State Wrestles with New Rules As Bottomfish Decline Continues

posted in: October 1996 | 0

News that the most popular species of bottomfish in Hawai`i are overfished is hardly news at all anymore. For years, populations of snappers have declining. As an indication of just how scarce the fish have become, in 1995, it was harder to catch a bottomfish in the Main Hawaiian Islands than it has been in any of the 47 years for which records exist.

Or, as fisheries managers say, the catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) — an important measure of the population’s health –was at its lowest point since 1948.

The state Department of Land and Natural Resources’ Division of Aquatic Resources, which is responsible for managing most of the bottomfish fishing grounds around the main islands, has been trying for the last two years to develop ways of reducing pressures on these species of prized fish. It sponsored a series of meetings with anglers across the state to discuss recovery options. Out of those discussions emerged a management plan whose centerpiece is a proposal for area closures. Under this proposal, about 20 percent of the bottomfish grounds around each county would be off-limits for an indefinite period.

But to implement this proposal, the Division of Aquatic Resources has to change its rules. Rules have been drafted, but since May, they have been under review by the Department of Attorney General, which does not appear to moving with the sense of urgency that drives others more closely involved with the problem. According to acting DAR administrator Bill Devick, the attorney general has objected to some provisions in the rules as unstatutory. The rules are undergoing revision now, Devick said. The division’s goal, which had been to have the rules in place by the end of the year, “may be optimistic,” he noted.

In recent meetings, members of the federal Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council have expressed growing displeasure over the state’s slow pace in developing and implementing new fishing rules. Last April, the council authorized its Bottomfish Plan Team to develop a contingency plan for managing areas under federal jurisdiction at Penguin Bank. Penguin Bank, which lies southwest of Moloka`i, is one of the most productive bottomfishing areas in the state.

Apart from Penguin Bank, however, most of the bottomfishing grounds in the Main Hawaiian Islands lie under state control. Until pending changes in the Magnuson Act pass Congress and are signed by the president, the council is not really able to pre-empt state control over bottomfish fishing in waters out to the three-mile limit of state jurisdiction.

Red Light Conditions

The Magnuson Act defines overfishing by referring to estimates of the present reproductive potential of a given species in relation to what that potential would be for the “virgin” — or unfished — stocks. When this spawning potential ratio falls to 20 percent or below, the fishery is determined to be in a “red-light” condition, where fishing may be halted altogether or severely restricted.

According to data prepared by the National Marine Fisheries Service in Honolulu, the spawning potential ratio value for onaga (Etelis coruscans, or red snapper) is 6 percent; for ehu (E. carbunculus, also commonly known as red snapper) the SPR value is 7 percent; and for hapu`upu`u (E. quernus, or sea bass), it is 20 percent. The data are summarized in the 1995 report, “Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region,” published in August 1996 by the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. “These SPR levels are red-light conditions demanding immediate attention,” the report states.

The bottomfish management plan developed by the Division of Aquatic Resources and its ad-hoc Fishermen’s Advisory Panel considered several options before deciding to go with the area closures.

Devick, administrator of the division, told Environment Hawai`i why that approach was favored:

“We looked at the seasonal closures which were originally proposed, and we did not feel that they would be at all effective for a number of reasons.

“First, if we look at onaga, they don’t reproduce until they are nine to ten pounds in weight and five to six years old. Given this long life span, slow rate of growth, and long period toward maturation, having a limited seasonal closure isn’t going to provide much protection of the potential spawning stock.

“Second, the seasonal closure that was proposed was from July to October. This coincides with the peak spawning period, but also with lowest catches of the season. Landings of onaga and ehu peak during late fall and winter. This means that a July-October closed season will have little effect on reducing the landings of adult fish.

“Another point: the number of eggs a female produces increases almost exponentially with the size of the fish. A larger fish produces far more eggs. Seasonal closure would do nothing to protect the large, mature spawning fish.”

Self-Policing Enforcement

Calling seasonal closures “nothing but an eyewash,” Devick went on to say that since the proposed seasonal closures would apply only to onaga and ehu, people would continue to fish in the same grounds for opakapapa, kalekale, and other bottomfish. Inevitably, he said, they would catch onaga and ehu as well. Even if they threw the fish back, most fish caught would probably not survive the experience.

Area closures were settled on “as the best option,” Devick said. “First, closed areas are effective year-round, protecting schools and spawning fish from fishing pressures. We hope in time to see stable schools develop.”

Closed areas have been working well in other parts of the world, he noted. “We have small local examples in our Fishery Management Areas and Marine Life Conservation Districts, where fish populations build up despite a significant degree of poaching.”

Also, he continued, “eggs and larvae produced in the closed areas disperse into open waters, providing seed stock for onaga and ehu elsewhere.”

On the matter of potential enforcement difficulties, Devick said he was confident that the closed areas “will become familiar to fishermen concerned about fish and be valued, making self-enforcement more effective.” In fact, he continued, “the self-policing aspect may be the biggest advantage closed areas have over other options in terms of regulatory enforcement.”

Although the rules initially drafted by his division included establishment of a marine recreational fishing permit requirement, the attorney general’s office has indicated there is no statutory basis for this. Even if that is dropped, however, the rules still contain bag limits for recreational fishermen of no more than 10 onaga and ehu per vessel, regardless of the number of anglers aboard.

The Division of Aquatic Resources’ efforts to develop the bottomfish management plan through consultation with fishermen has earned it praise from members of the regional council who, in the past, have been highly critical of the state.

Yet not all fishermen are sold on the idea, Devick acknowledged. “I get angry calls from fishermen all day long” about the proposed area closures, Devick said.

Volume 7, Number 4 October 1996