and all measures called for under the current Biological Opinion. This also has to include funds to purchase additional willing-seller water releases for such low flow years as this one is shaping up to be.
But remember, as former IFR staffer Molly Thomas once put it, "fish don't swim in money." Congress also has to require that federal agencies obey our national laws, including the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act. Some of our nation's biggest scofflaws are the Corps of Engineers and the Bonneville Power Administration. We shouldn't have to sue the agencies to get them to follow the law. We (National Wildlife Federation, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, Institute for Fisheries Resources and others) just won our Snake River Clean Water Act lawsuit against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a total victory for the forces of salmon restoration. The decision in this case means the federal government has to either modify the four Lower Snake River dams to meet Clean Water Act requirements or decommission those dams entirely. If it doesn't want to remove them, Congress must then give the Corps the money to fix them, as well as fully fund all restoration efforts in the Columbia, even though those costs may well be more expensive than the total value of those four particular dams. There are only these two options, so for Congress on the Columbia it really is time to put up or shut up.
Hundreds of major hydropower dams in the west are coming up for relicensing by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Congress should avoid diluting FERC relicensing rules that protect fish and wildlife. Just as occurred in the 106th Congress, we are already seeing efforts to gut FERC fish and wildlife protections in the name of the 'energy crisis.' If these 'streamlining' measures are adopted we will see more dams being built and many foolish or obsolete projects being too easily relicensed. Its not just salmon that are impacted; changed flow regimes resulting from dam operations can also effect estuaries and the myriad of economically important species they support, from crabs to sole. If we have learned anything from history, anything from science, its clear that now is the time we should be removing some of these dams, not building new ones.
Nature is fickle and fisheries often run in boom-and-bust cycles even in the best managed of them. Forget for a minute human impacts, which everyone focuses on, and consider El Ninos, droughts, and other climatic conditions affecting either stocks or our ability to fish them, as well as natural variation from year to year in species productivity. It is obvious that fishermen, like farmers, need some mechanism to put funds away in good years to tide them over in years of poor production, or even bad market conditions. In the 107th Congress, bi-partisan legislation has been introduced in the House by Representatives Karen Thurman (D-FL) and Kenny Hulshof (R-MO) as H.R. 662, and in the Senate by Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) as S. 313, called the Farm & Ranch Risk Management Act that would allow commercial fishermen and family farmers to put up to 20 percent of their net income (from farming or fishing) into tax deferred savings accounts.
The legislation, initially just for farmers, now includes fishermen under its provisions, thanks to Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK). Under its provisions fishermen and farmers would not be taxed on money diverted to the savings accounts until after it is withdrawn and the money could stay in the accounts for five years. While it failed twice before, given the desire among many on both sides of the aisle this year to provide some form of tax relief this bill would seem to be a natural and could put both fishermen and farmers in a stronger financial position to withstand downturns and disasters so they would not have to be dependent on federal disaster relief when a catastrophic event happens. We need to get our west coast members of Congress behind this measure to help provide some badly needed economic stability for our nation's food producers. The House version (H.R. 622) is now in the House Ways and Means Committee, the Senate version (S. 313) now has 21 co-sponsors and has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee.
While we're on the topic of making fishermen less economically vulnerable to natural or economic downturns and less dependent on public relief during those downturns, it's time to begin looking ways to provide base funding for our nation's fishery programs, including research, annual stock assessment surveys, management, enforcement, restoration and recovery programs that does not depend on the fickle annual Congressional appropriation process. What is needed is some dedicated fund, similar perhaps but not identical to such programs as Wallop-Breaux and the Dingell-Johnson Act programs for sport fishing, or like the highway trust fund.
PCFFA some six years ago proposed a dedicated fund for the fisheries. For fishing programs, it specifically recommended a nominal ad valorem fee charged on all seafood (whether it was delivered to the docks aboard a U.S. fishing vessel or came into the country by container ship, aircraft or truck) for deposit into a trust fund where the monies would be dedicated solely to provide a base budget for the nation's fish programs related to necessary research, assessments, management, enforcement, restoration and recovery (ESA-related fish recovery plans, for example). Such a trust fund, of course, could be supplemented by Congressional appropriations from the Treasury, but it would provide a stable base of an ample amount so this nation could do a better job of protecting its fish stocks, and ultimately its fishermen and fishing communities.
