UFAWU demands debate
Pact guarantees U.S. catches for all time
In a marathon 18'j-hour bargaining session that concluded in a Lynnwood, Wash., motel at 2:57 a.m. Oct. 25, Canadian and United States negotiating teams hammered out the terms of a proposed salmon interception agreement.
The final bargaining session capped a week of intensive negotiations designed to consolidate the terms of a tentative treaty achieved in Vancouver in June.
Canadian chief negotiator Mike Shepard hailed the Lynnwood pact as a treaty that will repatriate the Fraser
to Canadian management, lead to "balance" in Canada-U.S. interceptions, open the door for full salmonid enhancement and guarantee Canada a share of stocks that spawn in Canada but are taken by Americans off the Panhandle.
But UFAWU secretary-treasurer George Hewison condemned the proposed treaty as a disaster ranking with the 1953 Norpac agreement that opened the Pacific to a high seas salmon fishery.
Hewison called for the broadest possible debate on the treaty, which he said "throws the concept of equity — the idea that
B.C. REACTION:
'Its not perfect, best we can do'
Representatives of other Canadian organizations attending the Lynnwood negotiating session seemed agreed last week that the proposed treaty fails to meet Canada's many objectives but is the best we can do.
Fisheries Association president Jerry Spitz said in an interview that "compared to no treaty, it's no contest. I intend to recommend to our directors that we support the treaty.
"It offers an opportunity to resolve some of the most harmful problems facing us. to go ahead with enhancement and get the benefits.
"There is a sincere feeling that enhancement will provide equity (in interceptions)
rather than changing fishing patterns."
On the negative side. Spitz was somewhat critical of the many areas the new salmon commission would have to study. A benefit, he argued, might be conclusive statistical proof that the U.S. has an interception advantage.
"I think the agreement pro-vides that equity shall be achieved, but is there enough muscle to provide it? Without good will there probably isn't.
"It's not a perfect agreement and the whole thing could fall apart. At the worst, it could lead to a fish war. But I really think we should give it a try. I really don't like the alternative."
Pacific Trollers Association manager Fred Yeung said his
See CANADIANS—page 7
AMERICANS SAY:
'Let us see all the fine print'
American reaction to the proposed Lynnwood agreement ranged from the "show me the fine print" scepticism of Alaskan trollers to the outright hostility of Puget Sound seiners.
Chief U.S. negotiator Lee Alverson predicted none of his advisory delegation would admit to being satisfied but claimed "they were very strongly behind getting this position.
"The whole situation is deteriorating and at least we'll have a forum to negotiate the issues. We've had increased tension, conflict and fights along the boundary. There's an inability to deal with conservation.
"No doubt we take more fish (than Canada), we may take quite a bit more. We're willing to move towards equity but it may take a generation. There's no way out but to get shafted worse."
Alverson said the negotiators would be "lucky to have ratification by March" if all goes well from now on. "If we find ourselves in general accord our intent is to live within the spirit of the agreement before ratification."
Solidly opposed to the agreement was Paul Anderson of the Purse Seine Vessel Owners Association of Washington.
His members are most concerned about management of the Fraser, he said, and oppose the idea of turning the determination of escapement and allowable catch over to Canada.
"We've been trying to conserve this run," he said, "and we've lost a lot of fishing time to build it up. Now apparently management is in the hands of the Canadians."
Anderson and William Saletic, of Peter Pan Seafoods, both were concerned about the treaty provision guaranteeing the U.S. .'53.6 percent of Fraser pinks for a period of years to be negotiated. After that period, the U.S. would receive 33.6 percent or 2.1 million fish, whichever is less.
"I don't like what happens to sockeye after 20 years," Saletic said, "and we haven't set how long we'll have that pink entitlement." Is it a good agreement? Saletic replied with an emphatic "No!"
Jev Shelton, of the United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters in Juneau, said he was "very con-See AMERICANS—page 7
each country will harvest its own stocks — right out the window."
The proposed agreement will freeze interceptions, he said, at a
SPECIAL TREATY COVERAGE— The agreement analyzed, page 7; Shepard argues in treaty's favor, page 5; Editorial, page 4.
time when Americans are taking five million more salmon from Canadian stocks than Canadians take from U.S. runs.
What is worse, the United States is guaranteed 2.24 million Fraser sockeye and 2.1 million Fraser pinks for all time, as well as the lion's share of transboun-dary stocks, regardless of the relative balance of the two countries interceptions.
The union later announced it would campaign for rejection of the treaty and pressure the government to return to the bargaining table resolved to take whatever action necessary to win a satisfactory agreement.
Canadian fishermen have been forced to sit on the beach by the government, Hewison said, while the U.S. more than
doubled its rate of interception since negotiations began in 1971.
"We can take action to harvest Canadian stocks before they can be intercepted, to harvest Alaska-bound pinks, to step up our fishery on transboundary rivers, all these options are open to us. They can help us win a better agreement."
The government has refused to take these actions, he said, and refused at the same time to link the treaty question to other matters under negotiation with the U.S. See TREATY—page 9
Elias Stavrides photo
• Fisheries minister Romeo LeBlanc travelled to Vancouver Oct. 28 to unveil a package he said would meet the crisis in the industry. The measures proposed all were advanced by economists Peter Pearse (right) and Fern Doucet. At left is acting regional director Wayne Shinners.
Romeo's cold comfort
Fisheries minister Romeo Ix'Blanc prescribed more of the same bad medicine for the west coast industry Oct. 28 in a series of regulatory changes that curb troll effort, limit sport fishing effort and sting poverty-stricken commercial fishermen with doubled licence fees.
All of the eight measures
adopted by I^eBlanc were proposed in a report prepared for him in just four weeks by economist Peter Pearse and fisheries consultant Fern Doucet.
"We asked Romeo to come out in July and meet fishermen face to face and see for himself what the problems were," UFAWU secretary-treasurer George Hew-
UFAWU membership votes on new food herring pact
A day-long bargaining session between the UFAWU-Native Brotherhood and the Fisheries Association negotiating committees brought quick results Oct. 30 with the signing of a tentative agreement for the 1980 minimum price for food herring.
The new agreement offers a basic rate of $115 a ton, with a premium rate of $153 a ton for loads in which 60 percent or more of the catch exceeded 20 centimetres in length.
The minimum prices paid to fishermen in 1979 were $115 and $139. A union membership vote on the new agreement was taking place at Fisherman press time Nov. 7.
"The new pact offers slightly over 10 percent per ton increase to fishermen, if accepted," negotiating committee chairman George Hewison told The Fisherman Nov. 6.
He said the new agreement provides 50 cents more to the See HERRING—page 2
ison said after the announcement.
"Instead, we get Pearse and Doucet offering us more of the same. The proposals attack various groups without ensuring they can make a living.
"The three questions facing fishermen are habitat protection, licence limitation and treaty talks," Hewison said. "Until those are resolved to protect the resource, nothing will change."
(For an assessment of the Pearse-Doucet report and what LeBlanc left out, see page 6.)
LeBlanc's remedies followed the old formula of something old, something new, something borrowed and something blue. The blue was undoubtedly the doubling of all licence fees in 1981, increasing fees for vessels over 50 feet to $800. A-I, B and personal licences will also double, to $20 in the first two cases and $10 for a personal licence.
Other measures include:
See ROMEO—page 6
...........mm.....iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimm^MyaytiMHMiiiiiiiyifflg
