COMMUNITIES AND ECONOMIES________________

The economies of communities small and large all along the West Coast were developed around commercial fishing, with rockfishes playing a major role. Rockfish catches were responsible for 40 percent of the revenue generated from all groundfish landings in 1996, totaling over 32 million dollars. This fishery represents the highest volume of nonwhiting landings in the Pacific coast commercial groundfish fishery and has been identified as being in a condition of "overharvested" and "biologically stressed" by the PFI~1C GMT since 1982 (SAFE 1998). Although frequently requested by the fishing industry, very little analysis has been done to quantify the economic losses to communities as a result of losses in fishing opportunity or changes in management and regulations over the years. This data is critical background information that will allow for educated decisions regarding the short versus long-term economic losses/gains associated with management decisions such as annual harvest levels.

Commercial fishing has never been an easy or comfortable career choice. Especially in recent years, declines in rockfish stocks leading to decreased landings such as those seen in Figure 19 for Port Orford, OR have exacerbated the situation, forcing fishers to travel farther and spend greater amounts of time away from their homes and families (PKline, commercial fisher pers. comm.). Outstanding loans on vessels and gear, combined with cuts in harvest guidelines and the current condition of the Tapanese economy, have forced many into a situation where they must deferinsurance payments and/or maintenance on their boats, hire smaller crews, and work around the clock to compensate for lower incomes. If there are crew on the vessel, which more and more often is not the case on the smaller vessels due to economic constraints, their wages are usually 10-15 percent of the gross for the vessel. The decline of West Coast fisheries and markets in recent years has led to difficulties procuring crew, as people are reluctant to commit to a job with little or no stability. Ex-vessel revenue from rockfish landings has been estimated to have declined 30 percent between 1995 and 19Y7, a drop from 37.5 million dollars to 26 million in only three years (Figures 20 and 21). Because some fishers and vessel owners have been able to absorb a percentage of the economic loss over the last few years due to the loss of fishing opportunity, some feel we may not see the full effects of the recent cuts and
declines in landings for another year or so (R. Moore, West Coast Seafood Processors Association, pers. comm.). However, insurance payments and boat maintenance can only be deferred for so long.

An often overlooked and a critical portion of the economic picture for fisheries and communities is the processors. An important link in the chain from the ocean to the consumer, they also are one of the largest employers in many communities up and down the West Coast. Pacific Coast Seafoods, which belongs to the Pacific Group, is one of the
largest seafood processing companies on the West Coast, services approximately 200 permitted vessels. This company, unlike many of its smaller colleagues, has managed to somewhat maintain consistency in the volume of fish it processes because other plants in the Astoria/Warrenton OR area have shut down. Between 1992 and 1998 the number of processing plants in this area handling groundfish declined extensively. The cuts in harvest guidelines have forced processors to downsize the number of full time employees, by more than half. Where they used to have approximately 200 full-time employees, they currently only employ 80-90. Representatives from both Pacific Coast Seafoods, as well as a much smaller processor, Fishhawk Fisheries, agree that it would be possible to deviate from the
current year-round fishery for rockfish and maintain viable businesses.

The tool the PFMC currently employs to keeps the fishery going year-round is trip limit management. The method of management has been analyzed and determined to be detrimental to rockfish stocks due to the large amounts of bycatch that result from it (Pikitch et al. 1988). Low trip limits force people to make more trips to the ocean in order
to fill their quotas because they now need to catch every fish to make ends meet. This not only compounds the bycatch problem and increases the exposure of the stocks to fishing pressure but also has affected the quality of life of people fishing and their families. They now are tied to making multiple small trips every month instead of having the flexibility of making a few larger trips throughout the year, another factor increasing their time away from home (T Morrison, commercial trawler, pers. comm.).

The quest for increased income in addition to increasing costs of technology and higher prices for vessels and gear has forced people to invest larger and larger amounts into fishing. This has led to an extremely overcapitalized fishery containing people who need to catch increasingly larger amounts of fish in order to just break even. This attitude is
one of the contributing factors to the current animosity that exists between gear types. If one had invested heavily, it is reasonable that operating costs will be higher, equating to needing a larger catch of fish than someone with less of an investment. Overcapitalization of the fishery is one of the reasons stock declines have hit some harder than others within the industry. Lnequalities in catches and allocations have some arguing that those reaping the largest benefits from a public resource should be responsible for an equally large percentage of the programs and research necessary to fix the problem. In other words, the burden of responsibility for cleaning up the mess we're currently in with some species of rockfishes should be equitable across all gear types according to the amount they extract. Along this vein, Figure 13 shows that in 1997 trawl gear was responsible for 88 percent of the rockfish landings coast-wide, hook-and-line gear for 11 percent and troll gear for about 1 percent. A small amount of rockfish are also taken by gillnet in southern California. Differences in quality of product and amount of discard associated with each gear type also find their way into these dicussions. Gentler fishing methods result in a higher quality product (fish that are in better shape when brought to the processors) and command higher prices. Table 5 and figure 22 show the prices for rockfishes associated with different gear type for 1997. Many feel incentives should exist rewarding and favoring

cleaner, more selective gear and fishing practices over those proven to be less so. Unfortunately this is not the case. No solid figures for rockfish bvcatch for any gear type currently exist, arguments for providing incentives for one gear type over another often are unheeded.

The bottom line is that, in addition to declines in overall abundance of rockfishes, there are too many people vying for too small a resource. Declines in fisheries such as salmon have forced fishers to investigate alternative sources of income. This has served to greatly increase the fishing pressure on rockfishes, and there is only so much to go around.
Families and communities are suffering as a result of overexploitation, and vercapitalization of a fishery that has forced it into a situation where, in many cases, it is neither stable, sustainable nor profitable anymore.

Like everyone else involived in the fishery for rockfished, fishers are frustrated. They feel too often managed by a process over which thjey have no control. In addition they believe their ideas and observations developed form the experience of years at sea hold no

 Where Are Rockfish Being Landed'

Figure 23a shows the total estimated rockfish landings for the years of 1981-1996. Oregon led the way in 1996 in commercial landings of rockfish with 47.5 percent of the total commercial catch, with California following close behind with 38.3 percent and Washington coming in with 14·2 percent (Figure 23). Figures 24 -27 break down the landings down even further by state and port groups. Each of these port groups is represented in Table 6, which highlights the top ten species landed in each port.