THE RISE OF FISH FARMING

Some federal officials believe that salmon fishermen could help themselves by supporting the development of salmon farms in the United States so as to provide themselves with additional supply of fish, a year-round sales capability and a means of countering farmed salmon from Chile and other countries.

The impact of foreign salmon competition resulted in a drop in the U.S. share of the Japanese market of 85% in 1987 to 57% in 1992, according to THE JAPANESE SALMON MARKET.

In SALMON 2000: YEARBOOK 1993 produced by the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute, there is a warning to salmon fishermen about the growing threat from Norwegian and Chilean farmed salmon:
"Among the trade, farm-raised salmon is perceived to be of superior quality when compared to ocean caught salmon. Some of the food service trade negatively perceive how fresh/frozen fish is handled along the harvesting, processing and distribution chains, sometimes citing temperature abuse, bruising and watermarks..."

The report adds that: "More consumers also believe that farm raised fish are likely to be more wholesome than wild fish caught in the open seas."

This sentiment is being echoed in the Japanese market where a Japanese fish specialist told researchers of THE JAPANESE SALMON MARKET that farmed salmon is taking market share away from sockeye "with quality slowly becoming more important to Osaka buyers, farmed salmon began to find its niche. Buyers slowly began to break their subconscious dependence upon sockeye and found that farmed salmon can also produce a quality product with bright red flesh and good fat content."

Ironically, the development of fish farming technology was originally an American invention that has been refined by Norway and then transferred by the Norwegians to Chile, according to Pete Granger, marketing director for the Washington Fish Growers' Association, which represents fish farmers:
" The farm technology was developed twenty five years ago by the National Marine and Fisheries Service along with scientists from the University of Washington, but the Norwegians took the concept and developed it and started to export farmed salmon."

In other words, another case of a technology developed in the United States was allowed to be transferred to foreign competitors and compete with American business. Even worse, the attempt to revive the U.S. salmon farming industry has been hurt by resistance from within the United States:

• The state of Alaska, which might have been a major growth area for salmon farming is out of bounds because of a 1990 law which bans fish farming. SMIS says the prohibition was passed by the state legislature in 1990 with the support of Alaska fishermen. Mitch Kink explains the opposition of fishermen to salmon farming: "I don't think farmed salmon competes with the quality of the sockeye. They say farmed salmon is better quality but I don't believe it and I think the state of Alaska did a good thing banning farmed salmon. It also costs more. They use chemicals and there is a sanitary issue. I don't ever see farming becoming an economic alternative for salmon fishing. One of the reasons that the Norwegian salmon did so well is that the Norwegians were getting subsidized by their government." Pete Granger with the Washington Fish Growers' Association says antibiotics are necessary in salmon farming to prevent disease when the fish are transferred from fresh water to salt water.

• Opposition from the Sierra Club and other environmental groups has helped curb the growth of salmon farming in the state of Washington, according to Dan Swecker, executive director for the Washington Fish Growers' Association. Swecker says that wealthy landowners in alliance with the Sierra Club have pressured local planning agencies to oppose locating fish farms contiguous to the Puget Sound area, denying the state of Washington a major growth industry. His own efforts to build a salmon farm (technically known as a net pen) failed after a five year effort and the loss of $500,000. Here is how Swecker describes his losing battle: "In 1987 I applied for a permit to produce my own net pens to harvest ... salmon. Unfortunately, the permit process was a grueling one. Wealthy homeowners and owners of vacation homes along Puget Sound objected to construction of the net pens because it would spoil their pristine views of the Sound. A pen consists of walkways, a security building and nets and locks very much like a marina. The structure is so unobtrusive that at any distance, the pens are almost indistinguishable. However, it took me from 1987 to 1992 to get my permit and I had to spend $500,000 and I just didn't have the financing to go on. Even so, I might have made it because the 49% owner of my company was a Native American company headquartered in Juneau, which was interested in the venture because they wanted to develop salmon farms along the Alaska shoreline which they owned. Unfortunately, just as I emerged from the permit battles, commercial salmon fishermen lobbied the Alaska legislature, to make it illegal to build net pens in Alaska because they believed that competition from the pens would ruin their business. When the law passed the Alaska legislature, the company was forced to withdraw from our partnership."

• Efforts by the U.S. aquaculture industry, the technical name for fish farming, to enact a law placing the industry under the U.S. Department of Agriculture auspices and make it eligible for USDA programs similar to those provided for livestock failed in the last Congress, according to Joseph McCraren, executive director, for the West Virginia-based National Aquaculture Association. Budgetary concerns were a factor.

(Continue)