The Cod Wars, Newfoundland Independent
Post
10/09/06, Ryan Cleary, A war that’s just, (Not On-Line).
10/09/06, Bruce Short, ‘Disrespect for this province’, (Not On-Line).
15/09/06, John Crosbie (The old curmudgeon), Hear the fishes cry, (Not On-Line).
15/09/06, Mark Critch, ‘The problem with seal clubbing’, (Not On-Line).
10/09/06, Ryan Cleary, A war that’s just, (Back).
It’s shockin’ to say, but I believe in war. Not the kind of fighting that goes on in Afghanistan, that’s just wrong. Canada should no more be over there than Stephen Harper should be voted in a second term. Canada, as a peacekeeper, was a great country, known for fine and noble deeds. Not in Newfoundland and Labrador, mind you, but pretty much everywhere else.
As a foreign invader, Canada has lost its appeal in terms of sewing a Canadian flag on a backpack and traipsing around the world. You might just get shot in the head.
The Maple Leaf has been transformed into a bull’s-eye. The Leaf has been mulched with the Stars and Stripes and raked into one ugly military lump. I may be a Newfoundlander first, but Canada is changing before our eyes, and it’s a sin to see. Fighting Newfoundlanders are falling as I write this, and they shouldn’t be.
Not in a war that is not Canada’s, and not our own. Our soldiers aren’t supposed to join in a fight so much as ensure two sides get along after dusting off and shaking hands.
There are also times when war is unavoidable, or at least the threat of war, although that’s useless without intent. Some things are worth fighting for — the Grand Banks of Newfoundland being one of them.
Tobin had the right idea when he went after the Spanish trawler Estai. He got the world’s attention before being distracted by the makeup and mirror. In the end, the Turbot War wasn’t so much a war as a Turbot Tussle, with no lasting effects besides the flash in the pan that was the Tobinator’s rise and fall. The charges against the Estai were eventually dropped, the cargo of fish returned, and the Spanish were paid for their trouble.
The tiny turbot were the big losers. So were we — in case you missed the vacancy signs hanging in the outports.
Iceland knew how to get things done— it didn’t tread water for more than 30 years, dipsy-doodling diplomatic rubber daggers as its culture and economy slowly faded from the land. It declared Cod Wars and got things done.
Iceland’s Cod Wars, three in all, didn’t involve bullets, but scissors —giant net cutters.
The first Cod War took place in 1958 when Britain tried to prevent Iceland from extending its fishing limit to 12 miles from four miles.
Snip, snip — Iceland won that one.
The second Cod War was waged from 1972-73 when Iceland extended its offshore reach to 50 miles.
Snip, snip — Iceland won that one too.
When that agreement expired on Nov. 13, 1975, the third Cod War began. Iceland wanted a 200-mile limit, which was practically unheard of at the time (imagine the gall, the audacity of the fighting Icelanders).
All hell broke loose on the high seas. David struck back at Goliath by once again dragging giant scissors behind its Coast Guard cutters and snipping the nets of British trawlers. The UK brought in almost two-dozen frigates and flexed some mighty muscle to scare the Icelanders back to their wharves and villages.
Iceland went so far as to threaten to close the NATO base at Keflavik, which would have threatened NATO’s ability to defend the Atlantic from Soviet incursions.
Few shots were fired, but several ships were rammed during the conflict and some damage was inflicted, with a few injuries sustained. Iceland was motivated by declining cod stocks —a grave situation given Iceland lived on fish. Iceland won the third Cod War and the British trawlers eventually withdrew, leaving behind about 23 million pounds of catch a year. Thousands of British fishermen and plant workers lost their jobs, but that was that.
Iceland’s giant underwater scissors were the envy of the downtrodden fish nations of the world for the longest while. John Efford and crew had an Icelandic skipper brought over here in the early ’90s to show Newfoundland fishermen how it’s done … how to use a pair of scissors to clean up the Nose and Tail.
Efford et al. could talk the talk but, in the end, they couldn’t walk the walk. The federal government came up with another package, some more make-work and an EI top-up or two and the rabble quieted down and settled in for a long winter’s nap.
Which brings us to today, and Danny’s recent trip to Iceland and Norway to see the sights. Tom Rideout, the Fisheries minister, was by the premier’s side.
“There are many lessons the province of Newfoundland and Labrador can learn from the Icelandic fishery,” Rideout said when he got back.
