One of the observers employed by the Southwest Region of the National Marine Fisheries Service has sent Environment Hawai`i the following comments on the observer program:
I began work with the Hawai`i Longline Observer Program because, from all appearances, it was geared toward the protection of endangered species. Unfortunately, I found the Southwest Region of the National Marine Fisheries Service to be oppressive to observers in this program and deceitful to the public.
Upon training and as I got into the actual work, I noticed contradictions between the written objectives of the program and what actually transpired. For instance, although we were told that our priorities were with protected species, most of our duties involved the collection of data and speciments of management species (i.e., swordfish and tuna). From the onset of the program in February 1994 until December 1994, NMFS had for 13 observers only three dipnets to bring the sea turtles safely on board for the collection of life history information as recommended in the 1994 Biological Opinion. It wasn’t until nine months into the mandatory program that observers received sea turtle tagging equipment (another recommendation in the Biological Opinion). There was no protocol developed (contrary to a third recommendation) to bring back speciments of seabirds or marine mammal parts, if retrieved dead.
Seabirds Are Killed
The Southwest Region of NMFS hung a permanent job over our heads and then told us we couldn’t talk. We were not allowed to discuss our observations among ourselves, with biologists from other agencies or even with biologists within NMFS receiving our data.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for monitoring the status of seabird populations and evaluating the effects on them of longline fishing, but NMFS is obligated to collect data on fishery interactions with seabirds when an observer program is in place. Into the sixth month of the program, we asked what was being done with the seabird data, as large numbers of albatrosses (Laysan and black-footed) were being killed and already three banded birds had been killed. I was told that the protocol had not been designed for the release of the data.
Some of us encouraged the Fish and Wildlife Service to press for the data, which it did. The fisheries observer branch chief in the Southwest Region of NMFS responded that he was reluctant to release the data. To receive the data, he said, the regional director of the Fish and Wildlife Service must formally request the data from the regional director of NMFS. This was done. Finally, one year after the program began, the Fish and Wildlife Service received a response from NMFS, stating that the data would cost them at least $15,000 a year to be edited and electronically transferred to them. A more complicated option would cost $45,000 a year. All the Fish and Wildlife Service wanted to do was send someone over to the Southwest Region of NMFS to copy the raw data.
This was then reported to the Pacific Seabird Group, a private nonprofit organization. In June 1995, it received limited data in response to a request for information filed under the federal Freedom of Information Act.
Plastic Dumping
Observers were told by NMFS’ Southwest Region to ignore fishing and MARPOL [marine pollution]1 violations. Yet, there is no such written directive. Observers and other agencies that questioned this policy have been told that it is to protect the observers’ safety on board and to protect the vessels’ confidentiality. But why should fishing and MARPOL violations be considered to be confidential matters? I have been an observer in programs in other regions where the observer’s manual includes extensive instructions on the reporting of MARPOL and fishing violations. I have never felt that my obligations to report marine pollution or fishing violations jeopardized my safety. It is generally assumed by fishermen that NMFS observers have some contact with enforcement. Indeed, the observer manual for this program, which fishermen are privy to, states that observer data may be used to process observed violations.
Deadly encounters with longline-source debris are well documented. From March 6 to December 31, 1994, there were 859 longline fishing trips in Hawai`i. During my trips as an observer, I saw the discard at sea of an average of about 1,500 light sticks a trip,2 about 300 plastic bait bags each trip, an equal number of plastic strips from bait boxes (1.5 meters per strip), an average of some 30 large plastic garbage bags filled with varying amounts of plastic, assorted plastic floats and float lines, and hundreds of meters of monofilament fishing line.
Observers were prohibited from taking a personal camera, from writing in a diary, or from taking a video camera on board. Upon my return from each trip, I was vaguely debriefed and was not questioned as to whether any violations occurred, nor were my sampling strategies examined.
When an observer spoke with the Coast Guard regarding marine pollution violations, the Coast Guard reported the conversation to NMFS. Although the Coast Guard officer claimed he did not disclose the observer’s name, the observer’s supervisor at NMFS told the observer that there might be some “negative repercussions” for having gone to the Coast Guard. A month later, the observer making the complaint was assigned to a vessel that was taking on water. When he refused, he was fired.
