“It’s hard, but it’s done already,” Dennis Kamikawa told the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council at its June meeting.
Kamikawa, a commercial bottomfisherman for more than 15 years, is resigned to the harsh limits on bottomfishing recently laid down by state and federal agencies. Even so, Kamikawa questioned the science behind the National Marine Fisheries Service’s 2006 determination that overfishing of seven bottomfish species was occurring in the Main Hawaiian Islands.
“For the last five or six years, I’ve been catching a lot [of fish],” he told the council.
While that may be so, according to federal fisheries scientist Gerard DiNardo, it doesn’t mean the fish aren’t in trouble. For the past 10 to 15 years, fish catches haven’t dipped all that much, so it may seem to many active fishermen that the stocks are healthy, DiNardo said in a presentation before the council.
However, fish catches between 1948 and 2002 show a major downward trend, he said, adding that data on the biomass of bottomfish in the MHI show that they have been overfished since the early 1990s.
“Basically, we had excessive fishing in the 1980s. That’s what brought this thing down,” DiNardo said. (Council member Rick Gaffney suggested that the dip coincided with the rise in popularity of Pacific Rim cuisine, in which bottomfish such as opakapaka and onaga feature prominently.)
Last year, NMFS determined that, based on commercial catch data, overfishing of the state’s “Deep Seven” bottomfish species (ehu, gindai, hapu`upu`u, lehi, kalekale, onaga, and opakapaka) was occurring in the Main Hawaiian Islands. To reverse that trend, NMFS required a 24 percent reduction of bottomfish catch. Although the state’s newly revised reserve system reportedly accomplishes this on its own, the council voted in March to establish a seasonal closure as well as a total allowable catch (TAC) limit of 178,000 pounds, which would apply to both commercial and non-commercial fishermen. (The TAC is a 24 percent reduction of the 2004 commercial catch.)
Since then, the state has adopted complementary rules to allow for this year’s closed season, which began on May 15 and runs through the end of September. And at its June meeting, the council adopted several measures to help implement its new regime, including the following:
• Require non-commercial bottomfishers to get federal permits. Under this scenario, although the council has no jurisdiction over state waters, the state Department of Land and Natural Resources would implement complementary state regulations to make anyone who fishes for bottomfish in state waters be subject to federal permit and reporting requirements.
• Require each individual in the fishery, not just the vessel owners, to have a permit and report his or her catch for every trip, as well at the latitude and longitude where the fish were caught.
• For non-commercial bottomfishermen, set a bag limit of no more than five “Deep 7” fish per day from federal waters.
While the council plans to conduct public hearings and workshops on these new requirements, models depicting how various levels of reduction of bottomfish catches would affect the biomass in the Main Hawaiian Islands suggest that the council’s measures may not be enough. According to recent models, a 24 percent reduction in catch will do little to increase biomass, a measure of the overall health of the stocks, DiNardo said. However, he added, a 60 percent reduction in catches would raise biomass levels to the maximum sustainable yield by 2015.
To council member Dan Polhemus, who is also the administrator for the DLNR’s Division of Aquatic Resources, DiNardo’s model showed that more drastic action is needed to end overfishing.
“Twenty-four percent isn’t really getting us anywhere…If you wanted to see recovery of biomass in the mains [Main Hawaiian Islands], we need to take a bigger cut,” he said, adding that the models also need to take account of the benefit provided by the state’s closed areas.
DiNardo did not endorse an increased reduction in fishing, but said only that the redistribution of effort resulting from greater restrictions needs to be evaluated, and that ultimately, “It’s a societal decision,” whether or not to take severe measures to end overfishing here.
Hawaiian Club, Council
Defend Puwalu Series
At the Council’s June meeting, environmental activists once again accused the council and its staff of illegally using federal funds to help craft and influence state legislation. Among other things, they claimed that four council-sponsored meetings with selected native Hawaiians in 2006 and 2007 led to the introduction of bills in the 2007 Legislative session regarding fishing rights and natural resource management.