The minister talked of new ideas like “consolidation, rationalization, and diversification” … meaningless words when there aren’t any fish in the water. Turns out Iceland also has fish science — can you believe it! More than that, the fish managers also work hand in hand with university and industry. Who knew?
Again — that’s not much good without fish.
Danny and his Fisheries minister didn’t breathe a word about scissors when they got back from Iceland —but you can be sure they heard a tale or two on their travels.
Danny’s latest row with the prime minister is a prime example of Ottawa’s will to buck the status quo on our behalf. The Government of Canada has chosen the side of the oil companies — nothing new there. Likewise, the federal government won’t be moving anytime soon to end foreign overfishing. Ottawa has its own demons to fight.
Our enemy is within.
10/09/06, Bruce Short, ‘Disrespect for this province’, (Back).
Editor’s note: Judge Bruce Short made the following remarks in Gander provincial court on Sept. 6 in the case of Archibald Collins, 75, of Hare Bay. Collins pleaded guilty to catching cod during 2005’s illegal food fishery.
I’m going to make a couple of comments which I think in all fairness someone should make, and I guess I haven’t been a position where I suppose I can make them. It does strike me a little bit odd at times, and I’m perhaps not familiar enough with the fishery to comment in any great extent, but it does seem to me to some degree that this particular province, for whatever reason at times, seems to bear the brunt of regulations which might properly be placed in other areas.
Everyone knows that our fishery, you know, essentially got destroyed. There is some debate as to why it got destroyed but from my perspective I’m going to basically offer these comments. First and foremost, it’s no secret that foreign vessels are just absolutely raping the stocks just outside of our limit and one has to question why that’s been allowed to continue for years and years.
One would think logically enough that if the country felt that the resource had any value whatsoever, that the country would be significantly more diligent in protecting that resource. One could only reasonably conclude, it seems to me, that the trade off is that the country is getting something else that it considers more valuable and I think that’s sad. From my point of view it shows disrespect for this province and that’s abundantly clear.
Our fish is getting traded off for other things that presumably benefit other provinces and cause this province to suffer and never, ever should happen.
The second comment I’ll make and I’m sure there are different views on this but it seems to me that if you have a resource such as fish — and I won’t make any differentiation between fish and trees and anything else — that if they develop equipment that can basically take all of the fish out of the ocean in a very short period of time and you don’t do anything to prohibit that from happening, it seems to be reasonable enough for anyone to conclude that after a while you’re not going to have any fish.
I have always been of the view —and that does not seem to be a view that was held by the regulators — that it’s a whole lot better for a significant number of people to make a decent living off a resource than a small number of people to make a fortune. That, unfortunately, is something that we just don’t seem to get here and that to me is a significant reason why we don’t have any fish.
If you look at Iceland their fishery has been fine, it’s been fine all along and people are still making a good living off that. I recognize the state of the law at the time that Mr. Collins committed this offence and obviously, Mr. Collins, you breached the law and I mean that’s the bottom line and I don’t begrudge the fisheries officers for one minute fom enforcing the law.
But what it seems to me — and I do have to say that from the court’s standpoint it’s extremely aggravating and extremely frustrating — that it seems to me that people who have no knowledge whatsoever of the fishery, have no history or connection with the fishery whatsoever and who are so far removed from the immediacy of the fishery, are the individuals who get to make the rules governing the fishery.
I don’t have any hesitation in saying that from my point of view it’s idiotic, it’s not the way that it should be done and until we are able to gain much more control in the decision-making process of our own resource, then it seems to me that our resource is not going to be properly protected. Having said that, the precedent that has been pointed out to me where the lowest fine imposed was one of $200 and that’s the one that I’m going with and I can tell you that if a precedent was pointed out to me where there was a lower fine than that imposed, then I would impose a lower fine.
Not that I condone, by any stretch of the imagination, a violation of the law, but it does seem to me that people in this province have been put in a position quite unfairly by the regulators of this resource, for the most part, in my view at least, either don’t know how to properly regulate the resource or quite frankly don’t really care to properly regulate the resource. That to me is the bottom line.
Collins was fined $200 and given six months to pay it.
15/09/06, John Crosbie (The old curmudgeon), Hear the fishes cry, (Back).
