US And Canada Clash Over Albacore Fisheries

The agreement, which expired in Dec. 2011, allowed both countries to fish for albacore tuna in their neighbor’s territorial waters. Negotiations were ongoing to renew it and both parties were scheduled to meet in April to address U.S. concerns that had been raised in December. But, the U.S. negotiators unexpectedly visited the Canadian government last week and announced a no reciprocal fishing policy for 2012, according to the Canadian Highly Migratory Species Foundation (CHMSF) and the B.C. Tuna Fishermen’s Association.

Depending on the temperatures this year, the migration of the tuna will determine which country could lose out, says Clayton, CHMSF director. If it turns out to be a colder year and the tuna stay south, he explains, it will impact the livelihoods of the Canadian fishing crews, their families, and the buyers and processors. If it happens to be a warmer year and the tuna move north, the suspension might not be a problem for Canada, but it could impact the U.S. fishermen who are barred from fishing there, he continues. “You never know where the tuna are going to be.”

In recent years, the majority of both countries’ vessels have been fishing in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ). In 2009, the U.S. fleet caught 94% of its albacore tuna in the U.S. EEZ, 2% in the Canadian EEZ, and 4% in international waters, according to Mark Helvey of the National Marine Fisheries Services. In the same year, 110 Canadian vessels fished in the U.S. EEZ while only 29 U.S. vessels fished in Canadian waters, according to a 2010 review of the treaty consultations, posted on the American Albacore Fishing Association (AAFA) website.

The situation has become “unhealthy,” writes Donald McIsaac, executive director of the Pacific Fishery Management Council, in a letter sent March 13 to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

McIsaac notes Canadian fishing in U.S. waters has increased, along with their catch per unit effort, and the overcrowding on U.S. fishing grounds has led to confrontations.

While the treaty limits the number of Canadian boats in U.S. waters to 110, Clayton says, there is no limit on the amount of U.S. vessels that can fish in Canada’s EEZ. Canada’s limit had been previously higher but was reduced in recent years, he adds. A follow-up meeting between governments may be scheduled in May.

“Now we’re in a situation where we will still try to persuade those people that make the final decisions so that the reciprocal fishing maintains the best interests of both U.S. and Canadian fishermen,” Clayton says.

An economic study, which was to be released ahead of the April meeting, was commissioned to determine Canada’s impact on U.S. ports, a concern raised back in December. Its information was intended to “have quite a value and impact on the decisions,” says Clayton.

While he hasn’t seen the report yet, Clayton says the Canadian fleet contributes “many millions of dollars” to the U.S. ports where the fishermen dock, buy fuel and supplies, and offload.

In 2009, 26 Canadian vessels out of 110 made 51 landings for 650 tons at U.S. ports, according to the 2010 AAFA review of treaty consultations. In the previous year, 46 vessels made 122 landings for 1,359 tons at U.S. ports. During the consultations, Canada said the change was due to a higher concentration of tuna in the border area. If the suspension continues for 2012, one country risks the loss of a viable fishing ground.

“There are only so many boats within the [Canadian] fleet that are capable of sustainable fishing out in those [international] areas, so it reduces our opportunity certainly,” says Clayton.

Two fishing groups who reportedly support the no reciprocal fishing policy, the AAFA and the Western Fishboat Owners Association, could not be reached for comment last Thursday.

The rest of the U.S.-Canada treaty remains intact at the moment, and it covers access to ports. American vessels, for instance, are still able to offload in Canadian ports even if they are not fishing in Canada.