 |
 |
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
||
by John T. Koegler, Chairman
(from Jersey Coast Anglers Association November 2001 Newsletter)
A report on ICCAT September meeting on
bluefin tuna cross-ocean mixing
ICCAT's SCRS inter-sessional meeting
on bluefin tuna was held on Sept. 3-7 to review and make new recommendations for the
management of bluefin tuna. The reason the meeting was called was to review the results of
5 years of satellite tagging primarily from the US East Coast. The tags disclosed
previously unknown bluefin tuna migration routes. These
routes crossed the 45-degree west longitude dividing line that separates eastern and
eastern fishing zones. A large number of tuna between 10% and 30% of the tag batch crossed
into the eastern management zone before their tag released. This crossover rate is so high
it would have a devastating effect on the recovery of bluefin tuna in the US zone if not
corrected. The ICCAT SCRS meeting recommendations is the basis for this report.
Background
ICCAT fishery scientists created the
two-stock theory in 1980. The two-stock theory proposed that there were two separate and
distinct stocks of bluefin tuna. A line was chosen in the Atlantic at 45 degrees west that
theoretically separated eastern (Europe & Africa) and western (US, Canada, Japan)
stocks of bluefin tuna. Restrictive rules and quotas were imposed on Canadian, Japanese
and US fishers only. No rules were imposed on the eastern nations fishing the European
stock of bluefin tuna, despite the fact that their stock of bluefin was also known to be
severely overfished.
Despite this fact, European &
African countries (eastern zone) delayed any bluefin tuna management measures until 1994.
This was 12 years after tough rules were imposed on the US fishers. The eastern zone
countries finally wrote a management plan that was to be first observed in 1998. After two
years of ICCAT bluefin quota reporting 1998/1999, the Europeans and African nations have
mostly failed to observe their bluefin tuna quotas or other ICCAT regulations, such as
minimum size. Prior to last fall's 2000 yearly ICCAT meeting it was assumed that trade
penalties would be imposed on those eastern zone nations who had overfished their quotas.
Attempts to pass and impose trade penalties per ICCAT's regulations at the 2000 yearly
meeting failed. ICCAT's management of the Atlantic's pelagic fishes is now exposed as a
sham. Only US, Canada and Japan are observing the rules. Everywhere else it is currently a
"free for all" to catch and sell as many tuna as possible. After such a total
management failure, the future for ICCAT is unknown.
New Satellite Tag Reports support Major
changes
Documented
bluefin crossing of the 45 degree dividing line had been estimated to be between 1 to 3%.
New satellite pop-up tags reports the US to European crossover rate between 10% and 30%
depending on the tag batch. Tag reports from internal or archival computer type tags also
document a crossover rate of 30%, some of which were recovered deep in the Mediterranean.
These new tag reports clearly have proven beyond any doubt that two separate stocks of
bluefin tuna do not exist. It is now a question of ICCAT's taking action.
However,
typical of ICCAT rather than report that the US, Canada and Japan made a major mistake in
1982 in agreeing to two distinct management zones with the separation line at 45 degrees,
the group chose to make three weak recommendations and let ICCAT's members make the final
choice. The three options to be presented at ICCAT's November' meeting are:
1- Status quo management units with the current
boundary.
2- A Separate
management area in the central Atlantic
3- Move the
boundary between the western and western Atlantic management units further to the east
toward Europe so our conserved bluefin are not caught by European-based fishers)
The SCRS report then dismissed choice
#3, which appears to be the easiest and most practical solution by stating in their
report: "The group concluded that it is unlikely that any management unit boundary
between the western and western Atlantic will be effective in separating bluefin tuna of
Gulf of Mexico and Mediterranean Sea origin into non-overlapping populations. Given this
situation, management will require trade-off between biological realism and
practicality."
The entire purpose of holding this
September inter-sessional meeting was to resolve this issue, not pass the buck to ICCAT
voting members. Status quo will never rebuild anything leaving only Choice #2 as the only
item that can be voted on! This is unacceptable. Twenty years of Canadian, Japanese and US
conservation get no reward (1980-2000). Twenty years of no conservation allowed the
European and African countries to increase their landing each year, not by selling their
conserved tuna, but by selling of our (western zone) conserved fish. To allow this to
continue while more studies are considered is absolutely and totally unacceptable.