The Independent has asked me to do a column to be published every second weekend. The column will cover issues of national and provincial interest so I will start with several columns dealing with the fishery, and prospects for the 21st century. In 1849, the esteemed American writer, Thoreau, asked, “Who hears the fishes when they cry?” The answer appears to be that no one from 1849 onwards, until the 1970s, and then few heard or paid any attention to the fishes when they cried, since few, if any, effective steps have been taken to deal with the continuing threats to the survival of fish species. In 1990, the eminent fisheries expert, Dr. Alverson, very familiar with our fisheries, reported that 44 of the world’s 186 major fish stocks were overfished because illegal fishing was the only way to keep an over-capitalized distance-water fishery in business! As most readers know I was involved in provincial politics in our province from 1966 until October, 1976, when I was elected as MP for St. John’s West, continuing in federal politics until the 2003 election.
I was Newfoundland’s minister of Fisheries between 1974-75 and minister of Fisheries and Oceans of Canada from April 21, 1991 until June 25, 1993. On July 2, 1992 I had the traumatic duty of closing the northern cod fishery for what I was then advised would be two years, after which time the size of the stock should increase significantly and the spawning stock would no longer be at dangerously low levels.
In the 14 years since, however, this has not occurred.
The cod fishery was the principal reason for the settlement of Newfoundland and Labrador originally and the raison d’etre for the settlement of most outport communities.
There were two fisheries that made it possible for settlers to earn a basic livelihood — the cod fishery and the seal fishery. For many reasons, including the discouragement of settlement by Great Britain, our population numbered only about 20,000 as we reached the early years of the 19th century, but our population increased to 146,536 by 1869 as a result of the successful development and expansion of the seal fishery, which provided the increase in economic growth necessary to sustain a greater population. Even by 1935 our population was only 289,588!
It is impossible to over-emphasize the importance of the fishery to the people of this province and to the survival of our society. In 1911, 44,000 men and 23,000 women worked in our fishery. Even in 1992 there were 8,100 full-time fishermen, 8,200 part-time, and 18,600 plant workers dependent on northern cod — not including deepsea
trawlermen and south coast plant workers. In that year the fishery generated only 6 per cent of the value of all goods and services produced in our province.
There is no doubt that when people thought of the fishery they thought of the traditional inshore fishery — not the highly mechanized, capital-intensive offshore trawler fishery. The fishery is the single most powerful source of our collective memory and cultural identity.
That is why — even today — political considerations are of tremendous influence on how the fishery is governed, supervised, and administered through legislation and regulation, as well as how it’s viewed by the people. Business acumen is very important for a fishery entrepreneur in Newfoundland, with toughness and determination, but political acumen is even more essential if a fishing entrepreneur wants to survive.
Anyone who is knowledgeable about the world’s fisheries can tell you that it is now quite possible to fish out the world’s oceans. In April 2002, the science section of the San Francisco Chronicle reported, “The world’s fisheries are tanking, going the way of the
Dodo and the passenger pigeon. The causes are many, but the primary one is humankind’s insatiable appetite for seafood.”
At that time they reported 25 to 30 per cent of the world’s fish populations were overfished, with an additional 40 per cent “fully exploited,” meaning that it would take very little more additional pressure to result in their collapse.
While there are other reasons, such as pollution and oceanic temperature fluctuations, the primary culprit in the reduction of the fisheries and their imperilment as far as survival is concerned is overfishing on a vast scale. Paul Dayton, a professor of oceanography with the Scripts Institution in La Jolla, put it this way, “Everyone agrees it’s a desperate situation, but the tendency is to complain rather than bite the bullet and do something substantive about it. The sea is a commons, and everyone is looking out for their own self interest. In the simplest terms the fight is over who will catch the last fish rather than husbanding and restoring the fisheries.”
The overall outlook is bleak.
Since the end of the Second World War the size of the global fishing fleet has expanded dramatically with the development of long-range factoryfreezer trawlers and other technological inventions all dramatically stimulated by government-aid programs, with commercial fleets now estimated to range upward to 4 million boats. These range from 150-foot long, high-seas factory trawlers that net thousands of tonnes of fish and process them on board, down to “artisanal” small inshore fishing boats fitted with outboards to ply coastal waters in the developing world.
All of these exert pressure on the world’s fisheries that is unrelenting.
(to be continued September 22)
15/09/06, Mark Critch, ‘The problem with seal clubbing’, (Back).
