Fishing isn’t what it used to be.
The complaint is heard frequently. But is there evidence to support it? Or is it rather an expression of nostalgia for simpler times, when fishing (and almost everything else) seemed less complicated, less regulated, and more satisfying?
The data that would support an unequivocal answer are not available. But, in the case of at least two of Hawai’i’s most highly prized catches – onaga and opakapaka – such information as there is backs up the complaints.
The effort that goes into catching these fish in waters around the Main Hawaiian Islands is rising, with total annual catches declining. Smaller and smaller fish are being caught, which suggests that fewer and fewer fish out there are reaching spawning age. If nothing is done by the state to limit the catch, the onaga population may collapse in the near future, with opakapaka likely to follow.
The state Department of Land and Natural Resources’ Division of Aquatic Resources has compiled statistics that, while admittedly incomplete, show that catches of opakapaka and onaga over the last five years have pretty much been on a downhill slide. The annual reported catch of onaga by commercial fishermen in the Main Hawaiian Islands, for example halved in five years – from 141,000 pounds in 1988 to 68,500 pounds in 1992 (the last year for which annual totals are available).
While bills in the 1994 legislature propose a three-month closed season for onaga, opposition from commercial fishermen – and the state itself – has made it unlikely they will come up for a hearing in committee, much less be enacted into law. On its own, the DLNR could impose more stringent regulations on fishing in state waters; the chance of that occurring, however, would appear to be even less likely than passage of legislation.
Increasing Pressures
Opakapaka (Pristipomoides filamentosus) is also known as pink snapper. Onaga, or ula’ula koa’e (Etelis coruscans), is otherwise known as longtail snapper or sometimes red snapper. Both these species are among some 61 varieties of bottomfish that generally occupy the same type of deep-water habitat (180 to 900 feet below the surface) and which are caught by the same fishing methods (generally handlines) in and around Hawai’i. These varieties represent four families of fish: snappers (Lutjanidae), groupers (Serranidae), Jacks (Carangidae), and emperor fishes (Lethrinidae). Of the 65 species, only about 20 are fished commercially.
Ancient Hawaiians used to catch opakapaka and onaga as well as several other bottomfish species by hook-and-line methods and live bait. But these fish were not as popular with Hawaiians as were certain smaller inshore fish.
Pressures on bottomfish increased with the arrival in Hawai’i of Japanese immigrants. “Several of the leading species in the catch are red or reddish in their coloration,” according to a history of this fishery contained in the DLNR’s first Hawai’i Fisheries Development Plan (1979). [A]mong the Japanese immigrants they seem to have found acceptance as a substitute for red tai (sea bream) of Japan as a showy and auspicious fish to be served on festive occasions. The regular December peak in landings of these species reflects the demand for them as an important dish in local New Years feasts.”1 To the present, December landings of opakapaka and onaga account for a high percentage of the annual catch.
Commercial fishing for bottomfish began in the late 19th century. By 1925, the territorial legislature, mentioning concerns over a “decreasing supply of fish,” put a one-pound minimum size limit on the sale of any opakapaka, onaga uku (gray jobfish, Aprion virescens) or ulua (any of several members of the Carangidae family, or jack fish, including the white ulua or giant trevally, Caranx ignobilis; the black ulua, or black jack, C. lugubria; the pig ulua or thick-lipped trevally, Pseudocaranx dentex, also known to the Japanese as butaguchi; and the kahala, or amberjack, Seriola dumerili).2
Dwindling Stocks?
At the onset of World War II, commercial fishing activity came to a dead halt. Boats were confiscated and coastal runs were restricted. When wartime conditions lifted, however, the fishing industry quickly swelled – and to a level that could not be sustained. According to the 1979 DLNR fisheries plan, “Immediately following the war, fishing in Hawaii reached its peak intensity, with over 3,500 commercial fishermen. However, within a few years, the fishing industry began to decline as constraints came into play.” By 1965, both commercially licensed fishermen and commercial boats reached their lowest point in recent times (approximately 600 fishermen and 300 boats).3
Catch levels for bottomfish followed this trend. State records show that in 1948, the total reported catch for deep-sea bottomfish was more than a million pounds. By 1970, the haul had dropped to 357,000 pounds. In that same period, opakapaka was the leading species, both by weight and by value. And, while in the early post-war years, a large percentage of the catch was made up of fish from shallower depths, such as ulua and kahala, as time went by, the proportion of these fish in the total catch diminished as the proportion of opakapaka and onaga grew. The DLNR report attributed such trends to “the improved technology for deep fishing, and perhaps the effects of exploitation on the stocks of the more accessible species.”4
The 1979 DLNR fisheries plan had this to say about bottomfish stocks: “most of them in waters around the main [Hawaiian] islands are probably being exploited at or near the maximum production which they are capable of sustaining.” The maximum sustainable yield for opakapaka, for example, was estimated at 115,000 pounds per year; the 1977 catch, however, was 151,000 pounds. For onaga, the sustainable yield was put at 60,000 pounds; for 1977, the catch was 67,350 pounds. Almost the entire bottomfish catch came from areas within the Main Hawaiian Islands. While one or two “large sampans” caught bottomfish in the southern part of the North Western Hawaiian Islands, the plan said, successful commercial expansion of the bottomfish fleet in that direction was deemed to be uncertain, both because of the problems in delivering high-quality fish from such a distance and because so little was known then about bottomfish stocks in that area.
