pribilof

Greenpeace applauds the decision by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) to limit bottom trawl fisheries in the northern Bering Sea. Any cutback on this destructive fishery practice is welcome news. However, in this case, it’s misleading.

Industrial fishing, with the exception of the use of bottom trawlers, will continue in these areas. And provisions included in the decision raise alarm bells that plans may be in the making to eventually re-open the area to bottom trawlers to do their damage.

Bottom trawl lobbyists are pressuring the NPFMC to open more of this “northern boundary” because, as they themselves have testified before the Council, the fish are moving north due to climate change, and their boats have to travel further north to find fish. The other reason, one which they are not talking about, is that heavy fishing pressure in the southern Bering Sea has dramatically reduced populations of many groundfish stocks.

The size of the closure area is also misleading. As with the Aleutian Island bottom trawl closure adopted previously, a large percentage of this area of no trawl fishing is in an area where no fishing has taken place due to its depth and distance from on shore processors. No one fished there anyway. So while this is a forward-looking and precautionary step, action is urgently needed to address damage from bottom trawling that is occurring now in known coral and sponge habitats.  

Incorporating Greenpeace research, NOAA has identified several deep sea coral areas that currently lack protection. Last year, Greenpeace used submarines and a Remote Operated Vehicle (ROV) to survey seafloor habitats in two underwater canyons along the highly productive Bering Sea shelf break. Zhemchug Canyon, the world’s largest, had never been explored.  We found at least 14 species of coral, and more than 20 species of sponge – including one that was previously unknown to science. Alarmingly, we also saw documented considerable evidence of fishing impacts – trenches dug through the seafloor, and broken and overturned corals.

Virtually none of the Bering Sea or Gulf of Alaska is protected from all fishing, despite the growing body of evidence of the value of marine reserves in fisheries management.  Fully protected marine reserves can help speed the recovery of fish stocks and degraded habitats, and have proven to increase yields in surrounding areas due to a spillover effect. By serving as experimental controls, marine reserves can also help us understand the impacts of climate change on our oceans and fisheries.

It’s time for the NPFMC to take a more ecosystem-based approach, and to protect the habitats that sustain Alaska’s fisheries. So far, most of what we’ve seen has looked good on paper but has had little impact on the status quo. And in the meantime, fish stocks continue to dwindle, critical habitat continues to be destroyed, and fishing communities continue to await relief.


-- George

One of the most used comments bantered in the halls of the hotels where the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) holds their meetings where many of the decisions are already decided with the big, wild, commercial fishing industry with the public is “best available science.” The NPFMC usually holds their meetings at the Hilton hotel in Anchorage four times a year. And, although no one says it, the process is a “good ol boys” conference. My brother is fond of telling me; the industry writes the regulations. But, even though the cards are stacked up against me and others who have concerns and try to offer alternatives toward habitat protections, I attend. Its part of my responsibility. I often feel like my attendance is futile and a waste of time. Anyway, “best available science.”

The use of that term as an acceptable tool to manage our fisheries seems to me is like saying: “best available truth.” Remember the most famous question ever asked in all of humanity? “What is truth?” And so I wonder, what is “best available science. What does that mean and how does that help our people in the villages?”

Well, NPFMC, Mr. Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez of the U.S. Department of Commerce, we have a problem. What does your “best available science” or “best available truth” tell you about our out of control salmon by catch problems in Western Alaska? The problem is this. Really huge, large, big industrialized fishing machines, called boats, use huge, large, big nets and go out into the waters of southern Bering Sea, just north of the Alaska Peninsula to fish for 3.2 billion pounds of pollock, the total allowable catch from both the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea. And as they vacuum up these fish, a very important food source of the foods we depend upon for our survival, they “accidentally catch”  hundreds of thousands, and millions of salmon during the past 30 years, in their pursuit of happiness. This is by catch. In 2004, they caught, as far as we know, 63,000 king salmon. In 2005, 75,000 kings. Chum salmon took a huge hit. In 2004, 447,000 chums, and in 2005, 700,000 chums. That’s according to their best available truth. If I remember correctly, in 2007, they said they caught 117,000 king salmon while in pursuit of happiness, their happiness. Never mind our people’s food security in our villages that depend on these fish for survival. The song and dance is getting old. Outside multinational fishing companies, meeting with the federal government in a hotel somewhere destroying our home. Destroying our dreams. Destroying our children. And saying, well, sorry. It’s legal. It may be, but it is immoral.

