Russian Fishing 4
Even the most patient of fishing fans would become disheartened by the pace of this simulation, which is slowed even further by the glacial grind of selling your puny catches to afford better equipment, as well as the gradual levelling up required to visit better fishing spots. Geared towards pushing you into a microtransaction or two, progress is tuned to be mildly arduous and is, by the very nature of being a simulation, entirely removed from the real world benefits of impaling fish on tiny hooks for fun. Standing alone on a riverbank eating egg sandwiches, drinking tea and sucking down great lungfuls of clean country air is nourishment to the body and mind.
Russian Fishing 4
And so, I put my rod down and step away from the riverbank, turning to face the surrounding woods. An invisible wall prevents me from leaving the designated fishing zone, though with some well-timed sprinting and probing of the fence I manage to break out of this glass cage. I push on into the wilderness, the trees gradually losing their definition until they are simple cardboard cutouts. I am a goldfish escaped from its bowl. The landscape flattens out into a featureless plain.
The Norwegian government, however, chose to keep the ports open for Russian fishing vessels to protect the Norwegian-Russian fishery cooperation. Fishing boats can both land fish and change crew at Norwegian ports.
The exception also faces criticism in Norway, most recently in an editorial in Adresseavisen, which calls it "disappointingly defencive by the government", with a reference to a well-known Russian oligarch who owns fishing vessels which now have free access to Norwegian ports.
"A port ban against Russian fishing vessels will be the final nail in the coffin for the bilateral cooperation with Russia in many ways and it will be very dramatic if Norway chooses to do so. However, it is simultaneously the most effective thing that Norway can do right now, that does not have to do with the EU agreement."
The Russian government said it will allocate RUB 17.2 billion (USD 275.7 million, EUR 261.2 million) between 2023 and 2025 to aid 36 fishing vessel equipment projects in production in an attempt to make up for the loss of Western suppliers.
As a general rule, fishermen from other countries were not permitted to fish within Norway's territorial limits at all. Moreover, while the extent of the territorial limit was only one sea mile,3 as a practical matter it was impossible to operate a fishing vessel off the Finnmark coast, regardless of the territorial limit, without access to facilities on shore. It was essential for fishermen to have a place to shelter on shore, to put the fish out on racks to dry, and to repair their equipment. With two exceptions, however, foreign fishermen were banned from spending time ashore. These exceptions applied to fishermen from Russia and to Sámi from Sweden-Finland.
Those Sámi who migrated between Norway and Sweden-Finland, as permitted under the Lapp Codicil, enjoyed the same rights to fish off the coast of Finnmark as the county's permanent inhabitants. Accordingly, the restrictions that applied to the nordfarere did not apply to Sámi from the Finnish side of the border, who came with their reindeer to the coast of Finnmark during the summer.6 Indeed, for many of these Sámi access to the coastal fisheries was the primary motivation for their seasonal migration. Finnmark's coastal fisheries were extremely important for the Utsjoki and Inari Sámi, for whom reindeer husbandry was merely a secondary reason for migrating.7 The coastal fishing rights accorded by the Lapp Codicil to Sámi inhabiting the border territory were purely for the benefit of the Sámi. They did not apply to other inhabitants of Sweden-Finland.8
Like the nordfarere and the Sámi, Russian fishermen had also fished along the coast of Finnmark for centuries. A royal rescript dated 10 February 1747 gave Russian fishermen the right to maintain quarters on shore while fishing in the area. Unlike the nordfarere, however, the Russians were not confined to areas uninhabited by the local population. However, the Russians were only permitted to fish outside Norway's territorial limit, which extended for one sea mile from the coast (see note 3). The rescript also mandated that Russian fishermen pay a fee for each fishing vessel.
A note authored in 1775 by the governor of Finnmark, Amtmann Fjeldsted, provides evidence of the presence of large numbers of Russian fishermen in Finnmark. According to Fjeldsted, the Russians had erected 13 dwellings on Sørøya and had overwintered on the island. There were 36 Russian vessels at Sørøya, 15 at Hammerfest, and as many as 63 at Måsøy. Another 19 Russian vessels were anchored at Kjelvik on the island of Magerøya, a further three at Kjøllefjord, and 29 at Omgang.10 Meanwhile at Vardø there were as many as 79 Russian fishing vessels. Each boat had a crew of four or five men, which meant that, in total, approximately 1,000 Russian fishermen were present in Finnmark. Amtmann Fjeldsted further noted that fish caught by the Russians was being transported to Arkhangelsk (Archangel).11
During the 19th century a trade monopoly applied in Finnmark, and the wealthy merchants who controlled the monopoly looked with disfavour on the Pomor trade. This trade was discussed during negotiations on a trade treaty between Russia and Denmark-Norway signed in 1782.13 The Danes wanted to put an end to the Pomor trade in Finnmark, and the Russians issued a decree to the effect that the Russian Tsar forbade his subjects from trading and bartering in Finnmark. Nonetheless, Russian fishermen were allowed, in an emergency, to seek refuge in Finnmark, and while there had the right to trade in necessary goods, repair their equipment, and salt their fish. Otherwise Russian fishermen were banned from trading with the inhabitants of Finnmark. Not only was the Pomor trade banned, but Russian fishing activities off Finnmark were adversely affected.
