Reshaping Fishing’s Future
Fall, 1998 -- Alaska doesn't have to take down the ``gone fishing'' sign yet, but it may need adjustment.
``Some of the Wild West ways of our fisheries just are not going to be economically viable,'' said Anchorage economist Gunnar Knapp. ``There's not going to be room for fisheries where one of the games is running over somebody's net.''
The way Alaska wild fish are caught, processed, transported and marketed must improve to compete against pen-raised fish. As a result, many fishermen will have to find new careers. Salmon farms offer to step in with jobs, but few fishermen want them.
Though each Alaska fishery is unique, all would be more efficient with fewer boats, Knapp said. Bristol Bay fishermen could halve their cost per pound if the number of boats were reduced, giving each a larger catch.
All the Copper River salmon could be caught by 20 percent of the Cordova fishing fleet, said Cordova fisherman Kathy Halgren, but she doesn't want to see her neighbors out of work.
Nobody wants to stop fishing, but one way or another they will, said Knapp. ``The question is how do we get there?''
The state could buy back permits, make it easy for fishermen to buy each other out, or just let fishermen quit on their own.
Either way, Knapp predicts any fishery where the value of entry permits has dropped dramatically will lose fishermen, including Bristol Bay, the Yukon and Kuskokwim river fisheries and Southeast. The value of commercial salmon fishing permits in Southeast fell by 55 to 74 percent since their peak around 1990.
To survive the shakeout, fishermen may need to change when and how they fish. Alaska loses customers in the off-season or low harvest years, when fish buyers turn to farmed fish for a more predictable supply. The longer and more consistently Alaska can provide fish, the more buyers will stick with wild fish.
``The problem with Alaska is not finding the niches,'' said fisheries economist James Anderson.``It's supplying the niches consistently.''
With the possibility of halibut farms looming, fishermen want an extended or staggered season so fresh wild halibut would be available year-round.The Individual Fishing Quota system, which allows fishermen to haul in a specified percent of the catch anytime within the eight-month season, already makes fresh halibut available most of the year.
Similar systems for other fish species could spread out the catch and give fishermen time to handle the fish with more care.
But salmon have to be caught when they come home. There will always be more fish returning than can be sold fresh, so it has to be packaged, said Jerry McCune, a board member of the United Fishermen of Alaska. Currently the industry is set up to can it, though the number of people eating canned fish has declined.
Another challenge for Alaska is the variety of salmon species, said Barbara Belknap, executive director of the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute.The five species have different flavors and textures. While king salmon or sockeye salmon are popular as entrees, pink and chum salmon aren't.
Alaska processors need to create more products that fit the fish and the market, Halgren said. Lesser grades of fish could be smoked or made into nuggets.
``There are several things the industry is doing now to get themselves out of this,'' McCune said.
Alaska processors are experimenting with microwave salmon dinners, salmon burgers and other ready-to-eat meals. Hoping to replicate the success of Chile's boneless filets, four Alaska processors bought machines to remove salmon bones this spring, said Kate Troll, fisheries specialist at the Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development.
To compete with farmed salmon, which often go from pen to processing plant to plate in 24 hours, the higher grades of wild Alaska salmon also have to make it to the store fresher, faster and without flaws.
``What that fish is in the water is wonderful,'' Belknap said. ``What we have to do is maintain as much of those characteristics as possible once it's out of the water. If we can succeed with that, then we're competitive.''
ASMI and Troll are developing a label for fish that meet their quality standards, but fishermen will need price incentives to take care of the fish, said Juneau fisherman Scott McAllister. Now most fishermen are paid by the pound, not the quality of the salmon.
Copper River salmon claim a higher price on the market, which is passed on to fishermen, partially because they are handled with great care and chilled on the boat.
But remote fish camps or villages don't have the equipment to keep fish cold until it can be flown out, Halgren said. A new low-interest loan program is helping some fishermen add refrigeration or primary processing on their boats.
It will take more money, private and public, to improve the infrastructure the Alaska fishing industry needs to compete with farmed fish, Troll said.
