Highly Migratory Species Report

by John T. Koegler

(from Jersey Coast Anglers Association November 2000 Newsletter)

INTERNATIONAL BLUEFIN TUNA THEFT DOCUMENTED

In 1976, the US agreed to be part of the International Commission to Conserve Atlantic Tuna or ICCAT. This is a group of 22-member nations that land and sell Atlantic Bluefin Tuna and other Highly Migratory Species. This international organization's fishery science is the best in the world. Unfortunately, their management policies are an example of the guilty pleading insanity.

Our bureaucrats and state department officials are babes in the woods when it comes to international agreements. Desiring to do the right thing by the tuna resource, our bureaucrats imposed stringent rules and regulations to save the bluefin tuna in 1980. The Europeans, past masters at slip and slide when it comes to regulating anything inside their own countries, chose to impose no quotas on themselves. They did not want bluefin tuna quotas. To break this logjam the ICCAT scientists decided there were two populations of bluefin tuna, a western stock and an eastern stock. The ICCAT bureaucrats then drew a line down the Atlantic that separated eastern and western stocks at 45 degrees of Longitude.   The US, Canada and Japan proceeded with new rules and regulations designed to restore the abundance of Bluefin tuna on their side of this line.  Our regulators believed the European countries would eventually conserve if we led by example. What unfolded is one of the most horrible examples of resource theft ever documented.

Twenty years of European bluefin tuna landings tell a shocking story of international tuna theft. In 1980 the US and their partners agreed to reduce their bluefin landings by 65% so bluefin tuna could recover. At that time the reported bluefin tuna landings were:

Understand the Europeans landed and sold an increasing bonanza of tuna. They were able to increase their bluefin tuna landings from a ratio of 2.43 to 1 in 1980 up to 21.75 to 1 by 1996. How could they do this if bluefin were being overfished? It was not because of their conservation. They did not have quotas. Although this landing shift was believed only to be possible because of Western conservation, scientific documentation was missing.

Bluefin Tuna Two stock theory unravels

In 1997 two US scientific groups began tagging Bluefin tuna in large numbers with new computer based pop-up satellite tags. These tags enabled US scientists to know the tuna migration routes for the first time without catching the tuna to retrieve the tag. These new tags would automatically release after a time period of 90,180 or 360 days and report to a satellite indicating where it had been released. Another new high-tech tag known as an archival computer tag was implanted inside the tuna that recorded data on light, depth and temperature. This would tell scientists where the tuna went day by day for a whole year. However, The tuna had to be caught to retrieve the archival tag. These tags have now reported for three years the unknown bluefin tuna migration routes. They report that between 12% and 38% of the pop-up tags reported from the European or Eastern zone. Such tag information proves large numbers of US, Canadian and Japanese conserved tuna were being caught in the European zone. Three of the high-tech archival tags were returned from giant bluefin caught in the Mediterranean. The mixing rate between our side or western side and the Eastern side of the line was supposed to be so low, 1 to 2%, that stock mixing could be ignored. The new pop-up tags have proven the two-stock theory invalid.

It is a documented fact that western conservation alone can never succeed if the eastern nations do not observe their ICCAT quotas. In 1994 the Europeans agreed that they should begin Bluefin tuna quota compliance in 1998. The scientists determined the sustainable quota was 25, 000 Mt. However, they objected to such a drastic drop in landings and were given 32,000 Mt, even though 25, 000MT was the sustainable limit.

This whole issue reached its zenith at last November’s Annual ICCAT meeting. 1998 was to be the first year that Europeans had to comply with national quotas. Any quota overages were to reduce next year's quotas pound for pound. France, a major harvester, reported that they exceeded their 1998 quota by 10,000 Mt. or 22,060,000 pounds. In the most outrageous move, the French made excuses as to why they would not observe the 1998 quotas agreement.   These illegal French landings are equal to 8 years of our landings. This is in addition to their part of the assigned 32,000 Mt. European quota!

To add insult to this ICCAT failure, the Europeans influenced ICCAT scientists to avoid a new 2000-year bluefin tuna stock assessment. They explained that a 2000 year stock assessment "would merely be a repeat of the 1998 report," that set 25,000 Mt as the sustainable goal.

Meanwhile, NMFS's bureaucrats continue to impose Draconian rules on both US commercial and recreational fishermen, despite their failure to get the European ICCAT countries to comply. Understand, ICCAT regulations are self-imposed by each nation, since there is no ICCAT enforcement arm. Adverse world public opinion plus the desire to recover the tuna stocks and make them sustainable are ICCAT's only tools.

Our Commissioners to ICCAT have their work cut out for them. At the very least they must:

1-     Get European compliance with their ICCAT 1994 Bluefin tuna quotas.

2-     Move the Atlantic dividing line from 45 degrees of longitude to 30 degrees of Longitude to save the Bluefin tuna conserved by US, Canada and Japan. Without such a change our conservation only becomes additional landings for those nations fishing east of the old line.

3-     Bluefin tuna have an ICCAT minimum size of 6.4 Kg.

The European nations are not observing the minimum size rule.  Change the rule and

Assign each European nation a quota for fish under 6.4 kg. that is no more than

5% of their national ICCAT quota.

This year's ICCAT November meeting is very important. There is absolutely no need to consider new ICCAT rules and regulations when the previously agreed rules are not being followed.   Fix the old problems before starting any new projects or imposing new rules for other tuna species. 

 None of the US category groups have been regulated out of tuna fishery like recreational anglers. In 1976 US anglers had a 4 tuna per angler limit imposed on them by NMFS. This limit was revised downward until the early 1990's when anglers could land only 1 school sized bluefin per boat. In effect, anglers were regulated out of their own fishery and still there is no major recovery of the western Bluefin tuna stocks. Meanwhile, Europeans and their Eastern partners land and sell record bluefin tuna catches without complying with any ICCAT conservation rules or observing either quotas or minimum size agreements.  

More information next month.

[News Contents] [Top]