Community Conversations

Whose Fish is it Anyway?

A position paper by Dr. Deland S. Anderson regarding Community Conversations held at the Pratt Museum on 18 January 2002.

In this paper I will present a brief narrative sketch touching upon major themes, problems, and fears expressed by a cross-section of Kachemak Bay residents when prompted to reflect upon fish. All participants seemed to speak from a common assumption of diminishing returns. Some spoke to falling commercial fish prices and the rising costs of bringing fish to market. Others spoke to increasing scarcity of certain commercial species in the bay, e.g., shrimp and crab. Still others addressed the matter of species diversity in the bay, commenting at once that many indigenous species are disappearing even as exotic species are finding their way into our waters. Subtending all of these concerns was the recognition that the bay, though immensely fertile, is extremely fragile. Emergent themes included commercial profit margins, biological diversity, aesthetic concerns, wildlife, the lifestyles of sport, commercial and subsistence fishing, biological regime shifts, the politics of fishing, techniques of catching fish, methods of regulating fishing, strategies of managing fish, findings of biomass studies, and the need for education. The problems apparent between discussion participants were limited primarily to acting on unexamined assumptions, technical vocabulary, authoritarian claims, and high rhetoric. Fears expressed were diverse. Some fishermen showed extreme anxiety about their standards of living, commenting that you can’t send kids to college on what you make salmon fishing. Others commented on growing debt. A fish biologist made direful predictions of much public controversy over newly proposed fishing practices in the salmon industry. Several people feared the effects of over-fishing, the detriment of by-catch, and the threat of commercial fishing to marine birds and mammals. Some forewarned that communities would suffer because they are unprepared to cope with changes forced upon the fishing industry by such things as global markets, more stringent fishing regulations, and unexpected biological regime shifts. Perhaps the greatest fears were tied to catastrophes. It has only been thirteen years since the Exxon Valdez fouled the waters of Kachemak Bay; this disaster is still fresh in everyone’s mind, and the threat from continuing oil and gas development in the area, as well as the likelihood of another catastrophic spill, haunts us. The spruce bark beetle epidemic has also raised grave concerns over water quality and the health of the marine environment because of the die-off and subsequent rapid logging of untold acres of forest. Lastly, fears were expressed about the effects of global warming on the environment of Kackemak Bay and its marine life.

The group that convened to discuss fish represented a very broad range of interests—from the president of the Alaska B&B association, who represented clients interested in sport fishing in Kachemak Bay, to commercial salmon fishermen, to Native elders, to ecologists, fish biologists and marine environment educators. All conceivable aspects of fishing and fish were addressed in the conversation except subsistence — a huge omission, precipitated by the zeal of fishermen and fish biologists interested in talking only about their profession. In this context it is conspicuous that the only person present who did not talk was a Native Elder.