A really good friend of mine once told me: “our commercial fishing season for king salmon on the Kuskokwim River lasted for 60 minutes, all year!” And he has a family, Children. And he cannot do anything, anything about it, because like you and me, he is poor. He cannot afford to attend one of them meetings in a hotel somewhere to testify for three minutes about his concerns, nor, like you and me, he cannot afford a lawyer or a lobbyist. And so, he hears “best available science” spoken from reputable scientists and NPFMC members. And to further add salt to the wound, the Council will say, we are only an advisory council. Mr. Gutierrez makes the final decision. Know what? Uncle Ted in his wisdom thru the Magnuson Stevens Act set it up like this.

Well, the NPFMC says they have a solution to deal with this salmon by catch, stolen fish problem. Here it is, in brief. Lets not force our good buddies who go out to the Bering Sea to fish for a share of the 3.2 billion pounds of pollock they catch every year to suffer to much. After all, they are our buds. Lets let them continue stealing food from the people on the Kuskokwim River, but, really, not too much. Lets put a cap on how much they can take out of the mouths of our children. Now, really. And further, lets let one of the biggest fishing companies who participate in this immoral practice, Trident Seafoods, give that fish to Bean’s Café to feed the hungry. Peter stealing from Paul to feed people? And now, others are caught up in their circle of destruction, being used to make themselves feel better about what they are doing and getting a huge tax write off to boot. See how this “best available science” and “best available truth” works? And so the question: “what is truth?”

The only real solution to this problem is stop it. Stop the insane practice of by catch. Stop raiding our people’s food. Stop. And use your “best available science” to figure out how not to do it any more. After all, you use that statement to justify what you do. And, in many cases, you give the scientists who use that statement, grants to provide research to justify that behavior. We the people in Western Alaska have had enough of supporting your pursuit of happiness. We need to pursue ours and that of our children. Please, level the playing field. Your quarterbacks are just too “best available.” You can afford it. We cannot even afford to feed our children.


George Pletnikoff is Unangan from the Pribilof Islands. He now works for Greenpeace as the Alaska Oceans Campaigner in Anchorage. He can be reached at george.pletnikoff@greenpeace.org

As we look to our trusty dictionary put together in Webster’s name, Third College Edition, to find the word “confidence” we find a part of the definition: belief in ones own abilities; the fact of being or feeling certain. Very cool words. Words that as young people we have been taught to believe in, to accept and to cherish because they, the meanings of these words, will carry us a long way to success in our lives.

In Alaska today, as in many other places throughout our shrinking planet, we are experiencing something so ominous that never before in the history of humanity we have ever experienced anything like it. We debate; question; lay out facts; make movies; win Nobel Peace Prizes, and yes, write opinions about global warming, or climate change as some choose to call it. Global warming. Interesting group of words. As in the globe is warming. The Earth is warming. Very interesting choice of words. And the facts are indisputable. It is happening.

Now, I can list the many examples and scientific facts of how we know for certain that global warming is happening, tell you who is saying what, where, and why. I can use the models that say this part of the globe is warming a degree here, a degree there. We can assemble a whole bunch of lists of examples of weather changes all examples of how temperature changes impact our weather, and ultimately our people, humanity. But, you can read that elsewhere. This is not one of those articles. This is a simple paper, thoughts, words about what I see and how I understand what is happening to my people here in Alaska, the Last Frontier.   

We, Alaska’s Native Peoples, indigenous peoples, have a long and proud history in our home. We settled here, in a place some call a frozen wasteland, birthplace of the winds, to raise families, develop cultures and a lifestyle from a rich but often unforgiving environment. And today, we take much pride, a healthy pride in what we have accomplished. We still speak a language handed down to us over hundreds and thousands of years. We still-hunt and gather our foods, as did our ancestors. We still call this place our home. We are still here. Now, as never before, we wonder in our homes, beside our wood fires, gathered around our dinner places, speaking to our children, wondering how much longer we are going to be here. Where are we going to be? In our villages or moving to the larger and more unforgiving cities, places where crime is rampant and food is scarce. Food, that is, that we know and have confidence in that is healthy for our diets. We just don’t know.

