ADAPTING TO CHANGE:
Fishing Families, Businesses, Communities, and Regions
© 1996 by Oregon Sea Grant
ORESU-S-96-001
These are the results of a survey of southwestern Washington and northwestern Oregon gillnetters. The survey attempted to evaluate the adequacy of salmon disaster relief programs and to determine how gillnetters were adapting to changes in the fishery.
Salmon availability is highly variable, but the trend in the Pacific Northwest has been downward. This decline has occurred despite efforts to improve fishing, including:
Coupled with these federal policy initiatives were equally significant environmental changes, ranging from a long drought in the late 1980s and early 1990s and altered ocean conditions since the mid-1970s, to increased populations of some marine mammals. In addition, significant changes occurred in peoples' attitudes toward natural resources--including growing concerns about habitat and biodiversity loss, increased emphasis on protecting wild salmon, and concerns that efforts to produce more salmon had actually caused declines in salmon runs.
These factors combined to force gillnetters to make significant changes. Since 1974, the number of Columbia River spring Chinook available to the lower river gillnet fishery have not exceeded 50% of the 1970–75 average. Fall Chinook catches were 50% of the 1970–75 average in only 6 of the last 20 years. Since 1988, Columbia River salmon catches have decreased by more than 90%. The mainstem Columbia River gillnet fishery has been closed since 1994.
Because of the severe decline in salmon fishing, Washington and Oregon requested help from the federal government. In 1994 several federally funded programs were launched to assist people in and associated with the salmon fishery.
The disaster relief unemployment insurance program was based on the concept that the 1993 and 1994 salmon decline could be attributed to ecological factors. Because fishing is highly variable from year to year and because a drought and unfavorable oceanic conditions had occurred over several years, applicants were allowed to base their unemployment claims on their fishing record dating back to 1988. Claims, however, were limited by current household income. Table 1 shows the number of applicants and d average mount received in each state.
| State | No. of applicants | No. of recipients | Total paid | Average Payment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| California | 674 | 477 | 1,327,105 | $2,782 |
| Oregon | 951 | 648 | 2,035,881 | $3,142 |
| Washington | 1737 | 1695 | 5,824,343 | $3,436 |
| Coastwide | 3362 | 2790 | 9,187,329 | $3,293 |
Under the Northwest Emergency Assistance Plan, the Department of Commerce sponsored three programs: habitat restoration jobs, test fishing/data gathering, and a Washington license buyout. In the test fishing and data-gathering projects, fishermen were hired to do biological research.
The largest program, and the one with the highest average payments, was the Washington buyout program, which spent nearly $4 million retiring Washington salmon troll, Columbia River gillnet, and Washington charter licenses. Table 2 shows the number of licenses purchased and the average price paid.[1]
| Licenses | Number | Bids ranked | Licenses retired | Avg Cost/License |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Troll | 666 | 252 | 190 | $9,100 |
| Col. River Gillnet | 506 | 160 | 83 | $22,000 |
| Charter | 206 | 47 | 24 | $13,900 |
| Total | 1,378 | 459 | 302 | $13,100 |
Are these programs meeting the needs of gillnetters? To learn their views we conducted a survey from October 23 through December 29, 1995. The survey asked about the effectiveness of disaster relief programs, the adjustments made by gillnetters, their view no what would help the salmon resource, and general background information.
[1 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Vessel Permit Buy Out Program Final Report (September 1995).]
The following are gillnetters' recommendations drawn from the survey responses and comments detailed below. Gillnetters are a diverse population, but their responses suggest a majority would give these recommendations.
Surveys were sent to 666 licensed gillnetters. Fifty-three percent (N=355) of the surveys were returned. The survey covered Columbia River, Willapa Bay and Gray's Harbor owners of gillnetting licenses--364 in Washington and 302 in Oregon.[2]
The average respondent was 50 years old, and 56 percent were between 40 and 60 years of age. Sixty percent of the gillnetters were from families who had been fishing for two or three generations, and 17% of the families had fished for four generations or more.
On average, gillnetters had started commercially fishing at age 20. Only 2% of the respondents said they had fished commercially for five years or less. Eight percent had fished for 6–10 years; 15% for 11–20 years; 34% for 21–30 years; 21% for 31–40 years; 3% for 41–50 years; and 9% for more than 50 years. In total, 76% had fished commercially for more than 20 years.
