July 23, 1975
Page 24281
MAINE'S FISHING INDUSTRY
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, a recent issue of the Thomas Business Review, published by Thomas College of Waterville, Maine, is devoted to issues of concern to Maine's fishing industry. I ask unanimous consent that the articles in this issue be printed in the RECORD: "The Fishing Industry in Maine," by Nathaniel Barrows, who is president of the nonprofit organization, Fisheries Communications, and publisher of its monthly paper, Maine Commercial Fisheries; "Law of the Sea Conference: Geneva Session," by John Norton Moore, Deputy Special Representative to the President for the Law of the Sea Conference; and my own article entitled "The Case for a 200-Mile Fishing Limit."
There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
THE FISHING INDUSTRY IN MAINE: RESOURCES, PEOPLE, ECONOMICS
(By Nathaniel Barrows)
... fishermen look upon their occupation and gain satisfaction from their work in a much different way than do comparable land bound workers. The ideational findings add further support to our contention that fishing is not simply an occupation, but a way of life, having more influence on the feelings of individuals and being more pervasive in their lives than most land bound occupations.*
*John J. Poggie and Carl Gersuny, "Fishermen of Galilee," Marine Bulletin Series Number 17 (Sociology and Anthropology — Sea Grant, University of Rhode Island)
A special combination of resources, people and economics in Maine has produced a way of life which is unique to this state and perhaps to the nation. Of the 18,000 Maine residents now licensed by the Department of Marine Resources to handle seafood, perhaps half make most of their living from harvesting or handling seafood in some way. Through a combination of laws and traditions, the other license holders are able to enjoy access to the marine resources of the state to supplement their incomes and activities.
The following article is an overview of the resources, people, and economics which make up this unique industry.
RESOURCES
Take a look at a map of the Maine coast. As the crow flies, it is less than 300 miles from Kittery to Eastport; but stretching out all the peninsulas, coves, and bays, it is over a 3,000-mile distance. Within these 3,000 miles and the adjacent offshore waters of the Gulf of Maine lies a unique combination of features which produces one of the richest marine resource areas, for its size, in the world.
The coast is south facing. This means direct sunlight shines into the coves and inlets to supply photosynthetic energy for the whole ecosystem.
A number of rivers, large and small, most relatively unpolluted and free of silt, provide estuarian discharge of basic nutrients into the coastal waters. These coastal waters move, for three seasons, in a counterclockwise motion along the coast and in the Gulf of Maine. This means that the nutrients and energy present in the immediate offshore waters are carried around and through the spawning grounds for the major commercial fish species on the offshore banks in the Gulf of Maine. The spawn and fish from these grounds, in turn, tend to be carried around and along the coast.
Just as there is more and diverse animal and plant life in the zone between field and forest, there tends to be more salt water fish and plant life in intertidal and immediate offshore zones of the ocean. Maine, with what the geologists call a "drowned" coastline, has thousands of islands, coves, and marshes which provide, with this flow of nutrients, ideal growing areas for a rich abundance and diversity of marine life — much of it commercially harvestable.
Because of its unique water temperature range, the Maine coastline is at the southern limit of waters frequented by many northern species of fish and at the northern limit frequented by many southern species of fish.
Because Maine has been a "backward" state, the coastal segment of its economy never went through the heavy industrialization which devastated the marine resources of the states to the south through its ever-present by-product — pollution. Of course the marine resources of the state have not escaped pollution; but the present levels have not seriously affected the marine harvest in most areas. However, this idyllic picture faces challenges in two areas, both caused by man: pollution and depletion of the resources.
Here is a serious inconsistency. On the one hand, millions of dollars are being spent by industries, towns, and individuals to control the discharge of pollutants into the marine environment; on the other hand, incompatible industrial complexes, such as nuclear plants and oil refineries, are being considered.
The beauty of the natural system is that, free of pollution, these marine resources are renewable, with no effort by man. If, however, too much effort is expended by man in harvesting the most desirable commercial species, the reproductive capacity of this species, despite the size of the system we are talking about, will break down. In effect, the short term commercial gain will be canceled out by the long term ecological loss. For it takes many years and generations for a species to build itself back up once serious depletion takes place. This sort of conservation can be done only by those directly involved: the fishermen.
