The voice of B.C.'s organized fishing industry workers
'No more giveaways to the
By GEORGE HEWISON
NINETEEN seventy-nine was a year of mixed emotions for this writer as far as fishery relations with the United States are concerned.
On the one hand, there was the celebrated "tuna war" in which the U.S., emboldened by many past successes against Canada, finally went too far even for the Canadian government to ignore. A very limited action against the U.S. was undertaken.
For the first time, a long-awaited but very limited Canadian salmon fishery in the Canadian portions of the Stikine and Taku Rivers was initiated on salmon stocks heretofore exploited by the U.S. only.
The most negative feature of Canada-U.S. fish relations was the abject betrayal of Canada's interests following bilateral talks in Juneau, in which the Canadian government agreed that our fleet would be excluded from Alaska.
Canada is to be phased out during a two-year period, with Canadians getting two million pounds the first year and one million the second. The U.S., on the other hand, was given 7,500 metric tons of groundfish.
As if to rub salt in the wounds of this unequal treaty, the U.S. over-fished the overall halibut quota in Area 2 by a million pounds, meaning that Canadians were initially shortchanged 900,000 pounds of their allocation in their own waters.
That problem is left to be resolved in 1980.
The salmon interception talks give a hint that 1980 promises to be even worse than 1979. In those talks. Canada has gone from a painfully-negotiated compromise in 1971, in which each country would harvest its own salmon, to a principle of putting a limit on salmon interceptions, to the latest catchall — joint enhancement and joint management.
The practical implications of this latest principle of cooperation are staggering. Enhancement  programs  started in
COAl
• 800 protested treaty sellout in 1978. but the problem remains.
Canada will be subject to U.S. review. If they contribute to increased interceptions, as they inevitably will, they must be coordinated with U.S. programs.
More dangerous to the fishermen is the principle of joint management of intercepting fisheries. On the Fraser River stocks, for example, there is no question that the U.S. will have a say on regulations for Johnstone Strait, the upper west coast of Vancouver Island and even the Queen Charlotte Islands.
Already, there is suspicion in the fleet that closures for trollers on the'west coast and for the net fleet in Johnstone Strait were motivated by U.S. pressures. Such
if the
be
suspicions will  become reality proposed treaty proceeds.
A similar pattern will surely developed for the Skeena, and Nass Rivers if joint management and joint enhancement of intercepting fisheries is allowed to become the guiding principle of these ill-fated negotiations.
Fishermen on this coast must unite to oppose this proposal, in which they have nothing to gain and everything to lose. They must unite to make their views heard all the way to the policymakers in Ottawa.
No more giveaways!
Fish and Ships
WE'VE harped on the value of a union agreement for seine fishermen many times in this column, but a visit last week from John Tadich, a Seattle fisherman active in the fishermen and allied workers local of the International longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, brought the point home once more.
"I was on an independent boat fishing for Peter Pan and wegot$1.75a pound for sockeye and 40 cents for pinks. We had no complaint on the sockeye, but for the pinks, that's a steal. With no minimum price agreement, you don't know the price until you're paid off."
Company boats fishing for Whitney Fidalgo had a very different experience.
At the mercy of the company for a job. the crews were forced to accept $1.15 for sockeye and 33 cents for pinks although Whitney-Fidalgo was paying the same rates Tadich received to independent boats in the fleet.
The U.S. fishermen had a minimum price agreement, of course, until combines action in the early 1950s stripped them of the right to strike to win a contract. Canadian crews can look forward to the same kind of treatment here if the combines branch succeeds in dismantling theUFAWU.
UFAWU members ha ve been a thorn in the side of London Drugs since they undertook to leaflet the chain's East Hastings store this month in support of the boycott of scab production from Adams I laboratories.
Members of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union have been on strike at Adams' Surrey plant since February to win a "first contract. By the time the informational pickets had appeared twice, customers were pledging their support of the boycott and even announcing their decision to shop elsewhere until the dispute is resolved.
One picket line veteran who only entered the store long enough to retrieve his children was UFAWU member Don Antle, a veteran of the union's organizational efforts at Mulgrave in 1970 and a
veteran as well of 30 days in jail for his refusal to stop picketing when the courts judged the companies had had'enough.
Among those leafletting were Lon Simard, Jim Rushton, John Clark, Gordie Lark in, Nick Carr, Joe Yoshida and Ron Guwick.
Prince Rupert shoreworker Lorena Gray won a warm round of applause from B.C. Federation of Labor dele gates last month when she spoke in support of a motion calling on the provincial and federal governments to expedite a just land claims settlement in B.C.
"It is not that we want to turn away the white man," she explained. "If we get a just settlement, we will have a base to work from."
As it is, she said, she wonders how much of the base will be left by the time settlement is achieved. "I am a shore-worker. I see our raw material shipped out in the round and now I find they give the feeblest excuse to avoid even hiring me."