The percentage of income earned from gillnetting in Oregon and Washington in an "average year" was 43%. In 1994, this dropped to 10% and in 1995 to 7%, although nearly two thirds said that in 1995 they earned 1% or less of their income from gillnetting. Sixty-five percent had gillnetted every year since 1988, the last peak fishing year. Eighteen percent did not fish in 1995. Respondents were asked to rate their situations today versus five years ago. Most felt that their economic, family, and overall situations had worsened during the last five years.
Situation |
Ranking 1=much better 5=much worse |
|---|---|
| My overall situation | 3.8 |
| My savings | 4.1 |
| My work | 3.8 |
| My health status | 3.3 |
| My family situation | 3.4 |
| My economic situation | 4.0 |
Eighty percent of the gillnetters were married; 8% were single; 6% were divorced or separated; 5% lived with a partner; and 1% were widowed.
Educational backgrounds and incomes were distributed as follows:
Three-fourths lived in northwestern Oregon or southwestern Washington. The rest lived in the Portland and Seattle metropolitan areas, California, Alaska, eastern Oregon and Washington, or other states.
[2 - To evaluate non-response bias, a random sample of nonrespondents was contacted by telephone. The largest number of non-respondents had not used disaster relief programs and did not think the survey was targeted at them. Eight percent of the non-respondents contacted refused to respond to the survey, fearing that government would use the survey results against them. We were unable to reach non-respondent gillnetters who lacked telephone service, as well as those who were unavailable because they were participating in other fisheries. The total refusal rate for the survey was five percent.]
In general, the gillnetters expressed extreme frustration with the salmon crisis and the disaster relief programs. We include some of their voices along with the tabulations of the data. Although many were angry, they also demonstrated a sense of humor and compassion for others.
It has been a very sorrowful time for our family. It's like having a death in the family. Large corporations and urban areas are capitalizing on the destruction of this resource and profiting in the billions. These people should be held accountable for the environmental destruction they are causing, for they are the voters that shoved the environmental laws down the rural areas' throats.
Less studies. Do something. Get the Goddam politics out of this.
Society needs to understand that salmon can't be saved by eliminating harvest while it conducts business as usual.
I didn't leave [the] fishery--the fishery left ME!!
Although many people received disaster relief unemployment insurance, others saw their claims rejected, and many said that they had received too little assistance while others with higher incomes received more. In addition, those who found other jobs to help them through lean times found that those jobs became liabilities when they were applying for disaster relief. They felt they were being punished for trying to earn money for themselves and their families. Most felt the disaster unemployment insurance was needed even more in 1995, when it was no longer available. The following are representative comments:
The unemployment insurance program was a laugh. I applied and was turned down. I made $6000 doing work during the closed season...the hearings judge said I made too much...but those from Alaska with five-figure earnings got the insurance , as well as a fellow who had not fished for ten years and leases his permit...
I had to leave Washington and move to Alaska for work after the fishing was shut down. I also got divorced when the fishing went down because of money problems and stress...I was forced to take another job. I would have remained fishing but could not support my family any longer. I feel even though I'm working I am entitled to some relief. The unemployment insurance paid me about $800. Not enough! My business has been shut down. I want compensation.
Washington's vessel license buyout received a great deal of attention both in Oregon and Washington. In Oregon, gillnetters said they wanted a buyout like Washington's, while in Washington many people said the buyout was insufficient, either paying them too little for their licenses or leaving them with thousands of dollars worth of useless gear. Respondents repeatedly stressed their desire for a "fair, complete buyout" of boats, licenses and gear.
Washington's Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) was strongly criticized by many Washington gillnetters who claimed that it was poorly managed and biased towards sports fishing. Meanwhile, respondents tended to praise Alaska's fishery management. Comments about Oregon's fishery management usually related to the need for a buyback program in Oregon.
Respondents spoke positively of the habitat restoration jobs program, although there did not seem to be enough jobs to go around:
Habitat job has saved us this year, as Young's Bay and Columbia River fishing was so bad...
I enjoy working on the habitat restoration crew. I am also very involved in an enhancement program...and I feel, if the buyback program continues, the ones of us that are left in the end, primarily the serious fisher- men, will have a good chance of making a living out of it.
For habitat restoration, you had to make less than $25,000...We studied the program and found that 80% of fishermen missed being eligible by $1,000–$10,000. Only 11 people qualified out of 375 gillnetters, and three out of 130 charters. It sounded good, but it ruled out people and didn't help them.
Other programs, including test fishing or "at-sea research," disaster relief loans, and educational outreach via the Sea Grant Fishing Families Project (formerly Fishing Dependent Families Project), were less well-known.
