Sea turtles Need Help; Can Fishery Council Give It?
When hundreds of thousands of dolphins were trapped annually in tuna seines a decade ago, outraged citizens across the country mobilized to reduce the number of dolphins that could be “taken.” Today, almost all canned tuna found on the shelves of markets in the United States bears the “dolphin-free” label.
When sea turtles drowned in the nets of shrimpers in the Gulf of Mexico, again, the outrage was palpable. Congress eventually required the nets to be equipped with escape hatches for the turtles. Although shrimpers fought the requirement for years, they are finding now that turtle excluder devices actually increase their efficiency and reduce unwanted by-catch by up to 70 percent.
In Hawai`i, however, the killing of turtles by the local longline fleet continues unabated and, for the most part, unremarked. In Hawai’i, the turtles still await their champion.
Incidental Take
In the years since longline fishing has been federally regulated, several measures have been taken to reduce the likelihood of what officials call “interactions” between protected species and the fishermen. Since the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council adopted the first Pelagic Fishery Management Plan, in 1987, fishing with drift gillnets has been prohibited in federal waters (although some gillnetting continues in waters controlled by the state).
For the last three years, longline vessels have been required to keep logbooks reporting any interactions with protected species. Also in 1991, to establish a migratory corridor in the northwestern islands for monk seals, a no-fishing zone was extended 50 nautical miles seaward of all the northwestern Hawaiian islands.
The importance of these measures in protecting the seals and seabirds cannot be denied. But the turtles have not been similarly helped.
Short of closing down the fishery, can anything be done?
Avoid Further Harm
One of the points raised by the National Marine Fisheries Service in issuing its biological opinion allowing the taking of up to 752 turtles per year was that no increase in fishing effort should be allowed by the Fishery Management Council until the impact of takings at the current level was determined not to jeopardize the turtles’ long-term chances for recovery.
To make this determination, NMFS is hoping to gain more accurate information on the turtle-longliner interactions through its just-started mandatory observer program. Also, several research projects are intended to help NMFS acquire a better understanding of the effects of hooking on turtles.
But the Fishery Management Council seems unwilling to wait for NMFS’ studies to bear fruit. If its draft Amendment 7 to the Pelagic Fishery management Plan is made final, the overall effect will probably be to increase the level of fishing effort by the longline fleet.
With NMFS studies based on information that, by the time it is compiled and interpreted, is one or two years out of date, and with the Fishery Management Council allowing the fishery to expand, NMFS seems doomed forever to playing catch-up. The turtles, meanwhile, are just plain doomed.
Fishery Management?
Apart from increasing the fishing effort, the proposed Amendment 7 to the Pelagic Fishery Management Plan may bring other, irreversible changes to the longline fishery. The conversion of existing permits, which are not transferable, to transferable permits endows them with the status of a commodity that can be bought and sold. Should the stocks of the pelagic fish targeted by the longline fleet be depleted to the point that they can no longer support the fishing effort made by 167 large longline vessels, the Fishery Management Council will find it all but impossible to cut back on the number of permitted boats. In the parlance of fishery managers, the fishery will then be over-capitalized, with the amount of investment in the fleet unable to generate a reasonable return on that investment.
The consequences of over-capitalization can be dire. As more boats chase fewer fish, the catch per unit effort (an important measure in the health of fishery stocks) drops, while the fishing effort grows – and with it, the by-catch of species such as turtles and other innocent bystanders of the marine world.
Already, an advisory body to the Fishery Management Council has warned that increased fishing effort could endanger stocks of the highly desired swordfish. The catches of some tuna species also may be exceeding optimum levels.
Given the Council’s makeup, one can hardly be surprised that so many of its decisions favor the short-term wishes of the fishing industry. Changes proposed to the Magnuson Act could make all eight councils more responsive to the need to manage our resources more conservatively. Our report on this subject cannot do justice to the issue. Readers wanting to learn more may write for information to Bill Mott, Marine Fish Conservation Network Coordinator, Center for Marine Conservation, 1725 DeSales Street NW Washington, DC 20036.
Shark Attacks
The destruction of sharks by the longline fleet is abhorrent and cruel, to say nothing of wasteful and inhumane. We will leave it to others to describe the great potential value of the sharks in cancer research or the important role they occupy at the head of the oceanic food chain.
For us, it is enough simply that these magnificent creatures are being crippled and allowed to die a lingering and in all likelihood painful death (sharks have nervous systems, too).
The fact that the longline fleet and its regulators see nothing wrong with this practice itself gives one pause. Are these people worthy to be entrusted with the management of such valuable commodities – and such marvelous and varied creatures – as the fish in our ocean?
Erratum
In February, we erroneously reported that the Lana’i Company’s Tom Leppert was president of The Nature Conservancy of Hawai’i. Leppert is one of 30 members of the Conservancy’s Advisory Board of Trustees, but he is not president. We regret the error.
Volume 4, Number 10 April 1994