I
LETTERS to
EDITOR
Trawl Research Work Expounded
Editor, The Fisherman:
Your issue of January 26 contains an edited transcript of questions and answers which followed the Pacific area director's review of events in 1967. I should like to clarify certain matters arising from questions posed by one of the delegates, Mr. Doug March.
He made two claims, one that exploration for new trawling grounds has been done in a halfhearted manner, by using a vessel which was too small, and the other that reports on the results of explorations by the G. B. Reed, and by inference by chartered vessels, have not been made available to trawl fishermen.
I agree with Mr. March that a so called "large" trawler would be the best for exploratory work but only to the extent that it would provide information which would be useful to captains of the average to "large" trawlers which are currently engaged in the Canadian trawl fishery and which possess the power to tow fairly heavy trawl nets.
This has been fully realized by the Fisheries Research Board and, in arranging charters for the trawling surveys, the Nanai-mo Biological Station has made every effort to obtain "large" trawlers but without success, apparently because none could be spared from the growing ground-fish fishery.
For the initial survey conducted with the aid of funds from the Industrial Development Service in the summer of 1985, the only response to our advertisement which offered a suitable vessel with an experienced crew was that of Capt. Frank Gale of the Ocean Traveller (80 gross tons). It was our view that his long personal experience with the trawl fishery of Hecate Strait more than made up for any deficiency in vessel size.
As things turned out, several promising areas were encountered on the western side of Hecate Strait from Reef Island southward to Cape St. James.
A report containing all necessary details of the 1985 survey (Nanaimo Station Circular No. 73) was released by Mr. W. R. Hourston's office in December of that year to all trawler captains. The prospects look good but the grounds needed thorough testing by the commercial fleet. To our knowledge very little testing has been done sc far.
In 1966 our advertisements attracted only one reply, that of Capt. Gale with the Ocean Traveller.
A detailed report on the results of this second survey (conducted mainly in Queen Charlotte Sound and Dixon Entrance), although much less encouraging than the first, was released by the federal fisheries department in May, 1967, as Circular No. 82.
In 1966 and 1967 the Belina (130 gross tons) and the Ocean Traveller were chartered to survey parts of Hecate Strait, Queen Charlotte Sound and the upper west coast of Vancouver Island for unexploited populations of shrimp.
Results of the first survey were reported in Circular No. 76, while those of the second survey will appear shortly as Circular No. 85.
Copies of all of the above mentioned circulars may be obtained on application to the area director's office, Vancouver, or to the Fisheries Research Board's Nanaimo Station.
With respect to exploratory trawling operations of the G. B. Reed, extensive studies have been conducted all along the coast with particular emphasis on the rockfishes (such as ocean perch).
This project began in 1963 at a time when the USSR and Japan were beginning to move eastward and southward along the North American coast in search of ocean perch. Our intention was not only to make assessments of ocean perch resources while they were still in a virgin state but also to learn something of the potential insofar as a Canadian based operation would be concerned.
From time to time preliminary reports on the operations of the G. B. Reed were released to fishermen when requested. By
January of this year all cruise reports for 1963 to 1966 and part of 1967 had been distributed to all trawler captains as Technical Reports No. 22 and 30.
In pursuit of the longer range objectives, frequent and thorough attention has nevertheless been given to ocean perch grounds close at hand (Queen Charlotte Sound). Information provided by the G. B. Reed operation has improved knowledge of the depth distribution of ocean perch and in at least one instance has directly benefitted the Canadian fleet to the extent of providing information on the location of previously unfished concentrations.
So far, the G. B. Reed has not been used specifically for exploration for new fishing grounds in the shallower waters along the Canadian coast. The principal reason for not doing so is that her size and power are such as to limit her value as an indicator of commercial possibilities for conventional Canadian trawlers.
She is equipped to pull much larger nets with heavy ground-lines (large steel or rubber bobbins) and thus can fish on grounds where no conventional trawler could fish without heavy loss of gear. It is for this reason that in our attempts to improve our knowledge of the shallow grounds, we have employed chartered commercial vessels with capabilities comparable to the medium to large vessels in the existing fleet.
K. S. KETCHEN, Assistant Director, Fisheries Research Board of Canada. Nanaimo, B.C.
Payne Replies On Assessment
Editor, The Fisherman:
As one member of last year's UFAWU general executive board who has been criticized by Guy Allard in a letter to this paper, concerning the way in which the longline assessment was handled in last year's dispute, I feel he made some very misleading statements.