Many respondents felt strongly that they were being treated unfairly by the state and federal government and by other user groups. The BPA and other hydro projects, the WDFW, aluminum companies, sports fishing interests, and those who sell salmon eggs to foreign countries were most often mentioned.
We used to be a family business--fishing, gillnetting and trolling from 1972 to 1984 when politics forced us into no livelihood and worse each year!
I have been a Columbia River gillnetter for 34 years. I am truly appalled at the government's answer to the plight of the fisherman. Another survey, another survey, and yet, another survey! Well, I guess we know where the money is going.
Why have Washington state salmon eggs been sold throughout the world to set up fish farms in direct competition with the state's fishing industry?
As a subsequent generation fisherman, my forefathers all made a comfortable living fishing on the Columbia. Then as the dams and other habitat destruction listed in this survey diminished the salmon's ability to renew themselves, my father had to finally fish in Alaska to make ends meet. Now Bristol Bay is the majority of my salmon fishing income.
Responses from those people whose entire livelihood depended on gillnetting were strongly pessimistic about the future of the industry, as reflected by these comments:
For the near future, salmon fishing looks very dismal. Society has taken its toll-- mother nature has been decimated. It is such a sorry situation.
We still eat but we've wiped out our savings and our debts mount, now to over $170,000. We'll probably lose our house before it's over.
I would appreciate any help or advice in my situation...such as further information on buyback or a very good recipe on how to prepare and digest one gillnet boat as I feel I will eventually have to eat it!
The commercial fleet in Washington has been decimated to a point that it is without resources to even present their case. The few individuals left, with the mental stamina to try to protect the industry, are doing so at enormous costs to themselves, both financially and psychologically, with less opportunity to make a living in the industry than ever before.
It's over with; sports will end up with the whole fishery.
The two questions, Which disaster relief programs are you familiar with? and In which program or programs did you participate? showed that the disaster unemployment insurance and the WDFW license buyout program were the best known and most used:
| Type of relief | % Familiar | % Participated |
|---|---|---|
| Disaster unemployment insurance | 62 | 45 |
| WDFW vessel license buyout program | 56 | 16 |
| Habitat restoration jobs | 41 | 4 |
| Test fishing research jobs | 25 | 2 |
| Disaster relief loans | 25 | 4 |
| Assistance from Sea Grant Fishing Families Project | 6 | * |
| Assistance from a fishermen's association or group | 4 | * |
| Other help or services | 4 | 2 |
Forty-one percent of the respondents did not participate or were rejected by the programs. Of the 59% who received help, 17% participated in two programs. The WDFW buyout and disaster unemployment insurance were the most common joint programs. Two percent participated in three programs.
The most frequently cited sources of information were the Salmon For All newsletter, the Daily Astorian, and a letter sent by the Washington State Department of Fisheries and Wildlife.
Of the 172 responses to this question, 11% said yes, 75% said no, and 13% gave indeterminate responses. Individual comments follow:
We got a temporary bandage for a long-term condition.
Disaster unemployment insurance helped. Disaster loan money required a lot of paperwork [for] little money.
[I used the money] to buy a new crab boat, but the State only did half of what they promised so they nearly bankrupted me. Their attitude? Oh well! Another day! Tried to participate in habitat restoration program but was not eligible although I have habitat restoration knowledge.
I feel this would have been simply taking government welfare to recoup my dumb investments.
I would like to see a buyout where value of equipment (investment) is considered, especially for us who paid high prices with no good seasons following.
Even though my gillnet business has suffered major losses, I was denied because I have other income. Being in this business has caused income loss to my family instead of gain for the last few years. It was once an asset.
We did hours of paperwork and got rejected. Who were these loans for if not for a full time fishing family? We were disgusted. I desperately need a habitat job in Columbia or Clatsop county.
The [disaster unemployment insurance] was very helpful. The disaster relief loan program was a joke on fishing families because they didn't qualify from the start.
The 186 people who said they had participated in a disaster relief program indicated that funds were used in the following ways:
Fifty-nine percent did not participate in one or more of the programs for the following reasons.
I've had an investment in this fishery for 23 years. The fact that I got a job to support my family while the seasons dwindled was the cause of my claim rejection. I've owned my own boat, gear and permit, which is more than boat pullers have had invested, and they still got insurance.
Buyout program would have only gave a fraction of what I had invested.
Did not need the additional income--felt funds needed by other fishing families more. I didn't want to use, as I have never received public assistance before.
Had three days to send in paperwork. Took many phone calls to talk to correct person, treated us like we were stealing government money.