Buildup
Starting in 1978, the Hawai’i bottomfish catch took a sudden upward turn, with 212,100 pounds of opakapaka and 191,200 pounds of onaga caught in 1984 in waters around the Main Hawaiian Islands.5 These harvests represented dramatic increases over the 1977 catch reports (a 40 percent increase for opakapaka, and a 280 percent increase for onaga). When the 1984 catches were compared with the estimated sustainable yield contained in the 1979 state plan, the discrepancies are even greater than those for 1977. The 1984 harvest of opakapaka was nearly double (180 percent) the sustainable yield of 115,000 pounds per year. The 1984 catch for onaga represented more than three times (319 percent) the estimated sustainable yield of 60,000 pounds per year. The bottomfish fleet had grown from five boats in 1983 to more than 20 boats in 1984.
In 1985, the DLNR updated its 1979 fisheries management plan. Once more, it emphasized expansion of the states fishing fleet. Despite the discrepancies between estimated sustainable yields for opakapaka and onaga, on the one hand, and the annual catches on the other, fishing for these and other bottomfish remained virtually unrestricted – except for the minimum-size limits established by the 1925 legislature.
The state issued its third, and most recent, fishery plan in 1992 – this one prepared by a private California consultancy firm specializing in fishery management. This time the plan recommended a marked change in the state’s efforts at fishery management. “[T]he main problem facing Hawai’i in the immediate future is resource, conservation and allocation,” the plan stated, “and development programs should not dilute, or divert from the main mission of the DAR: protecting, restoring, and allocating Hawai’i’s marine resources.”
According to the 1992 plan, “With few exceptions, all the fishery resources of the state are seen as fully, or over, exploited.”
Stressed Out?
There are at least three basic measures used to assess the health of a fishery: the percent of immature fish among the catch; the fishery’s spawning potential ratio (SPR); and the catch per unit effort.
The most straightforward of these is the percent of immature fish in the total catch. If more than half the catch is immature that is, below the size at which it can reproduce – the fishery is probably stressed.
The spawning potential ratio compares the existing “spawning stock biomass per recruit” – crudely stated, this is the amount of mature fish required to produce a recruit, or young fish – to the spawning stock biomass that is estimated to have existed among the fish before they were commercially exploited. When the SPR hits or falls below .20, “recruitment overfishing has occurred (i.e., spawners have been reduced to 20 percent or less of their unexploited stock levels).”6 When this occurs, the fishery is considered to be overfished and is in danger of collapsing (that is, the remaining fish will not be able to reproduce to the level where stocks can be successfully fished again).
The catch-per-unit-effort is intended to show whether it is becoming easier or harder to catch fish. This can be a measure of the yield per number of hooks set, or of hours spent fishing per unit of catch. A rise or fall in this measure over time can also be a good indication of the health of a given population of fish.
Bad News
Hawai’i’s data on fish catches are imperfect, as is more fully described elsewhere in this issue. Still, what data exist can be used to disclose broad trends in bottomfish stocks around the Main Hawaiian Islands.
By the first measure (the percent of the total catch made up of immature fish), onaga are in trouble. Data that the National Marine Fisheries Service collected from the Honolulu auction show that for every year since 1984, more than half of the onaga catch from the Main Hawaiian Islands has consisted of immature fish. In the four years since 1988 for which data are available, more than 70 percent of the catch has been immature.
The spawning potential ratio of onaga is also seriously low. It has been at or below 20 percent since 1989, dropping to slightly more than 10 percent in 1991.
Finally, the catch-per-unit-effort rate is decreasing for onaga. In the early 1950s, when the fishery was relatively unexploited, onaga catches per day of effort approached and even exceeded 600 pounds in the Main Hawaiian Islands. By the early 1990s, the catch-per-unit-effort was less than a third of that (between 150 and 200 pounds per day).
