Fish Fight: Whose Pollock Is It Anyway?

A bitter dispute is raging within the American seafood industry over access to pollock, a valuable fish that makes up an important part of the catch in Alaskan waters. At stake are annual landings of 1.5 million metric tons with an estimated retail value of about $1 billion.

One participant in the feud says the controversy has become the “nastiest, meanest fight in (the history of U.S.) fisheries management.”

Ironically, pollock was considered an unsalable “garbage fish” just 12 years ago. But today, pollock is prized. The reason: Its characteristics--plentiful stocks, a light-colored flesh and low-oil content--make it ideal for processing into the paste called surimi that is used to make imitation crab products, most of which--about 80%--is then shipped to Japan. A smaller portion of the catch is sold domestically as surimi or frozen breaded fish fillets.

But much more is at stake than the future of fish sticks.

The dispute pits factory trawlers--giant ships that can net, process, package and freeze their catch while at sea--versus fishing boats that land their catch in U.S. ports to be processed ashore.

The trawlers, with their around-the-clock work schedule and huge storage capacity, are capable of exhausting fishing grounds. The more traditional fishers feel that the trawlers are about to dominate the pollock catch to the exclusion of everyone else, meaning loss of jobs and investments, particularly in Alaska’s coastal communities.

The rancor is unusual for the fairly close-knit commercial fishing industry, already embroiled in a fight with consumer groups over the safety and wholesomeness of its products, and may spell long-term image damage. For one thing, the fight has turned political. Public relations firms, Washington lobbyists, congressmen and trade groups have been enlisted by both sides--one side charging the other with horrendous waste of natural resources or with being the pawn of foreign financial interests, particularly Japanese.

“There have always been issues that have been divisive and contentious within the seafood industry, but this one is the most divisive and the most contentious,” says Bruce Buls, a spokesman for the American Factory Trawler Assn. in Seattle.

“Both of these groups are saying that they are the real Americans and that the other is under the control of foreign money. That’s ludicrous and they know it,” says Steve Shapiro, editor of Pacific Fishing, a trade magazine. “The fact is that there are significant investments on both sides and there is going to be a financial loser.”

Government officials familiar with the dispute say that while the environment and foreign investment are legitimate concerns, the issue really boils down to the fact that there are too many boats, too many people and too many plants chasing after a limited number of fish.

“There is a finite amount of fish and more demand for it than there is supply,” says Jay Ginter, fishery management biologist with the National Marine Fisheries Service in Juneau, Alaska. “There isn’t any place for these boats to expand other than to go up against one another.”

“What is really at issue is who is going to control the pollock catch in the North Pacific for the next generation,” says Paul MacGregor, an attorney for the U.S. Surimi Commission in Seattle. “It would be tragic to wrest that resource away from the at-sea (trawler) fleet, which is one of the real success stories in the U.S. seafood industry.”

The issue is heading for an interim solution, since the U.S. Commerce Secretary must decide by March 5 whether or not to accept a recommendation from the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council that would allocate the pollock catch precisely. The recommendation would give 65% of the annual quota of 1.5 million metric tons to the factory trawlers and 35% to the fleet that supplies fish for the on-shore processors. A public comment period on the recommendation, which ended last week, generated more than 1,000 responses.

The plan, which instantly cuts the factory trawlers’ share of the total pollock harvest from its record 1990 level of about 80%, would reduce it still further to 55% in subsequent years.

“We can’t live with that,” says Buls. “That would mean a severe loss in our production. If it happened in an open environment that would be OK, but it’s not fair to artificially limit our capacity.

“What’s the difference who catches the fish? Last year the shore-based plants processed 376,900 metric tons of pollock and that’s not exactly dying on the vine.” That same year the factory trawlers processed 987,000 metric tons, he says.

Inshore interests, including four Japanese-owned pollock-processing plants in Alaska, are represented by the North Pacific Seafood Coalition in Seattle.

“Most other countries protect their inshore communities. . . . These factory trawlers are developing a monopoly out there and will control the market for these products (if left unchecked),” says coalition manager John Iani. “The factory trawlers are voracious, and they will take out the traditional fishermen and (thus economically depress) the towns where these people live.”

Iani also charges that the factory trawlers waste excessive amounts of the fish that, for some reason or another, do not meet their processing specifications.

“It’s horribly wasteful,” he says. “There is no excuse for them to waste a public resource like they are. They get the fish for free so there is no incentive for them to use the fish wisely.”

According to the National Marine Fisheries Service, which manages U.S. seafood resources, the factory trawlers discarded, or threw overboard, about 200,000 metric tons of Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea ground fish, including pollock and other species, in 1991. Another 1 million metric tons of the ground fish were retained for later sale.

By comparison, the shore-side fleet discarded 20,692 metric tons of ground fish, including pollock, and retained 565,000 metric tons.

“Nobody is paying attention to the fact that they are throwing away huge amounts of fish,” says Iani. “I think the American people want as much finished product out of the raw product as possible. They should ask these people: ‘Why are you taking this resource (for free) and then not getting the most bang out of it?’ ”

Factory trawler representative Buls says that discarding unusable fish is a byproduct of harvesting technique and always has been.

“I’d say that waste is part of the nature of the beast for any fishing industry or any (natural) resource recovery. It’s just like an apple orchard where the farmers leave a lot of the fruit on the ground,” he says.

Government analysts conclude that if one side in the pollock controversy prevails, it will control the entire pollock fishery and possibly force up the price for the fish at wholesale and retail levels. Higher prices would prompt seafood companies to go looking for another species to use for products such as fish sticks or fast food chains’ fried fish.

Adoption of the 65%/35% ratio plan is uncertain. Even if it is accepted by the U.S. Commerce Secretary, it will only be in place for three years. The U.S. Justice Department has commented on the council’s allocation plan and stated that the agency believes a freer, more market-oriented system should prevail.

Ginter, of the National Marine Fisheries Service, says that any long-term solution is likely to involve some kind of access fee or licensing for those involved in the pollock fishery. None exists at present.

“The industry has to work together on real management problems,” says the factory trawlers’ Buls. “There are a number of things that are common to the entire seafood industry and those are the ones that we need to be dealing with. . . . When one side or the other slings mud and vilifies, that does the entire industry a disservice.”