Salmon fishers eligible for aid
Feds step up assistance plan as prices continue to fall

Ericka Pizzillo, The Bellingham Herald

The federal government is offering Washington and Alaska salmon fishers financial assistance because foreign imports have caused Pacific salmon prices to drop by one-third during the last five years.

The federal Foreign Agricultural Service determined that increasing imports of farmed salmon fillets, mostly from farmed Atlantic salmon raised in Chile and British Columbia, have "contributed importantly" to a 32.6 percent drop in the price of salmon in Washington during the past five years, said Roy Henwood, spokesman for the federal agency.

The service found that prices on Alaska salmon dropped by 34.7 percent during the past five years, Henwood said.

Frozen farmed salmon fillets have flooded U.S. markets, increasing from 81,400 tons in 1997 to 205,700 tons in 2002 and causing the prices of salmon worldwide to decline, according to the research from the agricultural service.

For example, the price paid to Puget Sound gill-netters for sockeye dropped from $1.23 per pound to 91 cents per pound during the past five years, according to the petition for assistance filed by the Puget Sound Salmon Commission.

There are about 6,000 permit holders and crew members in Washington eligible for the assistance, said Chris Bieker, outreach coordinator for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is taking applications for the program.

There are 38 Puget Sound salmon permit holders in Whatcom County, a decline from 260 in 1999 when the state started a permit buy-back program to reduce the fishing fleet. More Whatcom County residents may hold permits to fish for salmon in Washington waters outside the Puget Sound.

There are also more than 1,500 Alaska salmon permit holders who live in Washington state, but it's unclear how many are from Whatcom County. Some county residents fish in for sockeye in Bristol Bay and sockeye and kings on the Copper River delta.

An unknown number of commercial tribal fishers may also eligible for the program, Bieker said.

I wouldn't be suprised if most of the commercial fisherman that are eligible for this welfare have good paying jobs outside of commercial fishing...

commercial fishing in washington at this present day and age is not a full time gig...

Whether you are a Fisherman or a Farmer, it is a crock of shiot..... Where were the State and Fed people when all of us Upper Columbia guides had to get out of the business because the restrictions got so tight we lost 1/2 to 3/4 of our customers? (Who is going to spend all that money to come up from California to go home with a couple of small Sturgeon?)
We had to move on, or go back to our regular jobs full time, etc.... No one was there handing out the welfare check to us. I was one of the last to give up, thanks to a wonderfully faithful client list.... Makes me want to puke or punch.... So sick of this corporate/business welfare for select few.....

MC

This bail out for commercial fishermen is not a corporate/business bail out at all. It is a socialistic program that takes money from taxpayers and gives it to those who lobby the most. My business was way down the past two years and NO ONE came to help me out. Actually my taxes have steadily climbed to help pay for these welfare programs. I had to work twice as hard to keep up. The welfare mentality says that hard workers like me owe it to those who choose to work less or not at all to give them some of what I make. That is the liberal way...and that is why I am conservative. The Democrats motto is this:

"Rob Peter to pay Paul and Paul will vote for you"

Grandpa2: We are in agreemnet here EXCEPT this measure was proposed by Ted Stevens a conservatrive Republican, it was passed by a REPUBLICAN congress and signed by a REPUBLICAN president.

How is the the fault of liberals? This congress and president also pushed through a huge increase in farm subsidies.

I am proud to say that I am an ex-comercial fishermen that turned down assistance years ago.Thought it was bull [Bleeeeep!] then and still do.

I do not work for money per say.I work for the satisfaction of my pride and ethics.Federal assistance given to me through the state does not fit that agenda very well.I do not make much framing houses or pouring concrete or siding a house.I do though get to turn around every day and the evidence of my hard work stares me in the eye.

They have been getting subsidies for years, can you say hatcheries.

no kidding

Yeah GP, its the stinkin' commies!

grandpa?

Haven't you noticed the conspicuous silence Dan? Grandpa's busy searchin' all the far right-wing websites, tryin' to figure out how to pin it on Al Gore or Bill Clinton, when what he should be doin' is deciding what wine goes best with the size 13 shoe he's got stuck in his gums.

Just kidding ya Gramps!

Deafening, 4S.


I think both parties are lined up to hose us. I know the Dems in this state are awfully fond of commercial netters, and this bill shows the GOP shares the love.

I'm sure Grandpa's just too busy right now. His superbly entertaining sarcastic wit will come up with something.