Moderator Anderson introduced various barbed questions in order to help lay bare basic assumptions held by different people and the populations they represent. The aim was to stimulate deep-level reflection on the value of fish to the community of Kachemak Bay thereby bringing people of different walks of life together in mutual concern for a shared resource and cultural value. One question involved considering whether it would be legal or ethical to tag one’s own sport caught fish and return them to the bay with messages or personal identification. This brought out the legal point that the State of Alaska claims ownership of every fish in the bay and has laws designed to protect those fish from molestation. But if the Homer Chamber of Commerce can tag and release halibut in the bay in order to establish a fish gambling operation to raise funds for business owners in town, why can’t an individual do the same? Does the matter come down to a gaming license awarded by the State of Alaska? Some people present objected to the notion of tagging fish on the ethical grounds that it is unnatural and harmful to the fish and that they should simply be left alone. A second question introduced the notion of “trash” fish. This proved to be a rather controversial topic as commercial fisherman and ecologists split right down the middle. No fish are trash from a biological point of view, argued one; all are important to the ecosystem as a whole. A trash fish, countered one fisherman, is a fish that you put labor into but can’t sell, as in the case of undesirable species or fish out of season. Collectively these “trash” fish are known as by-catch. But what about exotic species that have been introduced either intentionally or accidentally? Intentionally introduced species are meant to become new resources, such as oysters or Atlantic salmon. But sometimes such schemes can lead to disastrous regime shifts in the environment. Anderson brought up related questions. For instance, is it biologically sound to prevent any and all species from becoming extinct? Biology proves that extinction is a fact of life and yet biologists strive to prevent it. Is it a sound practice only in the case of species threatened by humans or should this principle be followed at all times? And do biologists have a strong enough knowledge base to determine the difference between human-threatened species and species that are simply slated by nature for extinction? This question cut at the heart of the scientific findings of biologists, especially fish biologists. Science is used on both sides of issues related to fish. One person brought up an infamous study of Steller sea lions conducted by Canadian scientists that manipulated evidence in order to prove a theory in support of the position of the funding parties. Indeed, “science” gets bandied about constantly by politicians interested in supporting one or another industry or commercial venture. The conversation took a decidedly cynical turn at this point. It seems some in the room felt that the biologists didn’t know enough to justify getting paid for the job of counting fish. To balance the tension, Anderson introduced the analogy of ranching, where undesirable species, such as bison, elk, grizzly bear, wolf, etc. are systematically eliminated in order to make room in the ecosystem for the more desirable species of cattle, horses and sheep. Would commercial fisherman use similar techniques to favor desirable species? Manifestly, if they thought they knew enough to get away with it without killing the goose that laid the golden egg. They would use a 24D of the sea if biologists could rationalize it. A third question concerned the rights to fish. One commercial fisherman maintained that the IFQ (individual fishing quota) systems insured owners not only the right to access to fish but to the ownership of the fish themselves — you buy the IFQs, they’re your fish. Anderson brought up the matter of sport fish licenses — buying a fishing license does not entail ownership of fish, only the right to try to catch one. In principle, IFQs are the same, but in practice, the state and federal governments manage the fisheries such that owners of IFQs will get their fish. Hence IFQs are bought and sold and traded and used as collateral for loans. The sport license is worth nothing in this regard, and never will be unless the state were to restrict the number of permits and allow them to be sold on the open market. A far-fetched idea it might seem, but the talk of IFQs for charter boats in Kachemak Bay is getting pretty close to that. But the root issue is again the individual’s right to a fish. In Kachemak Bay people used to catch their halibut off the Spit. Then it took a skiff to get to viable grounds in the bay. Now larger boats are required in order to go farther for fish. The charter fleet fishes some 25 miles or more from the harbor. One biologist blamed the dearth of fish on the success of the sport fishery itself. Others wondered whether commercial long-liners are also to blame. Many blame offshore factory trawlers for depleting stocks. In any case the fact remains that, with regard to halibut, the fish are getting farther and farther away. Salmon, on the other hand are readily available close at hand, and this due to enhanced or artificial runs. The B&B business in Homer would drop off dramatically, for example, if the Spit fishing hole artificial run were abandoned. A considerable conversation emerged when a fish biologist introduced the topic of a new salmon co-op in southwest Alaska. The issue was very difficult for non-fishermen to understand as it involved the minutia typical of commercial fishing regulations. The gist was that if the new co-op is formed, some people will be paid for the sale of fish that they do not actually catch. That is, a limited number of people will become partners in sharing a resource that the state of Alaska will sell them the right to exploit. Ramifications could be extensive, some argued, leading to absentee ownership of fish and local economic depressions caused by the reduction of fleet size.

The upshot of this entire conversation on fish was that different people from differing backgrounds momentarily let down their guards long enough to share some snapshots of life taken from their points of view. For example, people witnessed the passionate plea of a commercial fisherman to be allowed to put his kids through college by fishing. We heard environmentalists express frustration that anyone would commercial fish, underscoring the value of unmolested wildlife of the sea. It was not a warm and fuzzy sort of meeting by any means, but understanding and tolerance prevailed, and everyone left knowing more about fish than they had before. For everyone spoke to the role of fish as a traditional cultural value in the community of Kachemak Bay. Not merely a commercial industry, or a recreational pastime, fishing is a symbol of living to our people.