My fellow Newfoundlanders and Labradorians … or is that Newfoundlanders and Labradorites, I can never get that straight. Anyway – how are ya now? I’m your guest columnist this week. Sorry to disappoint but John Crosbie can’t do it all and I don’t blame him. It’s hard to type when you haven’t fully opened your eyes in eight years. I was asked to write this column when I ran into Ryan Cleary at a rugby game. The Independent at a rugby game, you can’t get anymore Pink, White and Green than that I figure, so here I am.
I’ve just left our homeland to head back upalong for another season of This Hour has 22 minutes (Tuesday nights this fall after Mercer, so it’s as close to regional programming as you’ll get from the CBC). I hate leaving but as I sat on the plane I couldn’t help but think that things are good on the Rock. Well, they’re good enough. We seem to like out premier. Danny’s got 78 per cent approval, which is good for him. Danny hasn’t seen grades like that since high school.
People seem to be in a good mood these days. But then again, it’s hard to keep us down. We’re an optimistic people. You lose a job and your friends are right there saying, “That’s alright buddy! Now you’ll have more time to go fishing. Oh that was your job? Well, then you’ll have more time to spend with the wife. Oh she left ya, too? Well, more time to work around the house. Oh, she took the house? Well, at least ya got your health. Can’t put a price tag on that.”
No matter what it is we’re optimistic. A Newfoundlander could be stuck in a well. “Oh my,” he’d think, “I s’pose there could be worse places to be stuck. It’s cool down here. Lots of water. I’m fine, no rush to rescue me. Don’t want to cause any trouble, and plus, you know, I still got my health.”
And even if the health goes we’re still optimistic. The doctor could tell you you’ve got four days to live. “Four days?” you’d say, “Oh my, could be worse, could be three days. I might phone in and take Wednesday off. Help the wife make sandwiches for the funeral.”
It’s hard to put us in a bad mood, but then as I sat on my plane and opened up the latest copy of Rolling Stone, as is my want, I was kicked in the face with the worst kind of bad mood. There was a full page urging people to boycott Canadian seafood because of the seal hunt. There was even a list of restaurants that were already boycotting. Rolling stoned was rolling stunned.
Then there’s the fake tourism site that the animal liberation front put up. The site — www.tour-newfoundlandlabrador. com — is set up to look like an official tourism site but instead it talks about our “evil” seal hunt and even mentions female infanticide, cockfighting and dog eating for good measure, just to scare away any would-be tourists.
But still tourists come.
Even celebrities like Brigette Bardot and Paul McCartney flock here. Sure they’re here to protest the seal hunt but still they’re here. We should embrace the tourist protesters. If we can get a Beatle because of the seal hunt, just think of how many of them are going to be here next year for the first annual “punch a beaver in the stomach festival.” Ah, it’ll be fun — we’ll have the puppy toss, kitten-kicking booth, just think of the stars who will come here for that.
Pamela Anderson was in Canada to promtest the seal hunt. She says she’s embarrassed to be Canadian because of the seal hunt. Like we’re so proud of her. She’s one to talk. Think of all the 15-year-old boys who’ve gone blind because of her.
She’s walking around with a T-shirt with Save the seals written across her chest, like we need another reason to look there. Save the seals … just three words stretching farther than the Confederation Bridge. I met her at the Junos, and I remember someone telling me, “eye contact is important.” She got all offended, saying, “Hey, my breasts are down here.”
I don’t get the whole celebrity-cause thing. What’s the logic, there? Paul McCartney wrote, Hey Jude, therefore I can’t wear seal-skin boots? Do they think our politicians care? It’s not as if Harper’s aids are walking around in Ottawa going, “Mr. Prime Minister, do we need a government subsidized national day-care program or is giving money directly to caregivers a viable solution?”
Harper: “Hmm … I don’t know. What does Snoop Dogg think? Get me Snoop Dogg!”
See, the problem with seal clubbing is the name. First of all, I think it’d be better if we just said, “We’re putting them down.” And if that doesn’t work we just change the name baby seal to “ice rats.” People don’t want to club baby seals, but everybody wants to put down ice rats.
As for the fake tourism site and the animal liberation front, I noticed that www.animalliberationfront.ca hasn’t been taken yet. Some young enterprising web savvy reader should get it and put up a single message. “Thank you but we no longer need donations, we have all the money we need.” That’d put me in a better mood. We’ll see you when I get home. Stay optimistic.
