NMFS Tuna Rule Chanes Destructive

NMFS Proposed Rule Changes for Bluefin & Yellowfin Tunas are Sweeping & Recreationally Destructive

By John Koegler and Gary Caputi

(from Jersey Coast Anglers Association May 1995 Newsletter)

In the latest issue of the Federal Register, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) introduced "Proposed Rule Changes" for bluefin and yellowfin tuna. These proposed changes have nothing to do with conservation of these critically important fisheries (so what else is new), but instead focus on the total reallocation of recreational fishing quotas to the commercial sector, without compensation of any kind. These sweeping changes, combined with others, would have an enormously detrimental effect on recreational fishermen and a huge, negative economic impact on the sport fishing and marine industries as a whole. The proposals made in this document are sweeping and so wide reaching that these proposed rule changes are actually a scoping document and should be treated as such. Scoping documents should be presented for a full set of scoping hearings and then used to formulate final rules, which then go to hearing again. For this reason, JCAA will be demanding an extension of the comment period of at least 30 additional days and will request a more comprehensive public hearing process before any of these rules are adopted as law.

BLUEFIN TUNA PROPOSED RULE CHANGES

The new proposed quotas, allocations and rules from NMFS and ICCAT merely mask the real problem with this once vibrant fishery. While under ICCAT and NMFS regulatory power, the adult bluefin tuna spawning population has been decimated. The adult fish are at about 10% of their numbers compared to when NMFS/ICCAT regulations began. NMFS’ answer to the unadulterated destruction of an extremely important recreational fishery is to exclude the recreational fishing sector from participation to the detriment of the sport fishing and marine industries, while the commercial sector profits from the continued slaughter of the remaining adult giant bluefins! Is this outrageous, or just business as usual at NMFS?

ICCAT has decreed that the quota for bluefin tuna for the United States in 1995 will be 1311.4 metric tons. Under the proposed rule changes, the commercial sector gets 1092 metric tons, broken down as follows:

General Category 531 mt
Purse Seiner (5 boats) 301 mt
Incidental longline 113 mt
Harpoon 53 mt
In season reserve 94 mt

The "in season reserve" quota in every year since its implementation has been used to cover commercial deficits, so if 1995 is handled the same as prior years, the entire 94 mt reserve will go to the General Category as an additional bonus for doing such a fine job of conserving the species (tongue in cheek).

How about the recreational sector. What’s left? The Recreational quota for 15,389 permitted boats, is only 219 mt. (99 mt of school fish + 120 mt of large school & mediums) There is also a carry over from 1994 because the school bluefins were so scarce that the recreational user group was unable to fill its 1994 quota. Things don’t bode any better for the 1995 season for school fish.

The 1995 recreational base quota is 219 metric tons out of 1311.4 mt. This is LESS THAN ONE FISH PER PERMITTED BOAT PER SEASON! And that’s not even one big tuna, but a fish about 45 pounds if we do the calculations strictly by pounds allotted. But, the way the recreational allocation is set up, we couldn’t harvest that many school fish, so you’re actually fishing for about 2/3 of a large school or medium fish per boat, per season. What are we fighting for? Please, sport fishermen, WAKE UP! Can you believe your entire quota for 1995 will average out to one 45 pound bluefin for the entire season? Is this a fishery at all?

Here are the recreational quotas by size, extrapolated into numbers of fish. It really tells the story of just how little the recreational quota is for the vast number of boats that historically participate in this important fishery.

School bluefin - 99 mt x 2204.6 = 218,225 lbs. At an average weight of 30 lbs., that is a total of 7,275 school bluefin for the entire recreational user group for the East Coast.

Large school/medium - 120 mt x 2204.6 = 264,552 lbs. At an average weight of 100 lbs. per fish, we have a quota of 2,645 fish.

This adds up to a total of 9,920 bluefin of combined size for a recreational fishery that in 1994 had 15,389 permitted boats that want to participate. Incredible! That’s about 2/3 of a fish per boat, per season!

Let’s look at the facts honestly and you’ll realize just what these proposed rule changes and those changes implemented in prior years have accomplished. You’ll be shocked- if your not, it’s time to sell the boat and tackle and take up golf (just what NMFS is hoping you’ll do!).