Local and national newspapers are filling with news about the plight of our home. Erosion from ocean storms is cutting into the security, the places on land where we live and have lived. Land is washing away, giving way to angry water. Winter is settling in, in ways never before experienced. And we are hunting for foods growing more and more scarce. Our animals, once respectful of our ways, are moving away and not coming back to offer themselves to us. They don’t respect us any longer. And we grow hungry. And we only drive motor bikes, bikes that leave such a small footprint of carbon that it is not we who have brought this plight, but someone else, someone far from our shores. But we are suffering. And the animals don’t respect us any longer.

We at Greenpeace have gone, on two consecutive seasons, to the Bering Sea to bear witness, to learn first hand the plight of our people. We have traveled hundreds and thousands of miles in our boats; a leased MV Pacific Storm and our own MY Esperanza to seek insights from our people about what is happening and how we can help to make a change. We came to the Bering Sea and the Gulf of Alaska to find answers, only to find more questions. We listened, interviewed, filmed, talked, and planned. We are here. And we are still seeking answers.

Food is becoming scarce. Not only is the food we depend upon harder and more difficult to capture, but the food we use as economy to buy food from our shrinking shops, imported to supplement our diets. Fuel to drive our motor bikes, power our skiffs our boats, is expensive, in some places a gallon well over seven dollars. Oil to heat our homes comes from Venezuela, a foreign government. And we are here.

From our works, our interviews, our films, and our talks, we think we might have found a way to help insure longevity for our people in our villages, for all of us actually. To ensure food, health and a return to a vibrant culture, perhaps we can etch out zones in the water, in the Bering Sea, the Gulf of Alaska, where we can begin to rebuild a home for our animals and plants. We call these zones, cultural heritage zones to emphasize the best of what we are. (I speak of “we” in both the sense of being Alaska Native and a member of humanity) Zones in the water protected from the destructive practices of the way western man harvests fish and now think is normal.  Ways that destroy, perhaps forever, in one’s lifetime, that is forever, habitat critical to the needs of our foods and our homes. Ways that, unless we put a stop to their insidious creeping crawling scraping of the oceans floors, are insuring our end to survival as Alaska’s first peoples, not to mention the creation of another George’s Banks. Large commercialized factories on the water called trawlers are doing this and the animals are blaming us. They don’t know we respect them. They, our foods think, it is we, collectively, destroying their homes, and perhaps they are right. For if we do not speak up to put an end to this practice of sweeping up the floors of our waters, yes, it is a collective destructive force no matter who is doing it. Cultural heritage zones! What an idea. What an answer to our needs, to our questions. Protective areas where we can ensure the health of our foods, where they, our foods can regain their respect for us, where once again, we can have confidence in who we are and what we do.

The water changes color, temperature and viscosity. We wonder about its health, leading to our way of life. The globe, the Earth, the planet is warming and our hearts have become colder, facing questions too difficult to answer. But, we are here, working and seeking. Join us in our quest to regain confidence, to regain the trust of our foods, our animals and plants. Join us as we move to continue our cultural heritage place on this planet we call Mother Earth.  

Action Needed

North Pacific Fishery Management Council discusses more fish deaths!

11 December 10, 2007

We need all your help. I am asking that you please send a message to the North Pacific Fishery Management Council’s (NPFMC) Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) that our information, our science and our opinions should be considered. Anyway, here is some information I learned last week during the NPFMC’s meeting here in Anchorage. It might be confusing, but so is a lot of information they produce.

I will try to explain them, but if you don’t understand them, let me know or check the web site of the Council  … http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/ and look around. Anyway, here goes.

