Endangered Species Act Violations Brought Against Vessels Accused of Targeting Swordfish

posted in: August 2002 | 0

In May, Environment Hawai`i reported on the apparent targeting of swordfish by Honolulu longliners nominally fishing for tuna in the North Pacific. At the June meeting of the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, a memo from the senior enforcement attorney for NMFS’ Southwest Region, Paul Ortiz, provided details.

Four vessels – Moonlight, Sea Diamond II, Captain Millions I, and Paradise 2001 – were charged with targeting swordfish. Among them, they caught almost 50,000 pounds of swordfish, which fetched $140,254 at auction. Proceeds from all sales of swordfish were seized by NMFS, which also assessed fines against each vessel of $15,000.

Two of the vessels also were fined for Endangered Species Act violations resulting from their hooking of loggerhead sea turtles. The Sea Diamond II was fined $6,000 for hooking and killing a loggerhead, while the Paradise 2001 was fined $3,600 for hooking and wounding a loggerhead.

Ordinarily, anyone who injures or kills a sea turtle in the course of longline fishing is protected against prosecution by the incidental take permit issued by NMFS. The decision to seek penalties for the catch of sea turtles by a longliner is unusual. Ortiz was asked about this.

“My argument to the judge will be that incidental take statement covers lawful fishing,” he said. “Once you decide to target swordfish and use illegal gear to do it, you lose the protection of the incidental take permit.

“In one of those cases, the vessel had a set when they took a turtle using lawful gear and fishing for tuna. That was a lawful take. And then two weeks later, they had an unlawful take. I feel fairly confident argument will win, but it isn’t the standard type of charge we have.”

Shark Finning

Although shark finning has been banned in the United States, it continues to occur. The Sea Diamond II was charged with one count of violating the Shark Finning Prohibition Act and fined $5,000. According to NMFS enforcement agent John Reghi, 245 blue shark fins were found in a trash bag on board the vessel.

Ortiz, the NMFS enforcement attorney, could be heard chuckling when asked in a phone interview how common shark-finning is. Referring to the five cases under prosecution, he said, “of those, we had evidence of shark finning in two or three. Are these boats unique?”

Given the other violations involved, he continued, “I believe they were fairly irresponsible captains and might be loose with rules. How that translates to the rest of the fleet, I’m not sure. I think it still goes on, mainly because the money from the sale of the shark fins normally goes to crew. Unless the skipper is really attentive to what’s going on, there’s always the possibility that the crew is going to pull up the sharks, fin them, and put them back over the side before he’s aware. I can’t give any percentage on how prevalent it is, but am sure it’s still going on. We haven’t had an opportunity to send a strong message about enforcement of the Shark Finning Prohibition Act through press releases about penalties, but once that happens, people will start to pay attention.”

The cash from proceeds of swordfish sales has already gone to NMFS. Disposition of the charges relating to turtle takes, finning, and swordfish fishing is pending. “Most cases settle,” Ortiz said. Administrative hearings have been requested by most of the parties. “We’re now in a pre-hearing/settlement negotiation phase.”

— Patricia Tummons

Volume 13, Number 2 August 2002

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *