Kodiak’s “Big-5″ Fish Processors file Rockfish catch share lawsuit #2
”The other rockfish lawsuit” — by Andrew Jensen, Alaska Journal of Commerce
“Trident, Ocean Beauty, Westward Seafoods, North Pacific Seafoods and
International Seafoods of Alaska sue NMFS over rockfish program. ”
See other recent articles at: http://www.alaskajournal.com/Alaska-Journal-of-Commerce/Fisheries/
THE VERY AUDACITY THAT THESE PROCESSORS HAVE A RIGHT TO SHARE IN THE RENTS OF HARVESTERS WHO CATCH FISH AND ALREADY SUFFER MARKET POWERS THAT DEPRESS FISH TICKET PRICES! DO HARVESTERS THEREFORE HAVE RIGHTS TO SHARE IN THE ECONOMIC INTERMEDIARIES’ VALUE-ADDED PROCESSING ALL THE WAY FROM DOCKSIDE TO THE RETAIL READY STAGE?!? If they want a split of the fishermen’s “20% or less” then we want a share of their “80% or more” globally. States and nations must also concern themselves with picking up the social costs of this increasing price-fixing around the world. Alaska sits on its duff and plays dumb to it all, and to Abusive Transfer Pricing and the FISHRON it indicates. At least the fishermen pay USA taxes!
While we ready an update, read this PDF to learn about the corruption inherent in the RPP (Rockfish Pilot Program) Cooperative going back over a decade, which might be insight into how the legal case will see potential intervention or amicus filings by smaller processor(s): GlobalSfds_KodiakCityWS_Nov7-2006
Note also the posting of an “Envoy” file Envoy2WORD for Groundswell over over 100 pages, from 1998-99 = an education piece that outlined many of our articles, NPFMCouncil testimonies, and led to the Advisory Panel in a 1998 motion (scrapped by Japan’s own lobbyist who chaired the council!) of concern about the real value of our Alaska zone fisheries:
“Request staff include a discussion of transfer pricing and market control on wholesale prices and raw fish values.”
Groundswell will be back to update this, and include a loadable PDF of the complaint, a first draft of an outline of the law suit, and table of rockfish coops, companies and their percentages of the harvest received by the Big-5. Note, most of the plaintiffs are hiding under USA subsidiary names, but are actually parts of transnational Foreign-Controlled Corporations who want to lock up USA global seafoods trade, in violation of the Clayton Act, the WTO and other highest-order Congressional approved International Treaties.
Comments are welcome, especially your insights as to the implications of the case on other fisheries cooperatives, LAPPs, new entrants locked out, other smaller processors who are not plaintiffs, as well as on rights of captains and crewmembers, etc.