The workshop did report "It is
recommended that the (ICCAT) Commission chose one of the three options until a long-term
solution to the mixing problem is developed. It is also recommended that SCRS conduct
assessments based upon all three of these options in the 2002 assessment session. This
implies that several scenarios for management boundaries in Option 2 and 3 will have to be
developed and evaluated by the SCRS. Whichever option may be selected, the Commission
should be aware of the need for rigorous scientific monitoring in the Central North
Atlantic."
A Short review of the new science
reports presented at the meeting.
All small medium bluefin (135-235
pounds) tagged off North Carolina in the late winter traveled to the central Atlantic
Ocean along the southern edge of the Gulf Stream. Up
to 30% of the satellite tags were reported from the other side of the current dividing
line. Had the tags released at a later time, a far higher percentage may have crossed the
dividing line.
Giants tagged in New England and
Canadian waters in the fall traveled a different route. Most crossed the Atlantic Ocean
into the Mediterranean to spawn the following May and June. Until the latest tagging
report none had traveled to the Gulf of Mexico to spawn as would occur with two separate
stocks. (Only one new study of 11 tagged giants = 7 went to the Mediterranean and 3 went
to the Gulf of Mexico. All previous satellite tagging reports found that NO bluefin tuna
went to the Gulf of Mexico to spawn at any time.)
During the 1960's our side of the
Atlantic caught and sold between 20 and 40% of the entire Atlantic catch of bluefin tuna.
Recreational landings were never counted before quotas were established, despite clear
evidence that recreational landings had exceeded 10,000 mt. in good fishing years. US
conservation efforts starting in 1976 resulted in our fishery being reduced to a lower and
lower percentage of the total Atlantic Ocean catch each year. The US is now just 3% of the
total Atlantic commercial sale. Recreational's have long been just a management
after-thought. Recreational anglers have in
effect been regulated out of the US fishery despite our long 100-year bluefin tuna landing
history. This despite newspaper and magazine reports from the 1930's, 1940's and 1950's
documenting that the recreational fleet had a huge bluefin fishery in the mid-Atlantic.
The great economic activity the bluefin tuna recreational fishery created had been ignored
because their landings were not sold. The US recreational bluefin fishery created economic
activity forty times greater in dollars spent than the dockside value of our commercial
bluefin fishery. Yet, recreational anglers get a tiny annual US allocation of 250 mt. or
less than 9,000 fish to be shared by over 12,000 US permitted vessels.
The real problem with ICCAT is not
what the real mixing rate is, but the total failure of European and African countries and
other eastern zone nations who have quota limits to observe any of ICCAT's rules. They had
agreed and voted to accept ICCAT's rules and quotas in prior yearly meetings and never
complied. Based on past experience, this may have always been the case. ICCAT's value is
zero unless the European, African and other eastern zone nations decide to observe the
rules they wrote and voted on and have yet to observe. Given the current circumstances,
ICCAT's management provides little prospect for the recovery of any species. Even ICCAT's
limited enforcement powers are not being imposed where required.
As a result, some tough choices must
be considered. Supporting ICCAT and NMFS mandated management choices appear to have little
conservation value. ICCAT's SCRS report on bluefin mixing proposes to do nothing about
western zone conserved bluefin being pirated and sold. As a result, the western zone
countries (US, Canada, Japan) are practicing unilateral tuna management! What benefit
these fishermen receive from observing their tough rules is at the very least questionable
and appears to have little or no value in an ocean-wide fishery.
Consider the following:
Should ICCAT have a future? Is it
worth the effort to save ICCAT? Can anything be changed at ICCAT to make it work in the
future? Is the FOA unit of the United Nations a viable management unit to replace ICCAT?
Please attend or send a letter to the
ICCAT advisory meeting to be held at the Holiday Inn in Silver Spring, MD on October 28,
29 2001. The Sunday afternoon meeting on October 28 is the only part of the meeting where
public comments about these issues are accepted. Monday morning the latest reports on
satellite tags and other issues will be presented. Monday afternoon and Tuesday the US
ICCAT advisors only will hold a closed session where US choices for the ICCAT November
meeting will be discussed. A meeting recap
will be in these pages next month.
Remember the US State Department has
put little effort into correcting the international theft of western zone (US) conserved
Bluefin tuna. The devastating affects that European overfishing has on our Bluefin tuna
stocks recovery is becoming more evident with each passing year. Escalating catches in the
Mediterranean in 1995-98 have sharply reduced the availability of Bluefin of all sizes to
US fishermen? For the first time in many years US General Category (commercial) fishermen
are having a difficult time landing their US giant bluefin tuna quotas. Anglers allocated
quota have also not been available to be caught for the last several years.