The pacific cod fishery is on the decline in the Gulf of Alaska, as well as in the Bering Sea. To that fishery, a quota is set for halibut by catch. Without using the actual numbers, because we are talking hundreds of thousands of metric tons, I will use an example. Let us say the quota for the pacific cod in the Gulf of Alaska is 1000 pounds. This is just an example. The actual quota of Pacific cod in the Gulf of Alaska is set in 1996 was 68,000 metric tons. The total allowable catch quota for that year was 65,000 mt. Now, the rest are not actual numbers because I just want to get a point across. In order to catch that amount, 68,000 metric tons there is going to be by catch, or fish that are caught and discarded or thrown away. So this is an example of what happened at the NPFMC’s Advisory Panel on Friday. Again, its an example. The Cod is going down in numbers. So a lower quota was set for how much cod can be caught. As I mentioned earlier, a set amount of halibut by catch was also determined. Since the cod is declining, the fishing industry wants to transfer a portion of the by catch amount from the cod fishery into another fishery; for example, yellow-fin sole. Rather than decrease the amount of halibut to be killed in the cod fishery, lets move a percentage of the kill into another fishery, just to make sure we can still kill that same amount of halibut. Does that make any sense? Do you see the moral dilemma here? Like I said, it is really confusing, so if you don’t see it, not to worry.

Now here is where I would like to ask your help. This is an ACTION.

I sent an email to the Chairperson of the NPFMC’s Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC). This committee is made up of scientists and PhD’s to over see the “best available science” needs of the Great Pacific Northwest/Bering Sea fishery and its health of the ecosystem. I asked her if we can have 15 minutes of their time to view and discuss our findings of the Canyons last summer. This is what she told me: “We have seen your DVD. Unless there is something new, we can skip the presentation this time. You did show it during the evening last October, and most of the Committee saw it.” That is a paraphrase. If you want to see her actual email response, just ask. Anyway, since she has admitted to having seen our work, I want to ask for your help. Please send her and email asking her what she thought of our work on the Canyons. Here is her name and email as well as that of other SSC members.

1. Pat Livingston, Chair                pat.livingston@noaa.gov

2. Dr. George Hunt                    geohunt2@u.washington.edu

3. Ken Pitcher                            ken.pitcher@fishgame.state.ak.us

4. Dr. Gordon Kruse                    gordon.kruse@uaf.edu

I ask you to send each of these people an email asking them what they thought of our Canyons work. I would like to get as many emails going to them as possible. Please help. Ms. Livingston said they saw our work, so they should have an opinion.

Thank you very much.

George Pletnikoff

I hope I can shed some light on how this North Pacific Fishery Management Council process takes place, of course from a position of bias and not so happy.

I have been attending the Council meetings, off and on, for about 20 years or so. Began back in the day when we were fighting for the establishment of the Community Development Quota (CDQ) program which we hoped at the time would benefit the villages. It was a long battle and one you can read about just by goggling it, if you are interested. I want to, however say a few words about that later, as it sorely impacts the people in the villages.

If you want to know the details about the Council process you can also get on their web page at www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc. That is an interesting site. So I will simply give you a perspective from someone who is from a village, and also from my position as a Campaigner, time and space allowing.

Lets see. If I were living on St. Paul Island and I wanted to submit a comment on some issue the Council was addressing, it would probably go something like this.

The issue. Crab. How much? Well this year, some 63 million pounds. Sounds impressive, but when I was the pastor on St. Paul some 10 years ago, the quota was 250 million pounds, and the entire season began 15 January and lasted sometimes into May. Now its just about 2 weeks before the quota is caught. So lets say, I am an employee of the City government. We are interested because of the raw fish taxes we get from the processing of the product and the additional services, such as fuel sales, dockage fees, grocery sales and additional other services. So the local economy benefits from this activity. Now, keep in mind that I am working for a municipal government which probably can afford the rest of the story. The Tribes? Probably cannot afford to do this.