(Back)
10/09/06, Bruce Short, ‘Disrespect for this province’, (Not On-Line).
15/09/06, John Crosbie (The old curmudgeon), Hear the fishes cry, (Not On-Line).
15/09/06, Mark Critch, ‘The problem with seal clubbing’, (Not On-Line).
10/09/06, Ryan Cleary, A war that’s just, (Back).
It’s shockin’ to say, but I believe in war. Not the kind of fighting that goes on in Afghanistan, that’s just wrong. Canada should no more be over there than Stephen Harper should be voted in a second term. Canada, as a peacekeeper, was a great country, known for fine and noble deeds. Not in Newfoundland and Labrador, mind you, but pretty much everywhere else.
As a foreign invader, Canada has lost its appeal in terms of sewing a Canadian flag on a backpack and traipsing around the world. You might just get shot in the head.
The Maple Leaf has been transformed into a bull’s-eye. The Leaf has been mulched with the Stars and Stripes and raked into one ugly military lump. I may be a Newfoundlander first, but Canada is changing before our eyes, and it’s a sin to see. Fighting Newfoundlanders are falling as I write this, and they shouldn’t be.
Not in a war that is not Canada’s, and not our own. Our soldiers aren’t supposed to join in a fight so much as ensure two sides get along after dusting off and shaking hands.
There are also times when war is unavoidable, or at least the threat of war, although that’s useless without intent. Some things are worth fighting for — the Grand Banks of Newfoundland being one of them.
Tobin had the right idea when he went after the Spanish trawler Estai. He got the world’s attention before being distracted by the makeup and mirror. In the end, the Turbot War wasn’t so much a war as a Turbot Tussle, with no lasting effects besides the flash in the pan that was the Tobinator’s rise and fall. The charges against the Estai were eventually dropped, the cargo of fish returned, and the Spanish were paid for their trouble.
The tiny turbot were the big losers. So were we — in case you missed the vacancy signs hanging in the outports.
Iceland knew how to get things done— it didn’t tread water for more than 30 years, dipsy-doodling diplomatic rubber daggers as its culture and economy slowly faded from the land. It declared Cod Wars and got things done.
Iceland’s Cod Wars, three in all, didn’t involve bullets, but scissors —giant net cutters.
The first Cod War took place in 1958 when Britain tried to prevent Iceland from extending its fishing limit to 12 miles from four miles.
Snip, snip — Iceland won that one.
The second Cod War was waged from 1972-73 when Iceland extended its offshore reach to 50 miles.
Snip, snip — Iceland won that one too.
When that agreement expired on Nov. 13, 1975, the third Cod War began. Iceland wanted a 200-mile limit, which was practically unheard of at the time (imagine the gall, the audacity of the fighting Icelanders).
All hell broke loose on the high seas. David struck back at Goliath by once again dragging giant scissors behind its Coast Guard cutters and snipping the nets of British trawlers. The UK brought in almost two-dozen frigates and flexed some mighty muscle to scare the Icelanders back to their wharves and villages.
Iceland went so far as to threaten to close the NATO base at Keflavik, which would have threatened NATO’s ability to defend the Atlantic from Soviet incursions.
Few shots were fired, but several ships were rammed during the conflict and some damage was inflicted, with a few injuries sustained. Iceland was motivated by declining cod stocks —a grave situation given Iceland lived on fish. Iceland won the third Cod War and the British trawlers eventually withdrew, leaving behind about 23 million pounds of catch a year. Thousands of British fishermen and plant workers lost their jobs, but that was that.
Iceland’s giant underwater scissors were the envy of the downtrodden fish nations of the world for the longest while. John Efford and crew had an Icelandic skipper brought over here in the early ’90s to show Newfoundland fishermen how it’s done … how to use a pair of scissors to clean up the Nose and Tail.
Efford et al. could talk the talk but, in the end, they couldn’t walk the walk. The federal government came up with another package, some more make-work and an EI top-up or two and the rabble quieted down and settled in for a long winter’s nap.
Which brings us to today, and Danny’s recent trip to Iceland and Norway to see the sights. Tom Rideout, the Fisheries minister, was by the premier’s side.
“There are many lessons the province of Newfoundland and Labrador can learn from the Icelandic fishery,” Rideout said when he got back.