Separately, on June 20, Keiko Bonk of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Network, Tina Owens of the LOST Fish Coalition, Maka`ala Ka`aumoana of the Hui Ho`omalu o ke `Aina, and Linda Paul of the Hawai`i Aududon Society announced in a press release that they were filing complaints with the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Inspector General’s office alleging unethical and illegal behavior by the council’s executive director, Kitty Simonds, and other council employees. Another group of environmental organizations, including the Hawai`i Audubon Society, issued a second press release that same day calling for Simonds’ resignation.
In a presentation to the council, fishery ecosystem management coordinator Jarad Makaiau tried to rebut some of their claims, first by explaining the rationale behind the council’s involvement in state waters, which extend three miles out to sea.
Makaiau noted that reports by President George Bush, the Pew Oceans Commission, and the U.S. Ocean Commission all call for an integrated ecosystem approach to managing ocean resources, and that NMFS’s priorities, as of September 2005, call for the protection of coastal resources. Finally, he said that the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which governs the council’s actions, states that the council “shall” make recommendations to address activities in state waters.
With regard to the recent meetings with native Hawaiians – which were called puwalu and included kupuna, or elders, from all islands, cultural practitioners, state legislators and policy makers – Makaiau said that the MSA mandates community participation in ecosystem research, marine education and training, and allows the council to provide grants to indigenous communities to promote indigenous practices.
“Traditionally, [with government committees or councils] you get one brown person who represents all the brown people on your island,” Makaiau said. The puwalu were convened to invite broader participation among the Hawaiian community and to elicit meaningful dialogue and input, he said.
Owens rejected Makaiau’s explanation. “A lot of those clauses in the Magnuson-Stevens Act were put in by your director,” she said, adding, “Stay out…Keep yourself in federal waters.”
Ka`aumoana was a bit more sympathetic.
“I like the idea of including the mana`o (ideas)…Please don’t ever misunderstand that,” she said. However, the council’s decision to take a leadership position in local issues “muddies the waters,” she said, suggesting there may be other ways to encourage community participation.
When Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs member Leimana DaMate tried to explain that the association, not the council, was responsible for organizing the puwalu and introducing legislation based on what was discussed there, Bonk said that specific state legislation was talked about at all of the puwalu.
AOHCC member and former state legislator Annelle Amaral confirmed that the third puwalu, at least, was intended to reach out to policy makers. Amaral, who was hired as a facilitator for the second and third puwalu, noted that she assisted council staff in planning and organizing the meetings. She said she did not think they were intended to create legislation.
“Criticize the AOHCC for drafting legislation from the puwalu. You have no jurisdiction over us,” she said.
Paul was apparently not swayed by Amaral, DaMate or Makaiau, because on July 5, she officially sent her complaint to the Inspector General. According to her letter, the council’s questionable spending precedes the puwalu series.
For example, during the 2006 Legislative session, Paul met with then-Rep. Ezra Kanoho to discuss a worrisome right-to-fish bill. In her letter, Paul claims that Kanoho admitted he had met with council representatives, including Simonds, and that they had urged him to pass the bill.
“When we asked him directly where [the bill] came from, who wrote it, Kanoho replied with a one-word answer ‘WESPAC,’” Paul stated. She also noted that in March 2005, the council had paid thousands of dollars for a four-color, 12-page insert in The Honolulu Advertiser “advocating for continued bottomfishing in the [Northwestern Hawaiians Islands] despite the fact that bottomfishing was being phased out under the terms of President Clinton’s 2000 Executive Order…and the State of Hawaii was in the final stages of rule-making to establish a no-take Marine Refuge in state waters in the NWHI.”
Paul stated that the insert undermined the state’s own NOAA-funded insert on marine protected areas, which appeared at about the same time.
Whether or not the council or its staff has violated any laws remains to be seen. NMFS staff who attended the June meeting would not comment on whether the activists’ claims had any merit, but said that their complaints had been filed with the appropriate agency.
— Teresa Dawson
Volume 18, Number 2 August 2007