THE PEOPLE
What about the Maine Fisherman? Is he (it is a male-dominated occupation) the last American folk hero, embodying the old American virtues of self-reliance, hard work and determination? Or is he confined to fishing by accident of birth or geography, because there is nothing else, or because he can't cut it on shore?
Neither, really. These and other traditional cliches don't and shouldn't fit. Perhaps the overriding truth about the people in the Maine marine resource industry is that their lives, even more than those of farmers, are completely regulated, on a daily and seasonal basis, by the rhythms of the natural world around them. This is not to be glossed over lightly, for it is a concept completely alien to the 9-to-5 world. Telephones, time clocks, business appointments, luncheon conferences are not part of this world.
Instead, the weather, the tides, the temperature, the movement of the sun and moon are the factors affecting the working habits of fishermen.
Of course there are a number of types of personnel who derive most of their living from the sea, from the clamdigger, to the lobsterman, to the draggerman, to the herring packers. The majority of these are self-employed.
Usually the rewards, or disappointments, are immediate, with pay following the sale of each day's catch or dig. At sea, there are no repair services for the on-the-water fisherman; thus he has to be mechanic and repairman as well. Depending on no one but himself, working alone, he develops pride and self-reliance as part of his work ethic. Usually the amount of effort expended by an individual directly affects his income. If he doesn't fish or whatever on a given day, he makes nothing, unlike his shoreside counterpart who may have a business which keeps going even if he is home or away.
The fisherman's chronic problem is shortsightedness. Because of his "if-I-don't-do-it-today-someone-else-will-tomorrow" philosophy, conservation is a significant problem. Another problem is what could be called aim of vision. With his ocean perspective, the fisherman tends to ignore land based activities. Traditionally, the fishing industry has been removed from the political process, which has resulted in political naivete and impotence. This aim of vision also causes communication problems, especially with regard to the general public's understanding
about the resources, people, and economics of the fishing industry. This is especially true in the case of economics. To hear a fisherman talk, one would think he is on the verge of poverty, isn't catching much of anything and is on the verge of being put out of business by the government. Well, this may be partly true or not true at all.
The "talk poor" ethic is all part of the resource exploitive occupation. Simply put: a fisherman's territory is all-important. If he can maintain that his territory is not all that lucrative, the competition for it will not be so keen and he will be better able to protect it.
On the whole, the "talk poor" ethic has the public believing that the average fisherman is poor. This is not the case.
ECONOMICS
Certainly the Maine fishing industry has a number of marginal operators; but with the increasing overhead involved in harvesting most species today, the marginal operators cannot endure.
Instead, fishing is big business in the Maine economy, not only on a direct landings level (see Appendix) but also in the spin-off through handling, processing and resale of the product, and support services.
The primary landings figures, or money paid directly for seafood, was $41,411,142 for a grand total of 147,823,259 pounds of fin fish and shellfish landed in Maine ports in 1974.
The figures show only that generated by one segment of the seafood industry, the horizontal harvesting segment. When the amount of dollars generated by the processing, transporting, retailing, and restaurant segments are figured in a vertical progression, the total worth of seafood products is in the 100's of millions of dollars.
As an example, let's look at the additional value a bushel of clams has when followed along the chain. A digger gets, let's say, around the current price of $10 a bushel (an average professional digger can dig between 3 and 6 bushels on one low tide). The buyer then employs some people to shuck these clams. The shucked meats are now worth three times as much — $30 — when sold. A restaurateur then serves these meats as fried clams bringing him a total of $160 when sold, or 16 times the original value!
Another important aspect of figuring the value of the state's fishing industry is the amount of capital and labor tied up in supportive services. It has been said that in the downeast fishing towns, the total economic livelihood of the town can be measured by the flow of lobsters from traps to the refrigerated trucks. This is deceptively simple but in many cases true. But consider the average lobster boat on its mooring — a picture enshrined on calendars and magazine covers as the image of Maine. If built within the last 5 years, as many of the boats are, the basic hull and engine of the average 32'–38' lobster boat is worth upwards of $20,000. Then add on hydraulic steering and pothauler, controls, CB radio, depth sounder and/or recorder, possibly radar and/or Loran, and the investment approaches $30–$35,000. Even on the new fiberglass hulled boats overhead is high, demanding services of boat yards, mechanics and electronics technician and investment in piers, wharfs, and so forth.