The attack on the Union last year, though it finally involved the entire Union in the sense that the existence of the organization was in jeopardy, started as a trawl-longline dispute when the Prince Rupert vessel owners refused to honor the commitment they had made to sign an agreement with the Union and continued as a struggle between longline and trawl crews and vessel owners to the end. Shore-workers were only involved by their principled action in support of the fishermen.
It is true that the Union executive, on recommendation of the halibut committee, asked those halibut men who did fish to contribute to the longline dispute mainly on the basis that it might be necessary to recompense some halibut fishermen for the loss of their entire season.
This did not turn out to be the case but what did happen was that very large expenses were incurred for strike pay, pickets and all the other obligations of a strike and some of these were charged to the longline fund on a temporary basis until such time as a membership meeting or an individually signed letter made a formal approval of this action.
The letter did not imply that the funds had not been spent. The executive did not have a crystal ball to foresee that the requirements would be for direct strike expense rather than recompense for a lost season.
The halibut meeting in December endorsed these actions of the executive by approving an itemized financial statement which was distributed to the members present.
In view of the fact that Guy Allard's views were not accepted by the December halibut meeting, he has every right to express those views by letter to The Fisherman, but he has no right to cast aspersions on the integrity of the executive board members by the use of terms such as "charade" and "more than 90 percent has been diverted elsewhere" in referring to the financial report to the December meeting which was approved by that meeting.
Allard also levels criticism at the executive board for not en-
• The Fisherman welcomes letters to the editor but asks only that they be as short as possible, be signed by the writer, and carry the address of the sender. We reserve the right to cut letters to meet space requirements. We will withhold from publication the name of any letter writer upon request. Write often, write topically, but write briefly.
suring that every Union member bears a fair share of the costs of last year's struggle.
As far as it is practical to do so, I believe the executive have done just that in recommending to the recent convention that shoreworkers raise their dues and all other members accept a two year assessment. Both of these recommendations were accepted.
Further to that, the executive asked all those who could contribute further on a voluntary basis to do so, and we have had substantial returns from that appeal.
Who is to say what is a fair share between say, an old friend of mine crippled by arthritis who sent in $5 of his pension cheque, the two Co-op trollers who sent in $100, the convention delegates who donated their entire expense cheques, the gillnet members who gave $400, or the many members who donated fishing time to help out.
The whole history of trade union struggles is marked by the sacrifices made in the interests of bettering the life of people as a whole, from those who actually lost their lives to those who lost their jobs.
It is not always possible to compensate people for these efforts but I think our whole membership would join me in expressing an extra hearty vote of thanks to our shoreworker members who staked their jobs to support the fishermen in last year's struggle. Some of these members are still out of work and others have had much less employment than usual.
Finally, I would like to say that we have two of our officers who are losing a year of their lives in jail on our account and perhaps the only way to compensate them is for all of us to resolve that when they are released it will be to find a Union more united than ever.
R. H. PAYNE
Sidney, B.C.
Let's Negotiate Pact With USSR
Editor, The Fisherman:
The recently concluded fisheries agreement between the U.S. and the USSR covering the Mid-Atlantic Bight illustrates the process by which the U.S. is protecting its own backyard through agreements with the USSR while applying pressure to stop or hinder Canada from consummating similar agreements with the USSR to protect our fisheries from similar encroachments by the U.S., USSR and Japan.
This agreement makes reference to the fact that the U.S. is conceding privileges for which the precedent was established in the agreement covering an area off the Alaska coast signed in February last year.
The continental shelf of our own Pacific coast is wide open to depletion by foreign fleets. Although the area is not as great, a large part of it lies outside the baseline and 12 miles off area (when we get it).
When you read this treaty it becomes obvious that U.S. was forced to the bargaining table through the depletion of its fisheries. The Soviets were able to force concessions that in themselves had no bearing on "the maintenance of maximum sustainable yields," and, in fact, would have the reverse effect.
The granting of fishing rights in inshore areas and use of such areas for transfer of catches during the time of heavy winter gales is indeed a major concession to such a mothership operation.
The Soviets are undoubtedly in a position of strength due to their having the ability to fish in international waters to such a degree that the entire fishery is threatened, yet having everything to gain by participating as an equal in a program of "sustained maximum yield."