Continued commercial sale of the remaining spawning stock (which is at historic low levels already) can never save this fishery, regardless of who or why anyone is assigned an allocation of giants. Maybe it’s time to support a campaign to end all commercial sale of giants. We recognize there were very few small bluefin available in 1994. The short fall of the recreational school fish quota proved that they are scarce and getting scarcer. How can NMFS and ICCAT allow the continued slaughter of the only fish left to rebuild the stocks- the spawning giants? Do they support the extinction of this great gamefish? No species can ever recover to a semblance of its former strength without some mature adults left to spawn.

As stated, NMFS has proposed sweeping rule changes for 1995 without the slightest consideration for conservation of the species. The JCAA Tuna Committee, at an open meeting held on May 16th at the Ocean County Cooperative Extension Building, came up with the following issues and positions, which will be submitted for a vote by all member clubs at the May general. Here are a few of the key recreational issues.

1) NMFS Proposed rule change: NO SALE BY RECREATIONAL PERMIT HOLDERS: Recreational fishermen have sold bluefin tuna for well over 50 years, establishing the earliest markets for these fish. They sold bluefin long before any directed commercial fishery existed. Stripping them of their historical place in the fishery by prohibiting sale of recreationally caught fish is illegal!

2) NMFS Proposed rule change: Dual permitting of vessels will be eliminated. Dual permitting is a historic situation and key recreational need. Sport fishermen have been allowed to carry both "angling" and "for sale" permits and should be allowed to continue to do so, as should other user groups that NMFS is trying to eliminate.

3) If dual permitting is done away with, than NMFS must transfer the appropriate amount of quota from the general category to the angling category to make up for the fish that have been sold by recreational fishermen in the past. We have determined that this would be about 60% of the general category quota.

4) The economic impact on party and charter operators and the sport fishing and marine industries caused by these changes is devastating. It far exceeds that allowed under Federal Regulatory Impact Review standards and will be addressed under that banner.

The following 11 points concerning the bluefin proposed rule changes were developed at the open Tuna Committee meeting on May 16 and were agreed to unanimously by all in attendance, including a few parties not associated with JCAA, and will form the basis for JCAA’s position on the proposed rule changes:

1) NO CATEGORY TRANSFERS: Any and all bluefin landed must be charged against the quota for their assigned category. There is a proposed change to charge all incidentally caught giants to the angling category. This is ridiculous. All fish caught while giant fishing that are sold must be charged to the General Category quota.

2) MULTIPLE PERMITS MUST BE ALLOWED: The ability for a single boat to carry multiple category permits must not be abandoned. Having more than one category permit has been the basis for what little sport fishery is left for bluefin and is of importance to several commercial user groups, also.

3) EQUAL ACCESS TO GIANTS: The current 1994 rules have sharply reduced recreational access to school fish due to the 8% cap, not to mention the lack of availability of these fish due to the overharvest of the spawning stock. Now the 1995 proposed rules would eliminate a major portion of the recreational fleet from accessing giants. This is totally unacceptable.

4) SALE OF FISH: Recreational fishermen pioneered the East Coast bluefin tuna fishery and created the basis for a market for these fish over 50 years ago, before any commercial operators had an interest in bluefin and before there was any directed commercial fishery for them. The recreational fleet has always sold bluefin to retail marketers. Their elimination from this historic position in the bluefin fishery by prohibiting their right to sell is unacceptable and, probably, illegal.

5) NO SUNDAY AND WEDNESDAY CLOSURES: NMFS has proposed the institution of closing fishing for bluefins two days a week as a way to extend the fishing season. Sunday and Wednesday are the two most popular days for fishing, after Saturdays. This closure would have a major economic impact on the recreational fleets participation in the General Category and is unacceptable.

6) RETENTION OF A NEW YORK BIGHT ALLOTMENT: The special set-aside of 35 mt for the New York Bight area for late fall fishing must be maintained. This fishery existed long before any ICCAT rules and normally doesn’t start under after October 15th each year. The elimination of this critically important set aside would put a halt to an historic fishery, damage many business interests that have a dependency on it and have absolutely no conservation affect on the giant bluefin population. It is merely a ploy to transfer additional quota from mid-Atlantic fishermen to the northern states and is unacceptable.

7) NO MONTHLY ALLOCATION SCHEME: We can not support a month to month allocation on bluefin. The present scheme does irreparable harm to the fall fisheries in the mid-Atlantic states by underestimating their late season quota needs and, again, simply reallocates more fish to the northern states.

8) PERMIT TRANSFERS MUST BE ALLOWED: Section 285.21 (h) states a valid permit is not transferable with the sale of a boat. A valid legal permit must be transferable with sale, especially in the party and charter boat category. This becomes even more critical if bluefin are to become a limited access fishery in the future.