Unfortunately, the art of economic study in the fisheries is not greatly developed;otherwise some of the hidden capital and labor spin-off would be more generally known and appreciated.
LAW OF THE SEA CONFERENCE: GENEVA SESSION
(By John Norton Moore)
For several years, the Executive Branch has believed that there were reasonable prospects of adhering to the General Assembly schedule and completing the work of the Third United States Conference on the Law of the Sea during 1975. Indeed, this timing has been a cornerstone of our interim policy. It is now clear, however, that the negotiations cannot clear,before mid-1976 at the earliest and, at this time, it is not clear whether or not a treaty can be completed during 1976.
The Conference has agreed to recommend to the General Assembly that the next session be held for eight weeks beginning on March 29, 1976, and that the Conference then decide whether an additional session is needed during the summer of 1976. Though such a schedule could conclude a treaty during 1976 if there is sufficient will to do so, a target date to conclude a treaty was unfortunately not agreed upon by the Conference despite what seems to be a majority sentiment for conclusion during 1976.
In light of this timing problem we are now conducting a thorough reevaluation of our interim policy to ensure that the necessary balance is found between our broad interest in a multilateral resolution of oceans' problems and our more immediate needs, particularly the protection of coastal fisheries stocks and access to the raw materials on the seabed. This reevaluation will take into account various factors, including the strong preference of many members of Congress for an extension of coastal fisheries jurisdiction to 200 miles, the nearly universal acceptance by the Conference of the 200-mile economic zone, and the need to construct an interim policy which encourages the timely conclusion of a comprehensive Law of the Sea Treaty in the interests of all nations.
Because of the concern of many members of Congress and the public with our immediate
oceans needs the Executive Branch will be consulting closely with interested committees of both Houses of Congress. As a responsible nation and a good neighbor, we will also be consulting with our immediate neighbors and other affected nations.
Despite the disappointment with respect to the pace and timing of the Conference work program, the Geneva session made progress and, in some respects, substantial progress. Most significantly, the will to negotiate, which had been largely missing at the Caracas session of the LOS Conference, was in greater, if not universal, evidence. There was no general debate, and negotiations in small, informal groups of principally interested states largely replaced less useful restatements of positions in the Committees of the whole. This increased will to negotiate led directly to the most important achievement of the session: the preparation of a single negotiating text on virtually all subjects before the Conference. The single text was prepared by the Chairman of each of the three Committees pursuant to a formal Conference decision. Although the single text is not a fully negotiated or consensus document, it is in important respects, at least in regard to Committees II and III, an indication of an overall package necessary for a satisfactory treaty. Moreover, in many areas, for example the articles on baselines, innocent passage in the territorial sea, the high seas, and many general articles on the protection of the marine environment, for the most part the single text reflects broad consensus. On other issues, for instance the economic zone and transit of straits, it largely reflects areas of broad support negotiated within informal working groups. In some other respects, particularly in Committee I which deals with the difficult problem of a regime and machinery for deep seabed mining, the single text in our opinion did not reflect the kind of accommodation necessary for agreement.
Even though it is not a negotiated or consensus text, the preparation of the single text is a significant and necessary step toward a treaty. For the first time, the Conference will be able to focus on a specific text rather than a multitude of alternatives and national proposals. For the first time, too, it will be possible to study the overall relationships inherent in a comprehensive package agreement. Though no government, including our own, will be completely satisfied with the content of the single text, it now makes more rapid Conference progress possible. I believe that, for the most part,at least for the work of Committees II and III, it also reflects a widely shared view about the nature of the overall package in a manner conducive to the achievement of a realistic and widely acceptable Treaty.
Moreover, the single text in Committee II strongly confirms coastal State conservation and management jurisdiction over coastal species of fish out to 200 miles and provides realistic protection for anadromous stocks within and beyond 200 miles. While the text also contains recognition of the need for international management of highly migratory species, informal negotiations have not yet produced the same degree of consensus evident with respect to coastal and anadromous stocks.
