Federal policy on new West Coast groundfish fishery rules needs congressional review

SOMETHING fishy happened recently in Spokane at a Pacific Fishery Management Council meeting. The Council, a regional policy advisory body to the National Marine Fisheries Service, finalized plans to privatize and carve up access to a big portion of the fish living on the bottom of the ocean, in federal waters off the coasts of Washington, Oregon and California.

Effectively, the council agreed to cut coastal jobs, undermine ocean habitat-conservation efforts and heap new management costs on unaware taxpayers. The emergence of a community-building local seafood economy was blocked.

Referred to as the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery, the fish resource is comprised of more than 80 species including flatfish such as sole, groundfish like black cod, and various rockfish. Participation in the soon-to-be privatized sector of the fishery is limited to commercial trawlers known as "draggers."

The fishery has a turbulent history. After kicking out foreign trawl fleets following the declaration of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone in the 1970s, the U.S domestic fleet expanded rapidly. By the late '90s, fish were getting scarce. In 2000, the U.S. Department of Commerce declared the fishery an economic disaster, and in 2003, a vessel buyback was undertaken — partly funded by taxpayers, with the remainder still unpaid for by the rest of the fleet.

As the result of past indiscriminate trawl fishing, all sectors of the broader groundfish fishery are now constrained in their catch by the need to rebuild species declared overfished.

While further management reform is needed to address ongoing trawl bycatch problems, this program is not the solution. In a back-to-front process designed to thwart the public interest, the council first decided to privatize the trawl sector, then allocated it about 90 percent of the total annual groundfish catch essentially in perpetuity. Only 10 percent went to other sectors that use gear associated with lower bycatch and less impact on sensitive seafloor habitats.

In developing this privatization plan, the council proved that it is not structured to solve the problems or grasp the opportunities of fishery reform on the West Coast. Effective management of this resource is undercut by council and committee member conflicts of interest when making both allocation and conservation decisions.

The council's fish privatization scheme follows a crooked track.

Called "catch-shares," it advocates first putting a cap on the total number of fish that can be taken and then giving the bulk of the total for free to the biggest incumbent fishing interests — in a form that can be leased for profit in perpetuity, or sold for an unearned windfall.

Economic consolidation and monopoly is the aim of the game. When a similar program was instituted in Alaska's Bristol Bay red king crab fishery, the fishery shrank from 251 boats to just 89, and 1,150 crewmen lost their jobs within one year.

As a bulwark to the impacts of monopoly, smaller-scale fishermen, along with environmental and consumer representatives, repeatedly requested quota shares be set aside for the establishment of Community Fishing Associations. These may yet be allowed to form and buy quota. However, the council made it clear that all the initial allocation was to be funneled toward its envisioned fleet of 40 70-foot trawlers.

Never mind the environmental impacts, the job losses, or the lost revenue that could be directed to better fishery management if government itself rented the quota on fair terms to fishermen, rather than giving it away to enrich the owners of an industrial super-fleet.

It is difficult for the council to make a persuasive defense of the corporate welfare, and the ecological, economic and social harm its privatization plan will produce. Congressional oversight is needed to address this privatization scam and to ensure the new administration finds fair and equitable ways to manage the public's valuable fish resource.