What has been, or would have been, most helpful for you in adjusting to the decreased opportunities to fish for salmon?
Out of the 264 responses to this open-ended question, 41% referred to a buyout or leaseback program.
Those from Oregon said they wanted a buyout program, while those from Washington often said they wanted a better buyout program. The following comments are drawn from question responses that referred to a buyout program:
A complete license, boat and equipment buy out [with] BPA, DSI, NMFS footing the bill-- the dams have cost me my livelihood. Buy permit for what I paid for it and buy back fishing nets. I paid [twice as much] for my Columbia River permit as the state bought it back for. The state left me with my gear.
Disaster aid was helpful for just the one year. Oregon permit buyback would be most helpful for retirement from a lifetime of fishing, but for younger members we need to continue the fight to bring back the salmon runs.
[It would be helpful] if I could sell my permit for a fair price and use the money to get into a new business.
A lease buyback is the only real effective way to help. I don't have any boat payments, but I do have my retirement, heritage, culture, life style and a huge investment sitting idle for how many years?
Pay the fishermen for their investments in boats and gear.
Everybody in the NW benefits from the dams and industry created from them. But they aren't concerned about the loss the commercial fishermen sustained from the loss of fish.
Other comments about what would be helpful follow. Common themes were equal allocation of the resource and programs to help fishermen move into other areas of business:
BPA-subsidized payments not to fish the Columbia, about $5000 per year. Basically, the opportunity to earn money from my fishing business. I have thousands of dollars in gear (nets, etc.) and a fishing boat (with insurance and upkeep) that I have no way of paying for because of the lack of fishing time.
Evenhandedness in allocation of resource; an appearance of effort on the part of WDFW to use in-season management rather than relying on faulty predictions. The psychological battering from biased department officials is as painful as the financial deprivation .
Finding work. I am waiting for habitat job locally, I'm also taking care of my invalid parents.
If all who fish for salmon in the Columbia would sacrifice their fishing as much as we have had to do so as to rejuvenate the salmon runs. I mean Indians and sport fishers as well.
I figured that down the road our fish runs would return, and once again commercial fishing on the Columbia would be, before the year 2000.
If you didn't fish, the expensive license fee should be waived. [Washington] Dept. of Fisheries said us gillnetters will have to take the big hit to save salmon. Then they jab us with license fees averaging $1000 per fisherman.
Jobs that some of us older fishermen could have done. I am 72 years old and there [are] more like me [who] were not considered at all.
Some type of loan program to expand into another fishery or even different type of business.
To make ends meet, myself and nearly every other salmon fisherman has had to enter into other fisheries or other part-time employment opportunities to make a living. To take advantage of the temporary disaster relief jobs is impossible for many fishermen who need them most. That is why the disaster unemployment insurance was most suitable for many.
Individuals' comments give a stronger sense of the frustration they feel:
Lived like a miser. Tried to get by on as little as possible.
Fishermen are shoved into small areas with short seasons and to remain solvent fish in bad weather. The new required safety equipment sets them even further back and they fish in even worse weather. The Coast Guard is so busy boarding boats and checking stickers and using their budgets to patrol the handful of fishermen left, that buoys are not maintained and Coast Guard stations are closed.
We have been processing our own fish, and marketing them.
Slowly going bankrupt.
I need an occupational change that pays well, exciting and a damn good retirement program! Such as extortion, armed robbery, hell anything is better than this.
Depleted life savings Had to move, sell home, start totally over. Have looked for other opportunities of employment. Have had to deal with depression in my life because of lost fishing opportunities and added financial burden.
Delayed retirement plans (expected to continue commercial fishing in "retirement")
Logged some family timber and mortgaged my home. Wife has taken several temporary jobs.
Many years ago it was clear I could not make a living gillnetting--so I found a job. Salmon is my secondary income. Would get out of gillnetting if I could get a good price for my permit.
Still have all equipment, boat, etc., and permit. Can't decide what to do. Perhaps make a planter out of the $40,000 boat!
A series of questions on distributive justice asked people to express their agreement with the following statements:
A. Each person is responsible for their own future no matter what happens. This is how capitalism works. People should have the right to fail.
Comments added by those who disagreed with this statement noted that when failure was caused by an uncontrollable factor (for example government decisions), the statement did not hold true. The average response was 3.0, as show in Table 4.
B. Society works best when it helps people when unexpected change occurs. A system of social insurance that assists people in times of need is best. The average response (Table 5) was 2.1.