The minister talked of new ideas like “consolidation, rationalization, and diversification” … meaningless words when there aren’t any fish in the water. Turns out Iceland also has fish science — can you believe it! More than that, the fish managers also work hand in hand with university and industry. Who knew?
Again — that’s not much good without fish.
Danny and his Fisheries minister didn’t breathe a word about scissors when they got back from Iceland —but you can be sure they heard a tale or two on their travels.
Danny’s latest row with the prime minister is a prime example of Ottawa’s will to buck the status quo on our behalf. The Government of Canada has chosen the side of the oil companies — nothing new there. Likewise, the federal government won’t be moving anytime soon to end foreign overfishing. Ottawa has its own demons to fight.
Our enemy is within.
10/09/06, Bruce Short, ‘Disrespect for this province’, (Back).
Editor’s note: Judge Bruce Short made the following remarks in Gander provincial court on Sept. 6 in the case of Archibald Collins, 75, of Hare Bay. Collins pleaded guilty to catching cod during 2005’s illegal food fishery.
I’m going to make a couple of comments which I think in all fairness someone should make, and I guess I haven’t been a position where I suppose I can make them. It does strike me a little bit odd at times, and I’m perhaps not familiar enough with the fishery to comment in any great extent, but it does seem to me to some degree that this particular province, for whatever reason at times, seems to bear the brunt of regulations which might properly be placed in other areas.
Everyone knows that our fishery, you know, essentially got destroyed. There is some debate as to why it got destroyed but from my perspective I’m going to basically offer these comments. First and foremost, it’s no secret that foreign vessels are just absolutely raping the stocks just outside of our limit and one has to question why that’s been allowed to continue for years and years.
One would think logically enough that if the country felt that the resource had any value whatsoever, that the country would be significantly more diligent in protecting that resource. One could only reasonably conclude, it seems to me, that the trade off is that the country is getting something else that it considers more valuable and I think that’s sad. From my point of view it shows disrespect for this province and that’s abundantly clear.
Our fish is getting traded off for other things that presumably benefit other provinces and cause this province to suffer and never, ever should happen.
The second comment I’ll make and I’m sure there are different views on this but it seems to me that if you have a resource such as fish — and I won’t make any differentiation between fish and trees and anything else — that if they develop equipment that can basically take all of the fish out of the ocean in a very short period of time and you don’t do anything to prohibit that from happening, it seems to be reasonable enough for anyone to conclude that after a while you’re not going to have any fish.
I have always been of the view —and that does not seem to be a view that was held by the regulators — that it’s a whole lot better for a significant number of people to make a decent living off a resource than a small number of people to make a fortune. That, unfortunately, is something that we just don’t seem to get here and that to me is a significant reason why we don’t have any fish.
If you look at Iceland their fishery has been fine, it’s been fine all along and people are still making a good living off that. I recognize the state of the law at the time that Mr. Collins committed this offence and obviously, Mr. Collins, you breached the law and I mean that’s the bottom line and I don’t begrudge the fisheries officers for one minute fom enforcing the law.
But what it seems to me — and I do have to say that from the court’s standpoint it’s extremely aggravating and extremely frustrating — that it seems to me that people who have no knowledge whatsoever of the fishery, have no history or connection with the fishery whatsoever and who are so far removed from the immediacy of the fishery, are the individuals who get to make the rules governing the fishery.
I don’t have any hesitation in saying that from my point of view it’s idiotic, it’s not the way that it should be done and until we are able to gain much more control in the decision-making process of our own resource, then it seems to me that our resource is not going to be properly protected. Having said that, the precedent that has been pointed out to me where the lowest fine imposed was one of $200 and that’s the one that I’m going with and I can tell you that if a precedent was pointed out to me where there was a lower fine than that imposed, then I would impose a lower fine.
Not that I condone, by any stretch of the imagination, a violation of the law, but it does seem to me that people in this province have been put in a position quite unfairly by the regulators of this resource, for the most part, in my view at least, either don’t know how to properly regulate the resource or quite frankly don’t really care to properly regulate the resource. That to me is the bottom line.
Collins was fined $200 and given six months to pay it.
15/09/06, John Crosbie (The old curmudgeon), Hear the fishes cry, (Back).
