UFAWU 34th annual convention
BEARPIT
with Dr. Wally Johnson and his staff:
'I don't give a damn for the profits
of the corporate owners'
• Dr. Wally Johnson, director of federal fisheries' Pacific region, participated in a four hour bearpit session Feb. 8 with delegates to the UFAWU annual convention. Accompanying him were Ron MacLeod, director of field operations; Les Edgeworth, director of the Salmonid Enhancement Program; Tom Bird, of habitat protection; and Don Wilson, director of inspection. This is a transcript of some portions of the exchange.
HOMER STEVENS, Ladner,
gillnetter: I'm particularly pleased at the reference made in your report to the matter of participation in decision-making boards by representatives of the industry — the resource users — including the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union.
But the question that arises in my mind, in view of the tremendous impact of the corporate structures striving for maximum profit, that they will be the great beneficiaries of your policies, will create divisions and splits in the ranks of fishermen and between fishermen and the other people who have to work and sweat to produce that fish and transport it.
Will there be a real priority for fishermen's earnings in these boards or will they simply be a repetition of what we've had for the last 100 years in which the management of the resource is looked upon basically as a way to protect the interests of the corporate structure?
I'd like to know where you stand on that basic question. Are you going to work for the benefit of fishermen or will you work on the basis of helping the profiteers gain more profit?
DR. W. E. JOHNSON: Well I think I can state very clearly what my attitude is. I don't give a damn for the profits of the corporate owners.
The people that I see and I hear from — by letter, by phone call, by visit — 99.9 per cent of them are fishermen or representatives from fishermen's organizations.
I think that our minister has made it very clear in all of his actions that he is concerned about the primary producer, the fisherman. His policies are, with respect to ownership of vessels, for example, to get them out of company hands.
You know, I'm not one who establishes the policies of government, but the policies of the government as I understand them, are aimed at doing things for the fishermen, the primary workers in the industry. I hope my behavior has generally been consistent with that.
AL CAMPBELL, Nanaimo, gillnetter: Wally's policy comes as a bit of a surprise to me, then, because the plan for halibut that I received in the mail is the complete opposite of his statement. You're trying to squeeze the small halibut fisherman out of the industry. I know, because the Americans, are kicking us out of the Gulf of Alaska, that we have to conserve more halibut, but I don't see how we can conserve the halibut by eliminating the
small producers. That will only give the halibut to the big company boats.
The little man is being squeezed right out. I hope that if you sincerely mean what you said, this whole policy to squeeze out the small halibut producer will be reversed.
HOMER STEVENS ... basic question
JOHNSON: You know we are in a bind in the halibut fishery generally because we are getting kicked out of U.S. waters.
But what are we going to do? Allow all incidental catches? There seem to be quite a number of sportsmen picking up the odd halibut, and they are making money, too. Should we allow that to go on?
Should we let the incidental catch in the troll fleet go on? It's a matter of facing the problem of vessels who are primarily dependent on halibut for their livelihood. I think that has to be the number one concern when we are faced with this kind of crisis.
We are definitely leaving the door open for the fellow who is taking small quantities, when it is a significant and important part of his income.
WALTER TICKSON, Nanaimo, gi I Inetter-t roller: Dr. Johnson, you made quite a point of stating that there are advisory committees, that the union has representation on them, and that their advice is closely listened to and appreciated. But we often find that this falls short in the process of implementation. We often hear stated that you will listen to us, but you will do as you like.
We have, for some time, tried to push this question through of arriving at proper catch division in herring between the gillnet and seines.
We have been at this now for several years and still are nowhere on this question.
We put forward the proposition that it should be on average equal earnings, but the argument was used that this was not possible because of too many variables. So we then put forward the proposition that there should be a 50-50 split. But still we don't have the solution to that problem.
We are still very axious to have this question resolved in order to bring about sanity in the operation here.
8 / THE FISHERMAN — FEBRUARY 19, 1979
JOHNSON: Advisory committees are very important and we deal with them, but we don't turn over the final decisions to the committees. There are always several interests expressed, and we have to take into consideration all of these and all of what's physically possible in the line of management. When you talk about the specifics of gear splits, I want to ask Ron MacLeod to speak to that.
MacLEOD: Yes, on the catch division between seiners and gill-nets in the roe herring fishery, I have said to the advisors that until I have reason to effect a change in the current 60 per cent seines —40 per cent gillnets, that split will stand. We had a very long discussion about this issue in the advisory meeting before Christmas and I invited advisors to participate in a study and I would be prepared to put the issue before an arbitrator. I got no takers.
So I went ahead with a study on my own, and that study is now coming forward as I understand it. It will contain a recommendation which I will be prepared to discuss with the various component groups. I further intend to put the report out for some objective evaluation. This is a very important issue and I want to be absolutely certain that I get the best possible advice.
SCOTTY N E IS H, Victoria, crabber: My first question is in regard to the statement by B.C. forests minister Tom Waterland to federal fisheries minister Romeo LeBlanc that LeBlanc is not to call the shots on timber harvesting in B.C. Waterland made the comment in a Jan. 18 telex regarding the logging ban imposed by federal fisheries officer Jim Hart on 50 acres on Graham Island in the Queen Charlottes.