The Conference of the Law of the Sea is one of the most complex and important negotiations in our history. It touches the raw nerves of national interests in almost all nations of the world, and particularly of the United States which has perhaps the largest and most diverse oceans interests of any nation. Our disappointment at the pace of the negotiations is genuine and requires a careful rethinking of our interim policy. But it is equally necessary in reformulating a realistic interim policy that we not lose sight of our shared commitment to a comprehensive treaty. A treaty which fully protects the vital interests of the United States and of the world community as a whole is in the interest of all nations. We will continue to do our part to encourage such an agreement.
I believe that the common purpose that has sustained the Law of the Sea negotiations through its difficult, time-consuming early stages is intact. That purpose is the shared conviction of leaders from all parts of the world that law, not anarchy, will best serve man's future in the oceans. The real problems of nations that make this negotiation difficult will not disappear if we do not succeed; they will become worse. There are, of course, basic differences in national interest and the sense of urgency of resolving our oceans' problems, as well as basic differences of perception on how best to protect common interests. But no one, I believe, would willingly choose the course of chaos in which even great power prevails at great cost.
THE CASE FOR A 200-MILE FISHING LIMIT
(By Edmund S. Muskie)
Our fishing industry is falling into serious decline and it is time for our government to reverse its traditional policy of neglect toward that industry.
One of the most important steps the federal government can take immediately is declaration of a 200-mile fisheries management zone off our coasts.
Inflation and recession have severely hurt our fishermen. Operational costs have risen sharply without a corresponding rise in fish prices.
And our coastal fishermen are forced to compete for their catch against a growing number of heavily outfitted and frequently subsidized foreign vessel. The prices our fishermen earn for their catch are depressed by the glut of processed fish imported from the same foreign fleets. Fishing pressure has increased so dramatically that without quick government action, there may well be no stocks left to protect.
The international community has shown a growing awareness of overfishing, and is curently negotiating a new law of the sea, under United Nations auspices. But conferences last year in Caracas, Venezuela, and this past spring in Geneva have produced only a preliminary draft to serve as a basis for further negotiation.
The draft treaty, drawn up in Geneva, includes a 200-mile economic zone. But the issues which remain unresolved at the Law of the Sea Conference are massive, and it is unrealistic to expect an enforceable international agreement in the immediate future.
Because of this, I expect Congress to act this summer on a unilateral 200-mile limit proposal I have cosponsored, along with Sen. Warren G. Magnuson, D–Washington, and about 30 other senators.
Simply put, the legislation now pending in Congress would provide the United States with management jurisdiction over fish within a 200-mile nautical zone, pending the conclusion of an international oceans agreement.
The bill also provides special protection for anadromous species that are hatched in this country and then migrate out into the high seas before returning to spawn in the streams of their origin. Management of migratory species such as tuna would be handled by international commissions.
Similar legislation passed the Senate last year, but was not brought to a vote in the House.
The need for the 200-mile limit is well documented.
Within the last five years alone, the foreign fishing effort off our coast has increased severalfold. And scientists are now saying that about 25 species of fish are depleted or threatened with depletion, largely as the result of overfishing.
Maine's experience demonstrates just how serious the situation is, especially in view of the fact that so many Maine residents depend on these fish stocks for their living.
In 1950, Maine fishermen landed 353 million pounds of fish of all species. By 1970, that total had been more than cut in half, and in 1974, fish landings totaled only 148 million pounds.
For individual species of fish, the statistics are even more dramatic. Since 1966, Maine's whiting catch has declined by 90 percent, from 30 million pounds to 3 million pounds in 1974. The catch of sea herring has declined 75 percent; ocean perch, 61 percent; cod, 30 percent; pollock, 42 percent; and haddock, 97 percent, from 6.5 million pounds in 1950 to 220,000 pounds last year.
Perhaps the chief remaining roadblock to adoption of a 200-mile limit is the Administration, which strongly supports the concept of international negotiations.
I agree with the Administration, and I think, with the majority in Congress, that international negotiations are the only long term solution to the problems caused by increasing competition for the world's fish and other ocean resources.
But the present structure of international agreements is clearly inadequate to provide the interim protection our fish stocks so desperately need.