The Independent has asked me to do a column to be published every second weekend. The column will cover issues of national and provincial interest so I will start with several columns dealing with the fishery, and prospects for the 21st century. In 1849, the esteemed American writer, Thoreau, asked, “Who hears the fishes when they cry?” The answer appears to be that no one from 1849 onwards, until the 1970s, and then few heard or paid any attention to the fishes when they cried, since few, if any, effective steps have been taken to deal with the continuing threats to the survival of fish species. In 1990, the eminent fisheries expert, Dr. Alverson, very familiar with our fisheries, reported that 44 of the world’s 186 major fish stocks were overfished because illegal fishing was the only way to keep an over-capitalized distance-water fishery in business! As most readers know I was involved in provincial politics in our province from 1966 until October, 1976, when I was elected as MP for St. John’s West, continuing in federal politics until the 2003 election.
I was Newfoundland’s minister of Fisheries between 1974-75 and minister of Fisheries and Oceans of Canada from April 21, 1991 until June 25, 1993. On July 2, 1992 I had the traumatic duty of closing the northern cod fishery for what I was then advised would be two years, after which time the size of the stock should increase significantly and the spawning stock would no longer be at dangerously low levels.
In the 14 years since, however, this has not occurred.
The cod fishery was the principal reason for the settlement of Newfoundland and Labrador originally and the raison d’etre for the settlement of most outport communities.
There were two fisheries that made it possible for settlers to earn a basic livelihood — the cod fishery and the seal fishery. For many reasons, including the discouragement of settlement by Great Britain, our population numbered only about 20,000 as we reached the early years of the 19th century, but our population increased to 146,536 by 1869 as a result of the successful development and expansion of the seal fishery, which provided the increase in economic growth necessary to sustain a greater population. Even by 1935 our population was only 289,588!
It is impossible to over-emphasize the importance of the fishery to the people of this province and to the survival of our society. In 1911, 44,000 men and 23,000 women worked in our fishery. Even in 1992 there were 8,100 full-time fishermen, 8,200 part-time, and 18,600 plant workers dependent on northern cod — not including deepsea
trawlermen and south coast plant workers. In that year the fishery generated only 6 per cent of the value of all goods and services produced in our province.
There is no doubt that when people thought of the fishery they thought of the traditional inshore fishery — not the highly mechanized, capital-intensive offshore trawler fishery. The fishery is the single most powerful source of our collective memory and cultural identity.
That is why — even today — political considerations are of tremendous influence on how the fishery is governed, supervised, and administered through legislation and regulation, as well as how it’s viewed by the people. Business acumen is very important for a fishery entrepreneur in Newfoundland, with toughness and determination, but political acumen is even more essential if a fishing entrepreneur wants to survive.
Anyone who is knowledgeable about the world’s fisheries can tell you that it is now quite possible to fish out the world’s oceans. In April 2002, the science section of the San Francisco Chronicle reported, “The world’s fisheries are tanking, going the way of the
Dodo and the passenger pigeon. The causes are many, but the primary one is humankind’s insatiable appetite for seafood.”
At that time they reported 25 to 30 per cent of the world’s fish populations were overfished, with an additional 40 per cent “fully exploited,” meaning that it would take very little more additional pressure to result in their collapse.
While there are other reasons, such as pollution and oceanic temperature fluctuations, the primary culprit in the reduction of the fisheries and their imperilment as far as survival is concerned is overfishing on a vast scale. Paul Dayton, a professor of oceanography with the Scripts Institution in La Jolla, put it this way, “Everyone agrees it’s a desperate situation, but the tendency is to complain rather than bite the bullet and do something substantive about it. The sea is a commons, and everyone is looking out for their own self interest. In the simplest terms the fight is over who will catch the last fish rather than husbanding and restoring the fisheries.”
The overall outlook is bleak.
Since the end of the Second World War the size of the global fishing fleet has expanded dramatically with the development of long-range factoryfreezer trawlers and other technological inventions all dramatically stimulated by government-aid programs, with commercial fleets now estimated to range upward to 4 million boats. These range from 150-foot long, high-seas factory trawlers that net thousands of tonnes of fish and process them on board, down to “artisanal” small inshore fishing boats fitted with outboards to ply coastal waters in the developing world.
All of these exert pressure on the world’s fisheries that is unrelenting.
(to be continued September 22)
15/09/06, Mark Critch, ‘The problem with seal clubbing’, (Back).