—Kodiak Mirror
"We are waiting for a signal from Hanoi . . ."
On our West coast we are not going to have the opportunity of drawing up a sustained maximum yield program. Our deep-sea trawling grounds are going to be depleted before we even have the fleet to participate in a deepsea trawl fishery.
In my opinion, the policy Canada should follow off the Alaska Panhandle" is to mount a gillnet fishery off Noyes Island that will threaten the Alaska salmon fishery. Then we might exert enough pressure to obtain our rightful share of the salmon produced by all the Canadian rivers that drain through the Alaska Panhandle, from which we now get no returns whatsoever.
The UFAWU has placed itself on record time and again in favor of such agreements as the one now concluded between the U.S. and the USSR.
But what is good for the goose is also good for the gander. It's high time the Canadian government declared itself on several issues vitally affecting our fisheries before our fishing industry, both here and on the East coast, is driven on the rocks.
The first priority should be establishment of our 12 mile limit on the baseline point to point and 12 miles off with no historical rights granted to any nation inside this line.
The next should be the immediate opening of negotiations to bring USSR into a new multinational North Pacific salmon treaty.
At the same time, action should be taken to establish Canada's right to fish for 50 percent of the salmon spawned in the Canadian streams whose watersheds are completely in Canada but whose outlets are through the Alaska Panhandle. This is the formula accepted in relation to the U.S. claim on 50 percent of the salmon runs of the Fraser River whose entire course lies completely within Canadian territory but due to U.S. ability to intercept these runs on their return migratory route, that country claims 50 percent of the river's salmon production.
The Canadian rivers that empty through the Panhandle are the Alsek, Skagway, Taku, Stik-ine, Iskut and Unuk which, with their tributaries, drain the entire watersheds of British Columbia and Yukon between the Coast Range and the Rocky Mountains, north of the Nass River.
We should proceed to establish our claim to this production by intercepting these Canadian spawned salmon in whatever waters lie outside U.S. territorial boundaries, that is, all waters lying to the south of the international boundary, including those waters off Cape Chacon and Cape Muzon right up to the shoreline as agreed to in the findings of the Alaska Boundary Tribunal, to which the U.S. was a party, as signed January 24, 1903.
Canada should immediately seek negotiations with the USSR (and possibly Japan) for an agreement similar to that signed between U.S. and USSR cover-
ing the Mid-Atlantic Bight to guarantee a maximum sustained yield from fisheries of the Pacific coast continental shelf area.
In this way we would become a force in an area which to all intents and purposes we have relinquished by default, due to pressure from United States.
The U.S. is well aware of the fact that by opening such negotiations with the USSR it would automatically find itself having to enter negotiations in order that its otter trawl fleet could operate in this area. As it stands now, up to 85 percent of tl^e otter trawl landings at Seattle and Victoria at certain periods of the year come from waters that would lie within our baselines (if these baselines were established).
Canada is already a partnejr with several countries, including the USSR in the Northwest^ lantic, which includes the Grand Banks of Newfoundland.
So why not include a similar series of talks with the USSR to cover our Pacific coast?
ELGIN NEISH
Victoria, B.C.
UFAWU Lauded For Strong Stand
Editor, The Fisherman:
First off I must say how much I enjoy receiving your paper. In my opinion, the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union is the true example of what a union should be, fearless, progressive, and most of all militant in its struggle for the rights of all trade unionists.
I must compliment its members for spearheading the fight against injunctions that are used by management to impair the rights of all trade unionists.
Please advise me if there is anything I may do to assist in this struggle.
JOSEPH G. PAYNE, Victoria, B.C.
Welfare Aid Appreciated
Editor, The Fisherman:
I wish to express my thanks to Longline Welfare Fund and to welfare director Glenn McEach-ern for the cheque I received recently. It is very much appreciated.
Please accept my $5 donation to the strike fund.
TED NARUKAMI Steveston, B.C.
*    ★ ★ Editor, The Fisherman:
The $200 shipwreck benefit cheque from the Salmon and Longline Welfare Fund came at a very opportune time as we had all our clothing and personal effects aboard the Heather when she sank. We appreciate the quick consideration given to our claim.
JEANNE and JIM LAWRENCE
Sointula, B.C.
THE FISHERMAN — FEBRUARY 9, 1968