Dan, I agree completely that the commercial fleet cannot be pinned on any one party. I believe it's simple political greed playing to the money tree, i.e., the special interest group with the fattest wallet.

I also think it's going to take more than switching to a Republican govenor. I think we need an entire state regime change. Find some people that will put the welfare of the state (not the state on welfare) ahead of personal bank accounts.

OK boys..I have been WORKING....you know about that past time I'm sure. No time for PP. I stand corrected on the source of the salmon bail out and do wholeheartedly agree that financial bail outs are non-partisan..plenty of blame to go across both sides of the aisle. I actually was jabbing at welfare in general and the practice of serving up the pork to gain votes. Both parties do this to an excess for sure. I just have a real dislike for our system of passing out tax money to bolster the voting block of any party. Republicans are not the answer anymore than Democrats but given a choice of only two I choose the GOP...When it comes to fishing issues politicians are to be reckoned with but not to be trusted..no matter what party they belong to. My sarcasm for Democrats is usually designed as a mirror or what similar blasts sound like directed at Republicans and president Bush.

So there you go....best I can do after working my butt off all week. I did fish for one hour this week and had to watch the gillnets while doing so. I used to find commercial fishing fascinating and held the profession in high regard but today it just pisses me off.

What a crock this is an industry that is already 100% supported by the government in the form of hatcheries!!!

One thing I suspect grandpa and I can agree on is the very strong proclivity of BOTH parties to pander to voters by giving away our hard earned tax dollars. There was once a time when the republicans seemed to do les of this than the Dems. But in recent times I see no difference, except in which groups they choose to pander to. They both squander our money to buy our votes. It is an ugly situation – perhaps the largest flaw in democracy.

One thing Salma and I agree on is we sport fishers will never wrest our share away from the greedy commercials as long as they are organized and buy politicians of both parties and we continue to bicker amongst ourselves. If we could only, somehow unite and form a solid political lobbing organization we might have a chance. Sadly, I see no chance of this happening.

check out the Recreational Fishing Alliance. I think that is our chance to unite.

I think that we as sport fishers can only unite on a issue by issue basis.

I wouldn't join the recreational fishing alliance or NISA for that matter due to hatchry issues but i could unite with them on this issue.

Check this out. I am for a buyout with the condition that the quota goes with the buyout. So as the stocks come, back bigger and better harvesting boats don't appear, to scoop up the entire quota anyway. We have to get the quota to go with it. Not to be scooped up by the tribes or commercials. It has to be a complete circle with no loop holes. I do not want to subsidize the commercials, but would like once and for all to get them off of the water.
Here is the Seattle Times report:

Sunday, November 09, 2003 - Page updated at 12:00 A.M.

Sea changes in store for commercial fishing

By Julie Finnin Day and Seth Stern
The Christian Science Monitor


JEFF BARNARD / AP
Fishermen Richard Young, right, and Steve Woorrell discuss the federal buyback program aboard Young's boat in Crescent City, Calif. Federal regulators have decided to ban fishing of bottom-dwelling ocean fish off California's coast for the rest of the year.


E-mail this article

Print this article

Search archive




ASTORIA, Ore., and GLOUCESTER, Mass. — Sweeping initiatives are moving forward on the two coasts that will affect some of the world's most productive fishing grounds and the jobs of thousands of fishermen, from San Diego to Seattle, Bangor to New Bedford.
On the West Coast, the federal government has announced a $46 million plan to buy out as much as half the trawler fleet and permanently retire the boats from fishing. The move is intended to help ailing fishermen who have been hurt over the years by ever-stricter quotas placed on catches.

Meanwhile, a regional advisory board took a major step in trying to curb overfishing in the once-bountiful waters off New England. Under pressure from a court order, it adopted a plan that would restrict fishing of depleted species but allow fishermen to divert their nets toward more plentiful stocks.

The two initiatives, though different in intent and approach, will affect the livelihood and traditions of a centuries-old industry rooted in dozens of communities along both coasts.

'Massive overcapacity'

"Right now we have massive overcapacity," said Andrew Rosenberg, a former regional administrator of the National Marine Fisheries Service. "We have far more fishing power than the stocks can sustain."

The $46 million buyout is a life-changing move for those who live by a struggling industry's changing tides. On the West Coast, owners of 92 boats will be paid an average of $497,000 to permanently remove their vessels from fishing, starting Dec. 5. The plan is aimed at cutting the West Coast trawler fleet by 50 percent.