My fellow Newfoundlanders and Labradorians … or is that Newfoundlanders and Labradorites, I can never get that straight. Anyway – how are ya now? I’m your guest columnist this week. Sorry to disappoint but John Crosbie can’t do it all and I don’t blame him. It’s hard to type when you haven’t fully opened your eyes in eight years. I was asked to write this column when I ran into Ryan Cleary at a rugby game. The Independent at a rugby game, you can’t get anymore Pink, White and Green than that I figure, so here I am.
I’ve just left our homeland to head back upalong for another season of This Hour has 22 minutes (Tuesday nights this fall after Mercer, so it’s as close to regional programming as you’ll get from the CBC). I hate leaving but as I sat on the plane I couldn’t help but think that things are good on the Rock. Well, they’re good enough. We seem to like out premier. Danny’s got 78 per cent approval, which is good for him. Danny hasn’t seen grades like that since high school.
People seem to be in a good mood these days. But then again, it’s hard to keep us down. We’re an optimistic people. You lose a job and your friends are right there saying, “That’s alright buddy! Now you’ll have more time to go fishing. Oh that was your job? Well, then you’ll have more time to spend with the wife. Oh she left ya, too? Well, more time to work around the house. Oh, she took the house? Well, at least ya got your health. Can’t put a price tag on that.”
No matter what it is we’re optimistic. A Newfoundlander could be stuck in a well. “Oh my,” he’d think, “I s’pose there could be worse places to be stuck. It’s cool down here. Lots of water. I’m fine, no rush to rescue me. Don’t want to cause any trouble, and plus, you know, I still got my health.”
And even if the health goes we’re still optimistic. The doctor could tell you you’ve got four days to live. “Four days?” you’d say, “Oh my, could be worse, could be three days. I might phone in and take Wednesday off. Help the wife make sandwiches for the funeral.”
It’s hard to put us in a bad mood, but then as I sat on my plane and opened up the latest copy of Rolling Stone, as is my want, I was kicked in the face with the worst kind of bad mood. There was a full page urging people to boycott Canadian seafood because of the seal hunt. There was even a list of restaurants that were already boycotting. Rolling stoned was rolling stunned.
Then there’s the fake tourism site that the animal liberation front put up. The site — www.tour-newfoundlandlabrador. com — is set up to look like an official tourism site but instead it talks about our “evil” seal hunt and even mentions female infanticide, cockfighting and dog eating for good measure, just to scare away any would-be tourists.
But still tourists come.
Even celebrities like Brigette Bardot and Paul McCartney flock here. Sure they’re here to protest the seal hunt but still they’re here. We should embrace the tourist protesters. If we can get a Beatle because of the seal hunt, just think of how many of them are going to be here next year for the first annual “punch a beaver in the stomach festival.” Ah, it’ll be fun — we’ll have the puppy toss, kitten-kicking booth, just think of the stars who will come here for that.
Pamela Anderson was in Canada to promtest the seal hunt. She says she’s embarrassed to be Canadian because of the seal hunt. Like we’re so proud of her. She’s one to talk. Think of all the 15-year-old boys who’ve gone blind because of her.
She’s walking around with a T-shirt with Save the seals written across her chest, like we need another reason to look there. Save the seals … just three words stretching farther than the Confederation Bridge. I met her at the Junos, and I remember someone telling me, “eye contact is important.” She got all offended, saying, “Hey, my breasts are down here.”
I don’t get the whole celebrity-cause thing. What’s the logic, there? Paul McCartney wrote, Hey Jude, therefore I can’t wear seal-skin boots? Do they think our politicians care? It’s not as if Harper’s aids are walking around in Ottawa going, “Mr. Prime Minister, do we need a government subsidized national day-care program or is giving money directly to caregivers a viable solution?”
Harper: “Hmm … I don’t know. What does Snoop Dogg think? Get me Snoop Dogg!”
See, the problem with seal clubbing is the name. First of all, I think it’d be better if we just said, “We’re putting them down.” And if that doesn’t work we just change the name baby seal to “ice rats.” People don’t want to club baby seals, but everybody wants to put down ice rats.
As for the fake tourism site and the animal liberation front, I noticed that www.animalliberationfront.ca hasn’t been taken yet. Some young enterprising web savvy reader should get it and put up a single message. “Thank you but we no longer need donations, we have all the money we need.” That’d put me in a better mood. We’ll see you when I get home. Stay optimistic.
(Back)
Home