So, I write a position paper and submit it to the Council for consideration. Then it is decided that I should attend the meeting to submit verbal testimony to support our written position. I have to travel. Well, so, from St. Paul to Anchorage, where the meetings are usually held; sometimes they are held in Seattle Washington or Portland Oregon. So I have to buy a ticket. A round trip ticket to Anchorage from St. Paul on PenAir is about $900.00. Then I have to get a hotel and food, and maybe a car, but certainly a cab. So additional $180.00 per day per diem, or there abouts. So for one week, at $180.00 per day is? Ya, $1260.00. So now, with the air fare that totals, ya, $2,160.00 just to attend! For one person! There are other costs too, like being away from home, family, incidental expenses, etc.

So, usually the Council begins meeting on a Monday. The SSC or the Scientific and Statistical Committee begins bright and early in the morning. Now I have to follow the issue and try to figure out where and when the issue will be addressed by the committee. Sometimes, and more often than not, the agenda is moved around, often without much notice, so I have to sit there throughout the entire day and listen to hours and hours of stuff I have not idea about. This report, that testimony. Lots of stuff. Oh we get breaks, and when that happens, I will try to corner someone from the committee to lobby. But I am relatively unknown, and often the members have buds or other people who are "council groopies" that are better known and more attuned to the issues that get the time and the ears. So, I try to wiggle my way into some conversation with someone. Then back to the meeting and more listening. Now, the issue on the crab is being discussed. First there will be staff reports, scientist reports, and others who signed up to testify. Then, if I signed up, my time will come. I am called to the hot seat by the chairperson. The committee are all sitting at tables arranged usually in kinda a circle, with table cloths shrouded on them, microphones, lots of papers and folders and notebooks, really looking knowledgeable. So I walk up to the table, sit down, introduce myself and say what issue I want to address. Now, figure. An entire table of experts. An audience of about 30 people. Bright lights. Microphones. And I begin to talk. Usually I will have about 3 to 6 minutes to say what I wanna say. Then questions from the committee, if any, and I am done. Whew...public speaking. Not fun. 

But that is basically what happens, and happens both at the Advisory Panel (AP), which meets from Monday to usually Friday of the same week, and usually at the same time as the SSC is meeting, and sometimes the issue I wanna comment on is taken up at the same time there as in the SSC. Sometimes not. And all three meet in different rooms, and,yes, usually at the same times.  But with the AP, the process is the same, and same set up, but this time with about 25 or so members on the panel. And 3 to 6 minutes to talk. And with the Council itself, usually the same. They usually meet from Tuesday to Saturday or Sunday. But here it is more intimidating, cause, well, they are THE Council. They have a bigger room with bigger tables and bigger chairs and more of an audience. And here, you get 3 minutes for an individual and 6 minutes for an organization to testify, and no more. There are green, yellow and red lights to tell you how much time you have. And, the Chair will say, "...thank you, your time is up." Any questions from the Council? If not, thanks. And its done. Here again, with the AP and the Council you try to lobby during breaks, but you also have additional competition from the other folks there. Lobbyists, processors, lawyers, fishers and long time friends who usually have the ear of the people you wanna talk to. And if you are lucky to get a Council member to talk to its usually really quick. They are on a break and have to go to the restroom or do something else. I personally have found some more approachable when I have followed them into the restroom, at least I can talk to them. So it is very difficult and extremely intimidating.

So, when John Hovevar wrote about our experience? Well, it was really something else. Imagine a person who lives in a village trying to do this. Imagine a person who's second language is english trying to do this. The expense? The intimidation? Ya, very little gets done if you are from a village. Unless of course if you are representing a CDQ organization, well, thats totally different. You will have bocoo bucks and paid lobbyists and lawyers to help you and speak for you. I have heard some of the executive directors of these organizations get paid upwards of $300,000 a year. They do this stuff. It is intimidating and really frustrating when and if you are a Tribal president trying to effectuate change. To protect your foods and your homes. It is nearly impossible to do it through this process.

This is why, it seems to me, the cultural heritage zones are the best chance to get protections for our families. We need to have a flag to rally around, an issue that makes sense. We need to help the people. We need support. For this, I am so grateful that Greenpeace is stepping up to the plate, not only to work to protect the oceans and habitat, but to help and support the Tribes on this planet we call mother earth.

This process is not fun. Not developed for people who live in villages, thats for sure. Too expensive and too foreign to our ways of living and communicating. But....?