At present the United States is party to 22 international fishing agreements and virtually all of the fish stocks depleted or threatened with depletion are subjects of those agreements. Obviously, further steps must be taken to prevent the depletion of our offshore stocks — for the sake of conserving the world's fisheries resources as well as preserving the U.S. fishing industry.
The world's fishing effort is now so much greater than a decade ago that stocks can be decimated in a season or two, a rate much too fast for international negotiations to cope with. Protecting these stocks is something more than a regional or national interest. It is a global interest.
In addition, nothing in the 200-mile fish limit legislation is inconsistent wth our negotiating position at the Law of the Sea Conference.
Ambassador Stevenson, head of our Law of the Sea delegation, has said this country is "prepared to accept, and indeed, would welcome, general agreement on a twelve-mile outer limit for the territorial sea and a 200-mile outer limit for the economic zone provided that it is part of an acceptable comprehensive package."
The U.S. position accepts the concept of 200 miles for fishery management jurisdiction. It also accords with the two other fishery management proposals contained in the proposal before Congress — management of anadromous species by the nation in whose rivers they spawn; and management of migratory species through international commissions.
The key to a 200-mile limit worldwide, according to the U.S. position, is a "responsibility" that coastal states have to ensure the highest and best use of offshore resources.
I believe the United States has the responsibility to act now, on an interim basis, or there will be no stocks left to protect.
It is my own guess that it will take at least until 1976 before the nations represented at the Conference can work out the complex range of issues — and there are some ninety of them — that must be worked out if a new law of the sea is to be written. Time and time again in discussions with foreign diplomats in Caracas, I heard it said that "we need time to build new international law." Certainly, time is needed for ideas to mature concerning some of the more complex issues the conferees are dealing with. But if we are to preserve our offshore stocks, I do not think we can afford to wait until the Law of the Sea Conference produces a treaty.
In Caracas, several foreign delegates suggested to me and the other U.S. Senators attending the Conference that the US ought not to act irresponsibly by enacting unilateral fish legislation. If we are being asked to exercise restraint with respect to this kind of legislation, then it seemed to me not unreasonable to ask restraint in the short run of those who have created the problem off our coasts — the Soviets, the Germans, the Poles, the British, and the Japanese. But when I suggested this to their delegates in Caracas, I got very little positive response and sensed few of these nations share our sense of urgency about the need to protect offshore fish stocks in the North Atlantic.
If the United States does not take effective short run action to protect the fish stocks off our coasts, who will? Are America's — or the world's — best interests really served by our waiting a couple of more years for diplomats to negotiate a comprehensive international oceans treaty before any meaningful steps are taken to preserve our offshore stocks? I think not. And I believe an increasing number of members of Congress agree.
A second key Administration objection supposedly related to our national security. The Defense Department supports the US position on the 200-mile limit.
But the department is worried about the possible reaction of other nations to a unilateral U.S. action. It seems to believe that if the United States enacts this legislation, other nations will automatically abrogate – unilaterally – our rights of free transit and overflight.
As an official advisor to the U.S. delegation, I attended the meetings in Caracas last year and talked with many foreign delegates. In none of my conversations was there any indication that the major nations of the world would react to our passing a 200 mile fish limit bill by immediately ending our rights of free transit and overflight. Of course, in some of these talks, foreign delegates expressed reservations about America's enacting interim 200-mile limit legislation. But my guess is that their first reaction; after denouncing the legislation, would be to negotiate at the next session of the U.N. Conference with a new sense of urgency.
It is important to remember that this legislation will not prohibit other nations from fishing in the 200-mile zone. In fact, it would preserve the rights of nations which have traditionally fished off our shores. But it would reserve to the United States the right to manage our offshore stocks to assure their best and most prudent use.
Finally, I believe the 200-mile limits is important as a sign of good faith to our fishing industry. Our fishermen in Maine and nationwide are an independent group. They have not been anxious for regulation of any kind, and in fact they suffer under various government restrictions and duties on equipment from foreign sources which hamper their ability to compete.
They seek no relief from these restrictions. But the 200-mile limit has become a symbol – a rallying cry for fishermen who see the livelihood of generations threatened by rapacious foreign competition.
Government's failure to adopt a 200-mile limit will be nothing more than a desertion of this traditional segment of our economy. I will be working to see that does not happen.