C. Past participation in salmon fishing gives the right to fish. When people lose the opportunity to fish, society should compensate them. The average response (Table 6) was 1.6.
The strong feelings of gillnetters reflect their view that society has taken away their opportunity to fish.
Other individual comments:
Failing on my own is one thing; failing because someone is destroying your business is different.
When fishing time is lost from natural causes [it's] bad enough, but when caused by dams and industry, yes, [we] should be compensated.
This is a government-sponsored disaster and the government should pay for lost opportunity. Would like to see unemployed aluminum workers and dry land farmers wandering streets--they have killed more salmon than the gillnet fleet has! They are partaking in the demise of a fishery that would provide for my family and thousands of others in perpetuity--instead I have job on low end of scale--they are pooching out aluminum ingots that are continually worth less on the world market--AND I help pay for it each month in PPL electric bill. Insult = injury.
Most fishermen with something on the ball would find something else to do instead of waiting around to be spoon-fed by the government.
I do not feel that society owes me anything. However I do feel that the industries that have benefited from salmon and salmon habitat destruction do owe society. If habitat is restored, my job and livelihood will in turn be restored.
Respondents had a rich variety of suggestions for improving the future of salmon fishing. These ranged from better control of predators, particularly seals and cormorants, to trying to build a consensus between all user groups.
Question C Responses [scale: 1= very important; 5= not important at all]
How important are the following to enhance the salmon industry?:
What really would help is for those who have benefited from salmon habitat destruction (hydro, aluminum, irrigation, navigation, poor logging practices) to step to the goddam plate and make a commitment to right past wrongs and work with, instead of against, salmon industries.
All aspects of society that negatively impact salmon should equally share the burden of restoration, including agriculture, ranching, logging, urban and industrial development, dams, aluminum smelters, nuclear power, pollution (both point and non-point), roads and highways, and yes even fishing (sport, commercial and Indian). What society has done is make a few (commercial fishing) pay for the past sins of all.
Count every fish landed by sport fleet even if it means searching each and every boat. If any fish are to survive in the Columbia Basin, many different interest groups will have to compromise. Take the future of the salmon out of politicians' hands and give it to the people that know fish. If indeed the definition of wild salmon can be proven on some stocks, I think that protecting endangered stocks [is] very important. But what so often happens is that a stock that was eliminated 75 years ago due to habitat loss or over-fishing has been rebuilt by hatchery strays that have turned self-sustaining, and some "bleeding heart" comes in and declares them an endangered stock, stops hatchery production and will not allow hatchery stocks to be used to augment low returns. The fish will bounce back. If you would send a survey out and ask the gillnetters if they would sit on the beach for the next five years or more to save the salmon, they would say yes, but you will never find another user group, whether it be from other fishing groups, irrigated agriculture, utility companies or the aluminum industry, ever make such a commitment.
This research is part of a larger project entitled Adapting to Change: Fishing Families, Businesses, Communities, and Regions. The project, sponsored by Oregon Sea Grant, seeks to provide research-based information about cycles of change that affect U.S. fisheries and the people and communities involved in them. Beneficiaries of such information include policymakers, fisheries managers, and fishing communities and families themselves. This research does not use funds allocated for disaster relief funds for salmon fishermen.
The authors would like to thank Jim Bergeron, Frances Clark, Bob Eaton and Jack Marincovich for their assistance in the development of this survey and for their many helpful suggestions.
For additional copies of this and other Oregon Sea Grant publications, contact:
Publications
Oregon Sea Grant Communications
Oregon State University 402
322 Kerr Administration Building
Corvallis OR 97331-2134
Phone: 541-737-2716
E-mail: sea.grant.communications@oregonstate.edu
This work was partially supported by grant no. NA36RG0451 (projects no. R/FDF-2 and M/A-12) from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to the Oregon State University Sea Grant College Program and by appropriations made by the Oregon State legislature. The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOAA or any of its subagencies. Sea Grant combines basic research, education, and technology transfer to serve the public. This national network of universities works with others in the private and public sectors to meet the changing environmental, economic, and social needs of people in the coastal, ocean, and Great Lakes regions of the U.S.
Return to:
Oregon
Sea Grant Home |
online Publications
Note: This is an accessible version of a document originally produced for the Web in .pdf format. While it contains all significant content of the original print document, it may omit layout and graphic elements which contribute to the look and feel of the original, and make the .pdf version more suitable for printing.
Contact us:
sea.grant.web@oregonstate.edu
Last updated: Jan. 31, 2007