The reminisinces of Homer Stevens make one of the most compelling chapters in a new collection of labor history interviews compiled by author Gloria Montero. Including contributions from some of the great builders of the labor movement, the book is called We Stood Together and is published by Lorimer and Co. We recommend it.
Historian Duncan Stacey tells us Edna G. Ladner has made a major contribution to the history of the fishing industry on this coast with her Above the Sand Heads, an account of the development of Ladner developed from interviews with her father, T. Ellis Ladner. Both books are available from People's Co-op Books, 353 West Pender Street in Vancouver.
UFAWU small boat vice-president Walter Tickson returned from Newfoundland early last month, where he closed  a deal on  a 50-foot wooden
schooner he plans to bring through the Panama Canal to his Nanaimo home next summer.
The vessel's name is Gail Tyre, he told us, and she's ideally suited to tuna fishing.
Walter discovered some interesting differences between the operations of Newfoundland fisheries offices and those in B.C., where copies of all regulations are available.
In Newfoundland, the regulations are not published. "If you have a question." they told Walter, "ask us. We'll look up the answer and tell you."
Among notes of thanks received at the Welfare Fund offices recently are a card from Reino Niemi of Powell river, who received four weeks benefits during a recent illness, and the Ernest McAllister family of Halfmoon Bay, whose son Larry McAllister was lost overboard from the seiner Star Pacific Nov. 25, 1978.
Norm Sumner advises us that the union's Alert Bay local will revive its long-standing custom this year of sponsoring a New Year's Eve party in the Community Hall. Co-sponsors are the Lions' Club and the Legion. The union is also organizing a children's party Dec. 23 in the Community Hall.
•
The complaint we hear most regularly at The Fisherman comes from union members whose paper stops appearing or doesn't start as quickly as it should. We try to help as much as possible, but the root of the problem lies in the union hall, which maintains membership lists.
Problems of address changes, late papers and similar matters should be referred to the hall. Remember, your paper will not arrive until your voucher has been honored and yuurdues payment recorded. Simply signing the card will not ensure immediate delivery of The Fisherman.
Letters
'Don't ignore area licensing support'
Editor, The Fisherman:
In your Nov. 16 article entitled "Union catch split debate heats up," you made the following statement:
"Area licensing was again rejected as arbitrary and restrictive."
What in fact happened was this: a motion was brought to the floor of the gillnet conference by me, a member of the Bella Coola delegation. It read more or less as follows — "Resolved that the coast be divided into three to five economic zones."
After much heated debate, the motion was defeated 18 to nine, so as you see, 35 percent of voting delegates were in favor.
I supported the motion for several reasons, one of which is that nothing in the catch division program faces up to the problems of overcrowding caused by too many boats and too much mobility.
Also, many of us believe that some form of area licensing will be brought in whether or not the union wants it and that all possible methods should be discussed openly and fully, not just swept under the rug.
I don't understand why a democratic union should be afraid of proper discussion. At present, the answer seems to be "it's against our policy" and that is that. Perhaps our policy should be changed.
HARRY ALLEN
Quathiaski Cove
• Area licensing has been the subject of repeated union debate and undoubtedly will be again.
More background on spring returns
Editor, The Fisherman:
The article in your Nov. 2,1979 issue concerning Fraser River spring salmon stocks left out important information.
The estimated cumulative catch of spring salmon in 1979 is given as less than half the 1975 cumulative catch. It is mentioned that cumulative boat days fished in 1979 were only 58 percent of the 1975 total, but it isn't mentioned specifically that early spring fishing in 1975 was two days a week. In 1979 it was only one. Also in 1975 large mesh spring nets were permitted all summer and in 1979 only sockeye nets were permitted.
As for the white spring catch in the fall, there was no real fishery on them.. The up-river portion of Area 29 didn't open after the end of August. There were two short gulf openings after that.
L. J. MUENCH
Langley.
• The writer's points are well-taken. However, the fisheries analysis on which the article was based provided none of the material he missed in The Fisherman.
FVOA corrects erroneous report
Editor, The Fisherman:
The article on page 10 of the Nov. 16 issue (on the legal challenge to the fisheries department right to allocate catch) is misleading in that it states that the Fishing Vessel Owners Association is opposed to any gillnet involvement in the roe herring fishery.
This association has consistently held the view that there is room for both gears in the roe herring fishery and we were prepared to live with a reasonable split — one that was prevailing in 1974, when the majority of the roe gillnet fleet jumped on the roe herring bandwagon.
We have also expressed our concern over the detrimental effects of gillnet operations directly over the herring spawning grounds. Major shifts in spawning patterns have occurred in recent years, and these have coincided with a history of intensive gillnet fishing in those areas.
LUIZ SOUZA .Fishing Vessel Owners Association j
THE FISHERMAN - DECEMBER 14,1979/5