Last week's blockade of an Alaska State Ferry ship by Canadian fishermen got the fishermen world attention, a two million dollar lawsuit, and little else. In the world of treaty politics, the actions of the "little people" rarely have a bearing on the final product. This is because treaties like the one in question usually have a great deal of background that most people don't understand.
The purpose of this article is to give my own perspective on the treaty, as seen from my position as an observer, and participant in the fishing industry:
Several years ago, way before NAFTA, way before the October Surprise or the August Coup, even before steam shovels bit into the Berlin Wall, during a time when a crappy actor was president, negotiators from the United States and Canada met to whack out a trade agreement.
At the end of negotiations, the Canadians walked away gloating about the final outcome. "It was like they sent amateurs to the table," one of the negotiating team said. "We showed up ready for business, and they were half asleep." Among the terms of the agreement, there were provisions for division of the Pacific Salmon harvest.
Since then, the US has enjoyed a cooperative relationship in relation to defense matters, such as an open license to fly Cruise Missiles over Canadian airspace in the event of a nuclear exchange. Now, we all know that if the button got pushed, the missiles were going to fly where they would. In the official papers, however, it was necessary to show that this had been discussed and agreed-upon.
Other defense matters that the Canadians have been fairly generous about over the years include US military bases in Canada which are toxic nightmares, an underwater torpedo range used by US submarines, and shared waterways near the Arctic Circle.
Canadians, on the other hand, needed no such concessions to facilitate their military agenda. Canadians had other needs.
In the eyes of Alaska fishermen, the Canadians got a hugely unfair portion of the salmon harvest. This was done in subtle ways. For instance, Alaska was forced to count all the fish that were caught by sport fishermen and include them in the total. Canada was not. Over the years, a good deal of resentment built up over this. The Canadians, being good fishermen, took the money and ran. The Alaskans, being bound by a treaty they didn't negotiate, made the best of the situation.
Three years ago, the treaty expired. Uh oh...
It's a different era. The Wall is down. The missiles are getting taken apart. The Russian KGB is now the Russian Mafia; therefore Russia is now accepted as a loyal member of the new world order.
The treaty expired, and Alaskan fishermen hired professionals to represent them, and when the US showed up at the negotiating table, they were wide awake. The Canadians, being used to a cush life, were not about to give up their position. Not a good situation.
Since then, the Departments of Fish and Game have operated with no treaty. Though not bound by international, signed-in-baby's-blood, agreements, fishery managers from both sides of the border have more or less kept the old treaty as a working model.
This year, however, tempers have flared over a perceived overcatch of red salmon. The red salmon swim in more-or-less the same waters as less valuable pink salmon. The pinks are mostly hatchery-bred fish, which rightfully belong to Alaska. The reds are bound for Canadian rivers, and rightfully belong to the Canadians.
Though the fish use the same waterways, the schools usually stick together. Therefore, its possible to keep track of what fish are in which areas, and allow Alaskan fishermen to take the fish they own, and allow the Canadians to fish for theirs. This system works really well. It allows for an incidental bycatch, and the limits are usually adequate to keep both fisheries thriving.
However, it is theoretically possible for Alaskan fishery managers to allow fishing in waters that contain reds. Since these waters are in US territory, and there is no treaty, Alaska Department of Fish and Game is within its legal right to do this. In this case, the Alaskans would take a lot more reds. This they have done, and the Canadians are crying foul.
Alaskan officials deny that they are breaking the spirit of the treaty. They say that the reason there are more reds being caught is because there are more reds randomly swimming amongst the pinks.
It's entirely possible that Alaska's claim is completely valid. This year is the mother of all En Nino years. Water temperatures everywhere are askew. Fish are swimming where they usually don't swim, and they aren't swimming where they usually do. Some areas of the Bristol Bay fishery are bankrupt, while in other areas are enjoying a bumper year. No fish is where it's supposed to be. In a year like this, it's entirely believable that more reds than usual would be swimming among the pinks.
Whoever is right about this small aspect of the salmon war, it's obvious to everyone that the solution is to renegotiate the treaty. This is sure to cause bad feelings on both sides of the border, and we probably haven't heard the last of the mouse that roared.