harbor.jpeg

Editorials
Home
Editorials
Suggestions: How Rationalization Could Be Done Better
Cartoons
Join the DSFU
Real Fishermen Present Their Ideas to the Council
What is a Fishing Community?--Lacey Berns
Picture Gallery
Links & Contacts
Ted and Ben Stevens Sell Alaska
Ten Best
Kodiak- the novel

Is Rationalization Rational? Some Thoughts from Fishermen, and the Press


Divide And Conquer

Owners, skippers and deckhands have always worked together. Now this law would draw an arbitrary line between them. For the most part, owners are just deckhands and skippers who worked hard, used their time and money wisely, and prospered. They deserve to be awarded most of the resource, if anyone does. The processor does not deserve permanent catching or buying rights. He is set up as a buyer, the fisherman as a catcher. If there are no fish to catch, the fisherman moves. The processor will have to do the same. But deckhands are licensed commercial fishermen, too. They deserve consideration.

The deckworker has no pension plan, no 401K. He is probably uninsured. If he has a safety net, he built it himself. The cannery workers will get some job security with the guaranteed processor shares. But, with the removal of the time constraint inherent in fair competion, the boat owner will no longer need a skilled crew to harvest the crab. It will be in his interests to take the crab as cheaply as possible, which will mean less crewmen, and less pay for those who stay. The whole arrangement illustrates perfectly why working people are dubious of the way government works. Those who can pay for it get representation. The rest of us do not.
.

Processor shares (IPQs, Licenses, Associations or whatever they are called this week), are chain around the free market that Marleys ghost would not deserve. Yet they are still being extruded by the Council even after both the Justice Department and the GAO have come out against them. Even after the White House said "This cow pie stinks"  they are still flinging it around. Proof enough that money drives the process, not right or reason.

 

 Community leaders such as Bob Storrs of Unalalaska, Alexus Kwachka of the Gulf Groundfish Fishermans Association, and Steve Branson of the Crewmans Association have spend a great deal of their own time and money trying to reason with the Council. Especially considering that all are working fisherman who must fish all year to keep food on the table. Yet, to no avail. "Undocumented", therefore unrepresentable.

 

Now the NPFMC is brewing up a system of forced Co-ops in which boat owners will be awarded the resource, then herded together and compelled to sell to a single buyer. And so rationalization and processor shares will now be renamed Co-ops and made palatable. You could start calling Spam T-bone steak too, but you wouldnt fool anybody.

 And still no recognition by the Council that the large majority of fishermen even exist.

There is one other possible X-factor, though. The light of day. This will probably wind up a sad story, but it is compelling one, and it must be told. Nothing spurs the voting public like outrage.

A short list of outrageous claims:

1. Witches are made of wood.

2. Slaves are subhuman.

3. A fisherman is not a fisherman.

                        Sincerely, Terry Haines

                             PO Box 8112

                             Kodiak, AK   99615   yohaines@alaska.com

Rationalization is a big giveaway

Groundfish rationalization: This is one of the last great Alaska giveaways. The question is: Are you in, or are you out? Whether we like it or not, the groundfish in Alaska are going to be given away to those who want them the most, or those with the most money to lobby for them.

For the past 20 years, I have been a commercial fisherman, mostly here in Kodiak. I have spent a better part of that time harvesting the groundfish resource. That should mean something significant if it is decided to give away the resource. Regardless of how they divide the groundfish resources, the most important fact is not going to change: It will still require operators and crew with talent to go out to sea and catch it.

There has been a lot of talk about taking care of stakeholders. In my opinion, to leave your family, put your life and that of your crewmen at risk to harvest this resource, should qualify captains and crew as "stakeholders." If that is not enough of a reason, then it is our own fault for not standing up for ourselves. Also, bear this in mind: If anybody threatens it will cost you your job to stand up for a share of what is rightfully yours ask yourself this; How much harder will that person be to work for when he or she owns all of the fish that you are catching?

After you have asked yourself that question, reflect on the IFQ halibut and black cod fishery. Admittedly, the price has stabilized. Yes, we do not have to fish tough weather. But, let's not forget the jobs that it has cost both on the boats and in the towns around the state, or the quota share that comes off the top of some boats - as much as 35 percent! Some crewmen are left behind during a halibut trip so that the boat owner's family and friends can reap the benefit of a few easy dollars. Professional crewmen are becoming harder to find as they leave the industry in search of more reliable jobs to support their families.

Are we going to stand by and watch the same thing happen to fishery after fishery? Also, consider the "catch" problems with halibut. We are forced to throw away halibut worth $2 a pound so we can keep fish worth pennies a pound, all to protect a fishery where quite a few good fishermen have been cut short.

Alaska is a great state, a land of opportunity for all with plenty of resources for all to share. If you believe that you have a stake in this issue I would like to hear from you. The only way that we can make a change, as fishermen, is to stand together and let our voices be heard.

Curt Waters
mardelnorte@gci.com
487-4566

John van Amerongen, Editor, ALASKA FISHERMAN'S JOURNAL

Something for Everyone?

