Salmon ban crushing blow to fishing industry
Local fishermen could feel the devastation brought on by controversial decision
By Julia Scott, STAFF WRITER

PRINCETON BY-THE-SEA — A total ban on commercial and sport salmon fishing, or even a sharp curtailment, would mean the loss of at least half the annual income of the 40 salmon skiffs docked in Pillar Point Harbor.

But its true impact would ripple far beyond the fishermen themselves to an entire industry built around them — and by extension, an entire way of life on the San Mateo County coast.

"This is a fishing community — it's what we're based on," said Pillar Point Harbormaster Dan Temko. "Salmon is the big fishery. The small guys are going to get hammered. ... It could be devastating for the restaurants, the hotels — everyone."

Mike McHenry has been fishing salmon off the San Mateo coast for 47 years. His boat, the Merva W., was built with salmon money in 1971. A total fishing ban would be unprecedented and would cost him most of his annual livelihood, he said.

"There's going to be no income from April all the way to September. The docks, the gear shops, the buyers, the bars — there's going to be a huge trickle down. We're all going to suffer over this," McHenry said.

Captain Tom Mattusch of the Huli Cat, a sport fishing vessel docked in Princeton, said he stood to lose $120,000 from a salmon ban this year.

He said he would attempt to make up for the shortfall by fishing albacore, crab, shrimp and squid, but there was no guarantee that they would be in good supply. And the cost of slip rent, insurance and maintenance would add up regardless of whether he took the boat out, he said.

"We're wondering if we're going to have to look for jobs," Mattusch said. "We can't sit around and do nothing." Losing local boats would mean losing a full 25 percent of Pillar Point Harbor's annual income as well, Temko said. The district sometimes makes more than $300 a day on vessels that pay to use its launch ramp, not to mention berth rent.

Temko said he felt for the fishermen, whom he believed were being punished for a problem they didn't create on the Klamath River. He said the Klamath salmon die-off occurred when the water was diverted for agriculture, leaving the salmon stranded in shallow, cloudy, warm water filled with parasites.

"It's not because (the boats) were overfishing. They were killed by man-made conditions," Temko said. "Rice farmers get subsidies for not farming their fields, but there's no subsidy for our local fishermen. It's hard for them to swallow."

Temko pointed out that Sacramento River salmon had always been plentiful. Banning salmon fishing outright was no way to address the real problem, he said.

"I think we need to look at how the fishing is managed and the fact that the river has failed, and move on from that," Temko said.

McHenry remembered the first time regulators tried to scale back the salmon season because of dwindling Klamath numbers — by pushing the start date from April into May, sometime in the late 1970s or early 80s. He and nearly 100 other Bay Area fishermen formed a protest blockade with their boats under the Golden Gate Bridge and served free salmon to the public, a move that sparked a huge local demand for the fish.

"We saw what was happening," McHenry said. "Once the government gets their foot in the door, it's not going to stop."

He said fishermen would have "nothing to lose" if they staged a similar action this year, and said he would be happy to join them.

Just as serious as a possible loss in earnings would be the loss of fishermen who could abandon the industry as a result of the Fisheries Management Council decision, said Mattusch.

"There's always doom and gloom with fishermen, but this year it's real," he said. "How do you ask people to buy a fishing license if there's no opportunity to fish?"

Staff writer Julia Scott can be reached at (650) 348-4340 or at jscott@angnewspapers.com.