The ban was placed because of fear that cutting would cause widespread landslides and erosion.
It is our union's position that if we continue with clearcut logging, enhancement programs cannot be maintained.
The question is, have we heard from Romeo LeBlanc in relation to this ultimatum that has been issued by the provincial government?
The other question concerns pollution. I was absolutely amazed at the information I received from the fisheries department saying that the concentration of heavy metals in the Fraser River could have a detrimental effect on the young salmon as they come down the stream.
It stated that the mercury level in the Fraser River was just as high as it was in Minamata Bay in Japan. The only thing that saved us from Minamata disease is the fact that there is no resident edible fish in the Fraser River. The sturgeon do not feed, apparently, on that benthic (river-bottom) type of feed.
What is the situation on the need to clean up the Fraser River?
JOHNSON: Thanks Scotty. With respect to this closure we effected on Queen Charlotte timber: as you know Mr. Waterland did send a telex to LeBlanc asking him who is running the timber, the licensing and so on in
B.C. I helped prepare a draft response from our minister to Mr. Waterland. I haven't seen a copy of it and I don't know what the final response from Mr. LeBlanc is, but I assure you that the closure is still in effect.
It was a pity it was used as it was in a political sense but the ban is still on and we are optimistic that, working with the forest service, we will eliminate the logging on the critical 40 to 50 acres. I will tell you (we) are taking the strongest possible stance on that.
The second question on heavy metals: certainly in any industrial area like Vancouver, like any place in the world, you're getting amounts of mercury, cadmium and other potentially very dangerous m aterials in the watershed.
It's true it isn't critical for salmon, because the fish are passing through rather briefly in two stages of their life. We have no firm evidence that a major cause of ocean mortality of smolts or fry as they go to sea is directly related to these heavy metals. We're trying to keep on top of it. I don't think it is a matter of critical and immediate concern.
SUSAN HAMILTON, Sointula, seiner: Last year it was brought to our attention as the Malcolm Island Concerned Citizens that there was going to be more 2,4-D spraying on the island. B.C. Hydro and Rayonier had applied to spray.
Our stand was that this would hurt the fisheries.
And you people sent in a letter — we asked what your stand was
KARL THOMAS ... end rentals
— and you suggested the companies use a different chemical called Krenite. My understanding is that it is a new chemical that is just as likely to be as disastrous as 2,4-D.
Your stand as far as I can see is not strong enough to protect the fishery environment.
TOM BIRD: With respect to 2, 4-D generally, we're opposed to any kind of mass treatment or uncontrolled treatment and have opposed 2,4-D application whether it is for milfoil or whatever else.
With respect to the particular spraying in your area, or in the Queen Charlottes or northern
Vancouver Island, indeed there is some additional spraying planned this year. The spraying is going to be confined to areas beyond the boundaries of streams, measured distances have been allocated, and monitoring of the chemical getting into the stream will take place.
The policy with respect to the spraying is we don't encourage it, we recommend alternatives. In this instance, we are going to evaluate very critically the monitoring of the people on site and water quality examination will determine if that material is getting into the water course.
EDGAR BIRCH, Ladner, giII-netter-crabber: I'd like to ask Wally Johnson or Ron MacLeod a few questions on the Fraser River.
We fished about 11 days sock-eye last year and then two days' chum fishing in the fall. If you are going to continue the program (of closures) you've had on the Fraser over the past few years you can say goodbye to the Fraser River fisherman.
JOHNSON: As you well know, here we were last year trying to get first of all the sockeye, trying to get as much for Canada as we could before they got into convention waters. Later on, when they got the chum salmon, it turned out they were going down south of us to Puget Sound areas.
There's no question it is one of the key bloody allocation problems we've got. And there's no question that the gillnetter is the guy biting the goddamn bullet too often. You have the troll and the net fisheries hitting things before they ever get to the rivers for gill-net fishermen. I assure you we are going to try and do something with this, Edgar.
I think we are going to have some firm proposals to lay on the table on Feb. 22 for our advisory council with respect to this one.
Ron, I think, should speak to that
MacLEOD: We are also looking at the salmon commission proposals with a view to advising some adjustment be taken into account of the problem of the terminal fishery in the Fraser. I've said publicly that one of my goals is to maintain a viable Fraser River gillnet fishery and I stand by that goal fully recognizing how difficult it will be to achieve. It is certainly easier said than done. I'm not sure that the chum fishery is the appropriate fishery above Pattullo Bridge to achieve that goal.
On the sockeye, there is a fishery that can accommodate the needs of the terminal fishery. The Chinook problem is a general one as well as being specific to the Fraser, with the lower abundances that are there.
If the enhancement program were to put all its emphasis on the chinooks in the Fraser there would still be 12 or more years before there would be a significant increase in the abundance of the total Chinook population. The coho fisheries? We certainly want to address the problem of declining abundances of coho.
I would think, too, that the kinds of proposals we will lay before the advisory committee Feb. 22 will deal with this question of