The ban on Russian trading activities in Finnmark can scarcely have been enforced particularly strictly, since we have evidence of the importance of the Pomor trade during precisely this period. A few years later, in 1787, the trade monopoly was abolished and all restrictions on trade were lifted in Finnmark. The commission that prepared the royal ordinance concerning free trade in Finnmark declared that Russian fishing activities in Finnmark were not damaging to Norwegian interests, especially if Norwegian subjects were to be granted permission to fish along the Russian coast.
Even though the Russian presence was not viewed as damaging, this did not mean that it was not a source of conflict. Russian fishing activities were limited to sea fishing, but the vessels cannot have operated particularly far out to sea, given that complaints against the Russians cited the fact that they put out their lines so close to shore that they prevented other vessels from accessing the most important fishing banks.14 In 1817, the authorities in Finnmark obtained the assistance of a naval vessel to ensure that the Russians did not fish within the one-sea-mile limit established under the rescript of 1747.15
An overview of the situation during the period 1831 to 1892 shows that throughout this period the Russian fishermen used Kiberg as their base during the fishing season. In 1891, 106 Russian vessels, crewed by 424 men, were registered as present at Kiberg. This is the highest figure mentioned in the overview. According to the document, the Russian fishermen do not appear to have exercised their right to anchor at the other places permitted under the 1830 statute, apart from at Hamningberg during the first 10 years.17
Russian fishing activities were also considered by a commission established in 1867.19 Given that the Russians had only been present in Kiberg during the previous 20 years, the commission proposed that in future their presence should be restricted to Kiberg, and that they should henceforth be barred from the other fishing harbours to which they had been granted access under the statute of 1830. In return, the commission suggested that they should be allowed to fish within the one-sea-mile territorial limit. This suggestion was made in the light of the extreme difficulties experienced in ensuring that the Russians adhered to the one-sea-mile limit. In the commission's view, it would be better for them to have a single base, rather than being distributed further afield. The ministry, however, was unable to support the proposal. A trade treaty with Russia dating from 1838 gave certain advantages to Norwegian exporters of herring and saltfish to Russia. These advantages were conditional upon the maintenance of the access given to Russians by the statute of 1830 to the fisheries off the coast of Finnmark. This meant that Norway could not amend the statute of 1830 without entering into negotiations with Russia. The foreign minister for Sweden-Norway20 did not consider it appropriate to ask Russia to enter into such negotiations. Accordingly, the rules governing Russian access to the fisheries off Finnmark remained unchanged.21
A new law concerning saltwater fishing off Finnmark was passed in 1897.22 The commission that drafted this statute considered once again the question of Russian fishing activities in Finnmark. The commission determined that the access to shore-based facilities enjoyed by Russian fishermen in Finnmark was greatly to the disadvantage of Norwegian fishermen. The commission highlighted the fact that Norwegian fishermen did not enjoy equivalent privileges along the coast near Murmansk. Since the Russian privileges in Finnmark were wholly dependent on Norwegian law, Norway was free to revoke them. On the other hand, there was the issue of the advantages granted to Norwegian exporters of herring and saltfish to Russia by virtue of the trade treaty of 1838, which as mentioned above were dependent on the continuance of Russian access to fisheries off the coast of Finnmark. When exports of herring and saltfish were taken into account, it became clear that it was important to retain the advantages granted to the Norwegian export trade under the 1838 trade treaty. In the light of these considerations, the commission did not find it advisable to abolish the rules of the 1830 statute concerning Russian fishing activities.23 The commission emphasised however that it was important to ensure that the restrictions placed on the Russian fishermen under the 1830 statute were adhered to. Specifically, there were several examples of Russian fishing vessels based in places that were not permitted under the 1830 rules. In recent years, for example, many Russian vessels had maintained a presence in Vardø. On a single day in 1888, the presence of 70 Russian vessels, crewed by 300 men, had been recorded in the harbour at Vardø. In spite of strong warnings from both the Norwegian authorities and the Russian vice consul, the Russians were not willing to leave. The Russians claimed that they were not in breach of the statutory provisions so long as they stayed on board their vessels with their fishing equipment and gutted the fish on board. 041b061a72