With the talk in Congress of tax cuts, and the probability of fewer federal dollars available in the future, we believe the establishment of a dedicated, self-funded, trust account to protect and manage our nation's valuable fisheries is long overdue.
Fishermen here on the west coast, and many nationally, are required to fish in ways to assure the sustainability of the stocks they are fishing on, to avoid the bycatch of non-target fish or sea birds, turtles and marine mammals, and to avoid damaging sensitive marine habitats. Along with all that there are also higher costs for mandatory safety equipment and crewing requirements. This all means that while we are doing the right thing by the resource, the environment, ourselves and our crews, it all costs more money. Since we're now in a global economy competing with imports in our domestic markets or having to compete in foreign markets with our own exports, it is critical that the playing field be leveled. Given the international resistance by those controlling global trade talks against protective tariffs or measures to protect labor or the environment, it is therefore increasingly important that consumers at least be able to tell the difference between fish taken in a sustainable manner and those that are not.
If we are required to meet higher standards (and most of those standards are probably necessary) for conservation or safety) than our competition, but have no protection against competition from fleets from other nations with no such standards, then we ought to insist the fish we sell be properly labeled in the marketplace so the public at least has the option of choosing between fish harvested sustainably and responsibly and seafood and aquaculture products that are not.
Moreover, with recent warnings of contaminants in seafood and general health concerns, there is a crying need for proper labeling of US seafood products. This would entail having informational labels on seafood sold in the U.S. with the species, where it was caught, and possibly what type of gear was used.
Labeling is an issue where U.S. fishermen have got to finally stand up to the importers and fish farmers and tell them to get out of the way. Fishermen and consumers both need regulations to assure that fish sold in this country are fully and correctly labeled - to protect fish, to protect fishermen and, ultimately, to protect the public.
Finally, on our list of the top ten fish measures for Congress to address, it's time to reauthorize and strengthen our nation's main fishery law, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation & Management Act. In the last session of the 106th Congress were bills by Congressman Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) and Senator John Kerry (D-MA) that had elements we believe should be considered for incorporation into a reauthorization bill this session. The Gilchrest bill (H.R. 4046) would have substantially strengthened the Magnuson-Stevens Act and we think the objectives of the Marine Fish Conservation Network in pushing that bill were sound. True, some of the language needed work to prevent mischief by NMFS, but the direction of that bill was good. Since some of the technical tweeks to its language could not be dealt with last year, since there was never a hearing on it, it is hoped those detailed changes can be made before its reintroduction this year. Congressman Gilchrest is in a better position than ever to push it forward.
The Kerry Bill (S. 2973), though not as strong as Gilchrest's, but did set some important standards for individual fishery quota programs that should be given careful consideration. Unless tough national standards are developed for ITQ systems up front, the moratorium on that form of fishery management should stay in place, and for good reason. If an ITQ system is faulty, its nearly impossible to fix it once it has been put in place. An ITQ system can be a lot like energy deregulation: you'd better do it right the first time even if it takes a little longer. Just look at what botched deregulation did to California. The Kerry bill was a good start at establishing standards necessary for ITQ systems where they may be appropriate, and that measure from last year is where the debate should begin in the 107th Congress on this highly controversial fishery management tool.
So there you have it. Yes, there's more out there, like invasive species and funding for marine protected area implementation (that is, to assure there is fishermen involvement), but this list of ten is a good place to begin for this year and we offer it as a good Congressional working agenda on fisheries. What do you think? What is your "Top10" list of fishery measures for Congress to address? We'd really like to hear any ideas you might have.
Pietro Parravano is PCFFA's current President and Zeke Grader is PCFFA's Executive Director. Glen Spain is Northwest Regional Director for PCFFA. PCFFA is the west coast's largest organization of commercial fishing families, and can be reached at: Southwest Region: PO Box 29370, San Francisco, CA 94129-0370, (415)561-5080; Northwest Region: PO Box 11170, Eugene, OR 97440-3370, (541)689-2000. PCFFA's web site is at: <http://www.pcffa.org> and by Email to: <fish1ifr@aol.com>. Natasha Benjamin is on staff with PCFFA's affiliated organization, the Institute for Fisheries Resources (IFR), and can be reached via the Southwest Regional PCFFA/IFR Office. IFR's home page is at: <http://www.ifrfish.org>.