As the North Pacific Fishery Management Councils crab rationalization plan wends or steamrolls its way through Congress, one question remains unanswered: what about the crew?

Under the Council plan, vessel owners are compensated for their participation and catch history in the fishery just as they were under the IFQ program for halibut and blackcod. An additional benefit of the crab package is that displaced vessel owners will be eligible for a buyback program that will allow them to recover investment in their boats. Owners with small amounts of crab quota will have something other than quota to trade for cash. A more innovative aspect of the crab plan is that hired skippers will be compensated for their history of hard work and their expertise in guiding their crab vessels to greater or lesser shares of the annual quotas.

Similarly, Bering Sea communities and, now, individual processing companies will receive a share of future processing rights based on their historic level of activity. Something for everyone--everyone except crewmen.

When asked about crewmen, some skippers will comment, They already got paid well for their work. Others will say, Its safer for them now. And theyll be right on both counts.

But didn't vessel owners and hired skippers and processors all get paid well along the way, too? Of course they did. Crabbing will surely be safer for everyone once individual quotas are in place and the race for crab is over. It will reduce the risk for vessel owners. It will be safer for skippers, and it will be safer for crewmen. But it will only be safer for crewmen who are still employed.

Hundreds of hardworking engineers, mates, and deckhands are slated to be rationalized out of work. None of them will get a share of anything for their personal history of sweat and risk and we doubt they'll view the layoff as a safety program.

When asked about displaced crews with empty pockets, some will say, They should have organized and come to the table prepared to fight. And theyll be right about that, too.

 

What is it Really Worth? By Doug Sipes, Editor, Fishermen's News

Bering Sea and Aleutian Island (BSAI) crab rationalization moved another step closer this month, when, on September 4th, Alaska Senator Ted Stevens attached a rider containing provisions implementing the plan to a federal spending bill, the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Act. 

He did add a few changes to the plan originally put together by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC); however, just one week earlier the US Department of Justice Antitrust Division had issued a letter to NOAA Fisheries urging against processor quota shares (IPQs) and price arbitration as outlined in the NPFMC crab rationalization plan. Stevens' rider still contained processor quota shares at 90 percent as well as arbitration.

Immediately following his action, and rightly so, criticism came quickly. Crab rationalization in the BSAI fisheries is supposed to be about slowing down the worlds deadliest fishery to protect lives, to improve product quality, and to relieve pressure in a fishery that has come to see over-extended harvesting and processing activities.

But this doesnt seem to be what its about to the major processors who continually whine about protecting their investments. Do you really need 90 percent of the harvest share to protect your investment? Whats wrong with something closer to 30 percent? It is supposed to be a 3-pie system, is it not?

It also seems that processors are so busy whining that they cant seem to see absolutely the easiest way to protect what they've put into processing facilities for those fisheries: Pay a fair market price to the fishermen for their product. Thats it, problem solved, simple as that.

Crab rationalization is not supposed to be about money, however, to processors that's all it seems to be about. I wont divulge the specifics, but I had a conversation one afternoon not too long ago with an individual who is actively established in both the harvesting and processing sectors in Alaska crab fisheries (who also happens to oppose IPQs at 90 percent). He was telling me about a conversation he had one day with someone who has very prominent processing interests in Alaska, including crab. He had asked that individual how much he was willing to spend, in lobbying efforts, to get legislation passed that would bring him hundreds-of-millions of dollars with a simple stroke of a pen. And to no surprise, he answered tens-of-millions.

The establishment of IPQs, especially at 90 percent, is a critical move that can't bring anything good in fair and open markets, and the notion of IPQs is already quickly spreading like a bad virus to other fisheries.

Senator Stevens should have thought long and hard before piggybacking a plan that remains so highly controversial onto a federal spending bill; what he did appears as nothing more than one more desperate attempt to open a door that should remain locked for processors. If he, along with the NPFMC and NOAA Fisheries, are so proud of the plan theyve put together and think its all such a great concept, they should let it stand on its own and see how well it really holds up. Its not all about the money.

 

EDITORIAL: PORTLAND HERALD, Maine
Against Stevens' rider, Monday, November 3, 2003

A rider on the commerce appropriations bill has made some Alaska fishermen and environmental groups, well, crabby. Rightly so. Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, is trying to push through a plan that would essentially create "crab cartels" in Alaska, guaranteeing certain crab processors a quota of the catch. That undermines fair market competition.

As the Anchorage Daily News rightly points out, nobody would try to tell farmers that they could only sell their grain to certain agribusinesses. Crab producers want the plan, obviously, because it guarantees them business but they also say it will get crab to consumers faster.

Such a rider would set a dangerous precedent, shifting oversight of the details of the regulatory process from the regional council and giving it to Congress. The regional council system is flawed, but it does allow for more public input. There's also a danger of this plan eventually affecting other business, such as Maine's lobster industry.

Sen. Olympia Snowe is opposed to the rider. The plan also would end funding for identification and protection of essential fish habitat, making sensitive areas such as coral reefs vulnerable to damage by huge trawlers. This rider is bad for Alaska and it's bad for the nation as a whole, and it should be removed from the bill.