On June 25, the National Marine Fisheries Service published proposed regulations intended to put into effect the limits on fishing for bigeye tuna in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean set by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission.
The service had already informed U.S.-flagged purse seiners of the closure of waters around the equator from August 1 to September 11, the draft rules stated. But when it came to implementing the IATTC’s proposed limits on longline catches, NMFS apparently decided that the catch levels would be below any threshold of concern.
“The portion of the U.S. longline fleet (approximately 18 vessels) operating out of California has historically caught bigeye tuna in the swordfish fishery (now closed),” the draft rules state, “so they should not be affected by the longline fishery limit.
“Further, the recent prohibition of swordfish targeting by this fleet has encouraged many of the vessel owners to relocate their activity to Hawai’i (5 have moved or are moving to date); therefore, the likelihood that they will fish in the ETP for bigeye tuna is reduced.” While the Hawai’i fleet occasionally fishes waters of the Eastern Tropical Pacific (defined as east of 150*W and south of 40*N), the fleet, NMFS says, “has not made significant catches in those waters. Also, with the reopening of the swordfish fishery for that fleet, effort directed at bigeye tuna (which has mainly occurred west of the [IATTC] area) should decrease, so there is a very low likelihood that the bigeye catch limit of 100 metric tons will be reached and trigger a closure.”
But is this true?
The proportion of the Hawai’i longliners’ catch of bigeye from water east of the 150*W meridian is indeed small compared to the overall bigeye catch. Yet NMFS’ own statistics on longline catches of bigeye tuna by the Hawai’i fleet alone indicate that past levels have in all likelihood exceeded the 100-ton threshold in some years. Overall catch of bigeye by the Hawai’i fleet has been around 2,500 metric tons annually; if no more than 4 percent of this was caught in the Eastern Tropical Pacific, the 100-ton threshold would be met. According to Allison Routt of NMFS’ Southwest Region, who assisted in preparing the draft rule, the 100-ton figure was developed by biologists at the regional science center.
In addition, it is unlikely that the reopening of the swordfish fishery in Hawai’i will translate into diminished effort directed at bigeye tuna, especially with five or more vessels previously based in California now relocating to Hawai’i. Effort directed at swordfish is strictly limited to about half the number of trips that were made in the 1990s, and so the ability of the larger fleet to fish for swordfish is constrained. That can only mean even greater pressure on tuna, including bigeye.
Paul Dalzell of the Western Pacific Council said that the proposed rule was developed without the council’s input and, in light of its potential impact on the Hawai’i fleet, NMFS at the very least should be required to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis, to gauge the impact of the rule on the Hawai’i fleet.
In addition, the proposed rule is silent on the matter of how longline catch in the regulated area is to be monitored, so that the take of bigeye tuna can be stopped when the limit is reached. When asked about this, Routt of NMFS replied, “That’s a very good question.”
— Patricia Tummons
Volume 15, Number 2 August 2004
Leave a Reply