|
|
|
Dear Editor:
The FFAW is a farce. When it came down to renegotiate a price, the companies opted out and decided to take it to court. Guess what happened? The union backed out and the companies got what they wanted.
It’s about time the FFAW realized it’s more than the fish plant workers who are paying union dues. If there were no fish harvesters, there would be no fish companies and therefore no FFAW.
Calling all fish harvesters who support me on this important matter to contact their union representative. The union is a lost cause when it comes to representing fish harvesters. It’s time for all fish harvesters to unite. It’s time for a new union. Our old one is taking us all to Fort McMurray.
Frank Leonard
Petite Forte, NL
|
|
My name is Brian Adams, President of Area 19 Snow Crab Fisherman’s Association and I have recently returned from a second trade mission to China organized by the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters.
I first traveled to China along with long time fisherman from Breton Cove Cape Breton, Merrill Macinnis in the fall of 2006 with a delegation of seafood and aquaculture companies and organizations from across Atlantic Canada.
In early November of 2007 I again traveled along with an Atlantic delegation interested in exploring or expanding business opportunities in China. The delegates landed in Beijing both in 2006 & 2007 and were able to visit some major seafood processing companies, wholesale operations, and potential investors and buyers in what are called one on one meetings.
We participated in China’s most prestigious seafood event, The China Fisheries & Seafood Expo each trip. The Expo allowed us to distribute colored brochures showcasing Area 19 snow crab and all pertinent information regarding the Area 19 Snow Crab Fishery. The Expo promoted other CFAs from Nova Scotia as well. All materials were printed in Mandarin / Chinese & English.
WHY CHINA? In our industry, supply and demand control pretty much what takes place from year to year. While the two main markets we sell into at present (US & Japanese) have become somewhat soft, China could be a major third player, or second runner up with 1.3 Billion people at last tally and harboring a $1 TRILLION dollar surplus. The latest indicators are that China will become a major importer of seafood from Canada in the near future as they open their doors to the world welcoming new business partners.
We have had much positive feed back after each mission, and if progress continues into this new market it can only be beneficial for the industry as well as it’s many spin-offs to the local economy. Much like the markets already built in the US & Japan that presently serve the snow crab industry, and have since the late 1960’s, building on the Chinese market will take vision as well as a strong commitment by the industry as a whole as we move forward.
CFA 19 is located off the western coast of Cape Breton, in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence. Brian Adams has been fishing out of Pleasant Bay in Cape Breton, NS since 1978 and has been President of the Area 19 Snow Crab Association since 1984.
Brian Adams
Kim Lee - Interpreter
Brian Adams - middle
Gerard Dominic - Organized the China mission on behalf of the Canadian Manifactures and Exporters
|
|
Who Owns the Fish in the Sea As Canadians, we owe it to future generations not to privatize our natural renewable resources such as the water in our lakes and rivers, our forest, or the fish in the sea.
Recently, the Northumberland Strait Working Group received a consultant’s report called “Fleet Renewal in the Northumberland Strait Fisheries: which looked into the problem of low returned from the commercial fishery in this area. It states that “environmental changes in the Northumberland Strait may have contributed to the long-tern decline in landings, and that harvesters of a common property resource compete to maximize their share resulting in over harvesting, excessive effort and excessive investment.
No mention was made about investigating the causes of the environmental changes, but the authors did offer an approach to the “common property problem”. They proposed but the authors did offer an approach to the “common property problem”. They proposed that the affected area be sub-divided into TURFs (Territorial Use Rights Fishing). These TURFs would be responsible for fisheries management, levels of fishing effort, data collection, conservation, etc… In return, the TURFs would be granted “exclusive collective ownership” of local fish resources.
Obviously, once ownership has been established, then the uncaught fish in the sea can be mortgaged, leased or sold. The fishermen will become no more that serfs, hired to harvest the fish that are owned by these TURFS, or whoever the eventual owners may be, on their terms and at their price. If we are naïve enough to accept these conditions, then the authors state that a license retirement program could be put in place, where governments would loan the funds necessary, with a 20 year pay-back schedule for those remaining.
As a fisherman, I need to know that the fish is there, and that I have access to it. Giving away the fish and mortgaging our children’s future for the unproven possibility of making a few bucks extra is a gamble that will end up costing us our access to the fish, our independence and our dignity.
Steve Jones
Northumberland Strait |
|
Dear Editor
I have been fishing (longline/handline) for 30+ years. I think it is time for change to update the fishing industry to a more modern approach. A lot of policies have been based upon history. In some aspects, the fisheries is run like a modern business - the ones with financial means can buy enough quota to make a modest living while the policy to use quota history from 1986-1992 is outdated. This is the case where the inactive licenses are earning more money from the fishery, without fishing.
These so-called fishers ( some of whom have not been in a boat for five to ten years or more) sell their quota to the active fishers for a price of .60- .70 cents per lb for George’s cod. This also affects the crew members as most people fish on a share basis after expense; therefore this is considered an expense.
It is time to stop this so that younger generations can have a chance to make a living in the fishery. The people who have the history way back to 1986-1992 have earned more money not fishing in the last five to ten years than the actual fisher. This is called a community based quota system, but it does very little for the community. Based on the age group that holds the majority of the quota, it is not necessary for them to own a boat, therefore the boat building trade is suffering, they do not buy bait, gear, fuel, supplies or food provisions affecting all the community based businesses. They also do not hire crew members, whose job creates employee deductions and workers compensation.
I feel we should adopt a policy whereby inactive licenses, if not fished for five to ten years, the quota should be put back into unidentified quota and divided among the groups that have active fishing licenses. This may help create enough summer jobs, that it would have a positive impact on the employment system.
With an IQ system for halibut being implemented on April 1, 2008, I think the quota history should be brought up to more recent years in considering the IQ system. A mix of 30 percent for years 1986-1992 and 70 percent for years 1993-2006 would be a more up-to-date approach.
Our young men keep going out west to work because they are the ones paying for this fish quota. It comes out of their share every trip. I thing this is a much bigger threat to the coastal communities than any trust agreements. Most people with agreements are a least working and contributing to our community.
I feel an ITQ system in the longline quota system would be a mistake, because the fish quota would be sold to the mobile fleet. This in my opinion is a less environmental way to fish and employs less people.
Garth Goreham
Clark’s Harbour, NS
|
|
|
|
 |