Threats
Before the mandatory observer program for the longline fleet began in 1994, a voluntary program was in place in 1993, which included the placement of observers on bottomfish vessels. At that time, observers were reporting violations and spoke routinely with NMFS enforcement officers. In that year, an observer was told at gunpoint by a bottomfish fisherman not to report an observed interaction with a marine mammal. When the observer returned to shore, he reported the incident to NMFS enforcement in Hawai`i. A year later, I learned that the case against the fisherman had been dropped with no charges filed. The observer had been promoted, the observer protocol had been changed so that no longer were violations to be reported, and the bottomfish vessels were removed entirely from observer coverage.
The original concern with both the longline fishery (when the longline vessels were allowed to fish closer to shore) and the bottomfish fishery was the incidental take of marine mammals, in particular the Hawaiian monk seal. The bottomfish vessels had repeated interactions with the Hawaiian monk seal, but as we learned more about the extent of sea turtle take with the longliners, the sea turtles came to the forefront. There has been no biological opinion to deal with the bottomfish fishery’s impact upon protected species. The bottomfish vessels have been completely removed from any regulations. It is plain that NMFS is once again bowing to industry and is therefore ignoring its obligation to protect the Hawaiian monk seal, whose population is now thought to number between 750 and 1,100 animals.
Juggling Numbers
The longline fleet in Hawai`i expanded rapidly in the early 1990s, but when the National Marine Fisheries Service issued its 1991 biological opinion on the impact of the longline fishery on turtles, it based its allowed incidental take — of 25 turtles caught and three mortalities — on a fishing effort of just 1.4 million hooks. But by March 1991, vessels had already reported 3.5 million hooks set, and by April, 20 sea turtle interactions had already been reported. By the time the opinion was written, in other words, the fleet had probably already exceeded the annual allowed take.
No further action was taken by NMFS until 1993, when NMFS acknowledged it had miscalculated the fishing effort in 1991. While NMFS had estimated 1.4 million hooks set, the actual number was 12.3 million. Extrapolating from observer data, NMFS estimated actual sea turtle take in 1991 to have been 752 sea turtles with a mortality of 299. NMFS then authorized a revised annual take of 752 sea turtles with a mortality of 299 — exactly the amount estimated to have been taken in 1991!
NMFS held a workshop in 1993 on the fate of hooked sea turtles. The purpose was to improve mortality rate estimates and to discuss the need for research to improve the survival rate of turtles hooked and released alive. What NMFS did not consider is the possibility that caught sea turtles may not be returned to the sea at all. Retrieved by longline vessels, dead or alive, sea turtles may be eaten and the body parts may be sold illegally. NMFS is wasting funds into research on the fate of hooked sea turtles while allowing vessels to fish at current unrestricted levels. The fate of hooked sea turtles is simply unknown.
The latest biological opinion was issued in July 1994, estimating an annual take of 847 sea turtles with a mortality of 128. This was based on a projected increase in fishing effort for 1994 of 15.4 million hooks. In setting the incidental take for 1994, then, NMFS used essentially the estimated numbers of turtles taken: 849 turtles hooked, 129 turtles dead.
All of these take levels, in other words, are based solely on the levels of projected fishing effort and have nothing whatever to do with the effects of the fishery on endangered and threatened sea turtle populations.
Frustration
Although observers are reluctant to talk, I think the numbers of those remaining show the level of frustration that we all felt. By March 1995, there were only four remaining of the original 12. For 1994, a meager 5.7 percent of the longline fishing effort was covered by observers for this program. Still, this was considerably higher than in previous years. (In 1991, for example, .22 percent of the fishing was observed under the then-voluntary program; in 1992, .08 percent; and in 1993, .49 percent.) NMFS continues to blame its “limited data” on such meager observer coverage, while simultaneously holding back on placement of observers in the longline fleet.
And now there are rumors that the program will get scrapped for lack of funding. Shouldn’t the bill then fall on the fishermen? Longliners in Alaska are required to pay for 30 percent observer coverage. Why are exceptions being made here? What kind of deals are being made between NMFS and the industry?
1. MARPOL refers to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, an international agreement to which the United States is a party. The Coast Guard is the designated enforcement agency for the United States. MARPOL V regulations forbid the dumping of any plastic. Other types of garbage may be disposed of at distances of greater than three miles from shore, provided the garbage is ground to pieces smaller than one square inch.
2. Lightsticks are luminescent plastic tubes attached to drop lines just above the hooks set for swordfish. Swordfish operations use up to 800 lightsticks, attached to drop lines just above the hooks, for each set. The fish, caught at night, appear drawn to the hooks by the lightsticks.
— Patricia Tummons
Volume 6, Number 4 October 1995
Leave a Reply