The onaga is the extreme example. But data collected by NMFS and the Division of Aquatic Resources show similar trends for opakapaka and most of the other commercially valuable bottomfish in the Main Hawaiian Islands. For the bottomfish fishery as a whole, the catch effort rate has dropped from a peak of 1,400 pounds per day in 1953 to under 200 pounds per day in 1992.
A Coming Crash?
The Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council regarded the figures in the 1992 bottomfish report with such alarm that in 1993, it considered imposing stricter regulations on the catch of bottomfish in federal waters of the Main Hawaiian Islands. In February 1993, the council held hearings across the islands on a proposal to impose a three-pound minimum size limit on opakapaka. (The state’s one-pound minimum for the fish does not allow it to grow to maturity) But with more than 80 percent of the bottomfishing grounds in the Main Hawaiian Islands occurring in state waters, the regional council abandoned the effort as virtually impossible to enforce unless the state regulations also changed. In addition, with less than 20 percent of the fishery being subject to the stricter rule, there would be very little point in adopting such a regulation. (Under federal law, it would be impossible for the regional council to take over management of the entire Main Hawaiian Islands bottomfish fishery. Regional councils can supersede state jurisdiction only when two conditions apply: state authorities are failing to do their jobs, and more than half of the fishery is under federal jurisdiction. The first condition probably applies in Hawai’i; the second one does not.)
Instead, at its April 1993 meeting, the regional council voted to give the state responsibility for taking the lead in management of the entire bottomfish fishery in the Main Hawaiian Islands, including that small portion under federal jurisdiction. In the letter notifying Governor John Waihe’e of this action, council Chairman Rufo Lujan pointed out that “management efforts by the Council require consistent state regulations to be effective.”
“Without consistent state regulations,” Lujan wrote, “enforcement difficulties and noncompliance greatly increase, the biological effectiveness of the measures is reduced, and time and money spent by the Council developing monitoring programs and federal fishing regulations maybe wasted. Therefore, until the State of Hawai’i has in place an effective management regime for state waters, the Council has decided not to develop further federal regulations for bottomfish around the Main Hawaiian Islands.”
Noting that “some bottomfish stocks in the MHI have reached the condition of being ‘seriously overfished,”‘ Lujan advised Waihe’e that “the Council strongly recommends that the state move quickly to implement appropriate management measures to correct this situation…. A three-month closed season was recommended by the Council’s advisory groups for onaga and (possibly) opakapaka in all MHI waters.”
Nothing Doing
Regional council Chairman Lujan had to wait nearly seven months for a response, which, when it came in December 1993, was not from Waihe’e but from Keith Ahue, chairman of the Board of Land and Natural Resources. Ahue appears not to have understood that transfer of responsibility to the state applied only to the small part of bottomfishing grounds outside state waters. “Your letter mentions transition of lead responsibility for managing MHI bottomfish to the state,” Ahue wrote Lujan. “Please understand,” he continued, “that the state of Hawai’i already has management authority over fisheries resources in our waters.”
Ahue agreed that minimum sizes for sales of opakapaka should be increased to three pounds, but placed responsibility for doing this on the legislature: The DLNR, he wrote, “has for a number of years pursued amending the state law on minimum size for sale of opakapaka. … Understanding the state legislative process, a measure needs to be introduced a few consecutive years before achieving understanding, agreement and passage.” On the matter of closing the season for onaga, Ahue did not agree, saying instead that there were too many “unknown factors” about onaga to justify regulatory action.
While the state could close seasons for the taking of these fish by administrative rule, Ahue indicated to Lujan that this would not occur. “We believe that any acceptance of rule making on our part will be viewed as our being ready to immediately implement such actions, which is not the case. The procedures to promulgate statewide rules require funds and manpower that are not readily available at this time. Due to severe budgetary constraints, state agencies are instructed not to undertake new activities that would replace existing program commitments.”
Overdue Bills
In the 1994 legislative session, Representative Ken Hiraki introduced a bill that would establish a closed season for onaga during the months of July, August and September. (There is no bill for increasing minimum size of opakapaka.) With Henry Sakuda of the Division of Aquatic Resources having indicated already his opposition to the bill (citing, as he has repeatedly the need for better data), prospects for passage would seem dim.
1 State of Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural Resources, Hawai`i Fisheries Development Plan (1979), page 261.
2 Information on bottomfish species is drawn from the Fishery Management Plan for bottomfish and seamount groundfish (March 1986), published by the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council.
3 Hawai`i Fisheries Development Plan, pp. 6-7.
4 See Hawai`i Fisheries Development Plan, page 261.
5 Figures taken from Table 5-7 in the WPRFMC bottomfish fishery management plan, page 5-17.
6 See Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region, 1992 Annual Report (August 1993), published by Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, page 3.
— Patricia Tummons
Volume 4, Number 9 March 1994
Leave a Reply