``Norway went in and subsidized the infrastructure of salmon farming,'' Troll said. ``If we could step in and subsidize the transition from a production-driven fish industry to a market-drive food industry we would be competing with them step for step.''
Norway also puts $40 million a year into marketing, compared to ASMI's $9 million budget.
Rather than compete head-to-head with that kind of money, some Alaska fishermen successfully promote regional fisheries, such as Copper River salmon, or market directly to stores or restaurants. Trollers in Southeast Alaska could do both, Knapp said.
About 20 percent of Alaska's salmon could be sold to small niches, such as the organic food market,Troll said. About 1 percent of the food sold in the United States is organic.
Wild fish aren't considered organic under proposed U.S. Department of Agriculture regulations. Only farmed fish qualify, because nobody knows where wild fish goes, what it eats and what it swims through, said Gary Jensen at USDA. On a farm, all that is controlled.
The logic is ridiculous, said Gerry Merrigan, a troller and director of the Petersburg Vessel Owners Association. He and the state Commerce Department are lobbying to get Alaska salmon labeled as wild.
``We're the largest wild salmon producers in the world and no one else can create that,'' Merrigan said. ``We just have to figure out a way to package that for what people want.''
They don't necessarily want ``wild.'' Most American shoppers associate wild salmon with endangered species in Washington and Oregon, while they think of farms as safe and high quality, Belknap said, looking at a recent survey.
``You're not going to make it anywhere bad-mouthing farmed salmon,'' McCune said. ``You've got to learn to compete and carve out your own market.''
The farmers take it a step further, offering to do joint marketing to promote salmon consumption in general.
Ultimately, some think Alaska should embrace salmon farming.
Fish farms could fill in the off-season, supplying year-round employment and a stable economic base for coastal communities, said Rick Harris, vice president of the Juneau-based regional Native corporation Sealaska. He made the same argument 10 years ago when the Legislature debated whether to allow salmon farms.
The year-round industry would allow processors to invest in better equipment and airlines to fly through the winter. Most importantly, if customers could count on it year-round, they'd be more likely to buy from Alaska.
``If you look at it from an investment perspective you should always diversify your portfolio to minimize risks,'' said economist Anderson. ``The state chose not to diversify its portfolio.''
Even if fish farming were allowed in Alaska, it might not succeed, said Anchorage economist Knapp. Alaska has the right water - clean and cold - but it is also remote. Labor, transportation and processing would all be more expensive here than in Chile, Canada, or even the Lower 48.
``There are some different challenges to farming in Alaska that you might not have elsewhere,'' said Don Giles, CEO of Icicle Seafoods in Seattle.``You've got some climate issues. You've got some transportation issues.''
Despite the challenges, farm companies are poised at the border, eager to claim sites in Alaska.
``I actually see it happening, because the growing conditions are so good,'' said Ted Needham at Heritage Aquaculture in British Columbia. ``I wouldn't discount salmon farming in Alaska, not until we've tried it.''
Needham is confident his company could overcome Alaska's remoteness, as it already has in Chile. Heritage Aquaculture farms there are accessible only by boat or small plane. The added costs of moving feed and fish are made up for by the isolation from other farms and their epidemics, said manager Bill Drope.
Alaska's fleets of boats and small planes provide a better infrastructure for fish farms than Chile's, said Needham. Michael Bullock agreed. Now manager of a salmon farm company in southern Chile, Bullock was able to compare it to the years he spent working for processors in Alaska.
``Southeast Alaska is very much like here,'' he said.``It's political. That's the problem.''
Fishermen would lobby against any effort to lift the ban on fish farming, said United Fishermen of Alaska board member McCune, ``just like we did before.''
The debates leading to the fish-farming ban in 1990 convinced most fish farmers that Alaska waters are unfriendly.
``Even if they legalized aquaculture now it would have a very hard time getting established,'' economist Anderson said. ``They'd likely be fighting every inch of the way for every site and that would just raise their costs.''
More from this Reporter
- The Next Generation: Where the Global Seafood Industry is Going
- Spawning Environmental Worries
- Pinching Pennies for a Market Edge
- Are fishermen on endangered list?