Overwhelmingly approved last month by the vested boat owners, the buyout was developed by the industry and government to help stabilize vulnerable coastal economies. The industry has lost tens of millions of dollars in the past five years as federal quotas tightened to protect seas from overfishing.

In 2000, the government declared an official fishery failure — a catastrophic drop in the fish population. Seven species of groundfish have been designated overfished, and federal regulators have decided to close a large swath of Pacific Coast waters to bottom fishing for the rest of this year to boost recovery of depleted stocks.

Now, those who stay in their fisheries could see their catch quotas double, starting next year.

A graceful exit




For the fishermen who will leave their boats behind, it's a way to make a graceful exit, one "that wasn't available to them before," said Pete Leipzig, executive director of the Fisherman's Marketing Association, a West Coast trawler-industry group in Eureka, Calif. "This gives them an opportunity to sell their business with dignity and (keep) some part of their life savings intact."

In his 39 years in the fishing business, Bob Finzer has invested more than $4 million in buying six boats — he has two left — and paying for their almost constant maintenance. A single trawl net costs him $30,000.

For most of that time, he made enough to pay his bills, employ a crew of four and keep the boats in good repair. But in recent years, his income has plummeted because of stricter fishing quotas. "I don't know whether we could (have lasted) another year," he said, standing in the grungy cabin of his 70-foot trawler, the St. Janet, scented by the ubiquitous smell of engine grease and fish.

Now, he said, the future could be very good, "as long as the government don't mess with things — change the quotas."

Like Finzer, most of the West Coast trawl fishermen have been struggling to stay afloat, often with their entire life savings poured into boats that no one — until now — would buy.

But while the purchase may help Finzer and many others, it is a mixed bag. Unlike previous buyouts, most of the loan ($36 million) must be repaid with interest to the government by the remaining trawl fleet, shrimpers and crab fishermen over the next 30 years. The number of fishing licenses will be cut permanently from 263 to 174.

Mixed feelings

In Astoria, Ore. — once a booming timber and tuna town, and still the state's largest fishing community — the new initiative is being greeted with mixed feelings.

Astoria was home in the 1980s to 36 canneries. But the public outcry over dolphin safety killed the tuna industry here, sending canneries abroad and putting at least 4,000 people out of work. Now, just a handful of custom canneries remain.

On a recent rainy morning in the biting cold, three fishermen prepared for their last trip to sea on the Pacific Sun IV, which was bought out.

"None of the hired people are very happy about it," said skipper Rob Seitz, inviting his visitors into the cabin for fresh-ground coffee. The father of four managed to find another boat to work on, and he's taking his two crew members with him. "But I'm one of the lucky ones," he said.

An estimated 300 skippers and deckhands will be out of work in Oregon, Washington and California. Chris Wallin, the maintenance person on Bob Finzer's boats, will compete for new work with some 30 other deckhands in Astoria.

In the Northeast, the New England Fishery Management Council approved the plan of a coalition of Gloucester-based fishermen to offset reduced time at sea by adding days on which they could target only healthier stocks. Still, the plan will not necessarily reverse decades of decline that have thinned bait and ice shops along the coastal harbors: More fishermen are expected to be forced out of business, especially in Maine.

Last week in Peabody, Mass., the advisory panel considered alternative ways to reduce fishing. The council — an advisory board to the federal National Marine Fisheries Services composed of industry representatives, scientists and environmentalists — was set to vote on details before submitting the plan to federal regulators.

Environmentalists complain it doesn't do enough to stop overfishing of threatened species of cod and yellow-tail flounder.

"We've got some real concerns," said Priscilla Brooks of the Conservation Law Fund, a Boston-based environmental law group that helped bring the original lawsuit.

But it's welcomed by Gloucester fishermen such as Russell Sherman, who has seen the numbers of days he can fish decline by 65 percent in the past two years — leaving him worried that he'd be out of business come springtime. "I will keep going," Sherman said after the vote in Peabody.

Sherman, who has fished commercially for 31 years, bought a $450,000 boat in 2001 — just before the judge's ruling — and has struggled ever since to break even and pay his three employees. "We're squeaking by," he said.


Copyright © 2003 The Seattle Times Company

I guess I just dont get why these "business owners" are any different than the rest..... If I have my business go down the tubes for whatever reason (Small store swallowed by WalMart) will they "bail" me out? Hell no!
We sure do not make sense in this country, yet we always try to tell everyone they should be and act like us...... I don't understand.....

Is it just me??

MC

so would the tribal members be selling there fishing rights or being paid for a license they didnt have to buy in the first place ?