9) REGULATORY ALLOCATION/DUAL PERMITTING: If dual permitting is not allowed for recreational fishermen, then the portion of the general category quota being caught by dual permitted recreational boats must be transferred to the angling category. Recreational anglers accounted for about 60% of the giants caught in the General Category (approximately 318 mt)and that percentage of fish must be transferred if dual permitting is discontinued. The Angling Category can not be allowed to loose dual permitting, denied the right to sell and then stripped of the quota they were responsible for catching, only to see it reallocated it to another category.

10) NO LIMITED ENTRY: At this time, we oppose limited entry into this fishery for any gear type or user group. If limited entry is to be established, it must be established for all commercial gear types and not just one or two.

11) EQUAL DIVISION OF THE "IN SEASON RESERVE": In the past, the "In Season Reserve" has been small and always given to the commercial sector, usually the General Category. The proposed reserve of 94 mt must be, at the very least, split 50/50 between commercial and recreational user groups. That would be a 47 mt addition to the angling category in 1995.

GAMEFISH STATUS FOR BLUEFIN TUNA

Is it the only way left for the Recreational Sector and the wide ranging industries it supports?

Before NMFS instigated the importation of purse seine vessels into the Atlantic Bluefin Tuna fishery, the entire fishery belonged to sport fishermen. It spawned prosperous businesses up and down the coast, an enormous charter fishing industry and all manner of tourism for those shore communities that promoted it to vacationers. It’s economic benefit to shore area economies and to a growing sport fishing and marine industries was vast. In 1995, 15,389 permitted sport fishing boats are being regulated out of this once great fishery, while its continued destruction by the commercial sector is coddled and promoted by the very government agency charged with it protection Bluefin tuna represent an important PUBLIC RESOURCE. Sport fishermen have been and continue to be pushed out through a series of well thought out rule changes over a number of years aimed at eliminating them from the fishery so it can be completely commercialized. In 1995, we will be allowed to catch 9,920 bluefin tuna for 15,389 permit holding boat. How many fish is that per angler? The average boat carries four anglers, so that comes out to 1/4 of 2/3’s of a fish per angler, per season.

Now, under these new rule changes, our opportunity to catch a giant bluefin is being denied us, too. All the while, the commercials continue to drive the fish into extinction for profit. NMFS thinks this is just great! It’s obvious- they think this is their job.

Understand that when ICCAT/NMFS regulations began around 1975, there was still a good supply of giants alive and swimming, even though the school fish had been decimated by years of overfishing abuses by the purse seiner fleet. Now, after 19 years of management, it is estimated that the giant population is around 10% of what it was in the 1970’s! If NMFS’ intended purpose was the extinction and not the regulation and conservation of this fishery, they could not have done a better job of prosecuting the extermination of the bluefin tuna. There is no hint of a recovery? NMFS regulation of the bluefin has be a complete farce. A boldfaced lie! It hasn’t worked, except to speed the depletion of the stocks and the ultimate collapse of the fishery.

To date, under NMFS regulations, the recreational user group, the group with the longest historic participation in the fishery and the group that didn’t deplete it, has been stripped of the following:

Rec’s lost the ability to sell school fish as a "conservation measure."

Rec’s were forced to give up catching the major portion of the school fish when a 4 fish per man bag limit was imposed, as a "conservation measure."

Rec’s were further limited on school fish quota, the backbone of the sport fishery for bluefins, when an 8% cap was placed on them in 1992, driving the bag limit down to a couple fish per boat, as a "conservation measure."

Rec’s are going to be denied the right to sell giant bluefin in 1995 under the proposed rule changes, for reasons that are unclear in the document. Maybe it’s a "conservation measure."

Hey, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries (Oops- I mean National Marine Fisheries Service)! What else can we give up in the name of conservation of a fishery that has shown no sign of recovery because all you’ve done is strip the recreational user group of participation and quota and upped the ante on the commercial side. Even if the commercialization of the fishery is allowed to be complete, the fishery will collapse under your direction. Now that’s government efficiency. Who’s payroll is NMFS on, anyway!

Maybe it’s time to broach the question of gamefish status for bluefin tuna to our elected representatives. What does the sport fisherman have to loose? Have the school fish returned to abundance since they reduced our quotas? No- Why not? Maybe because of the continued decline in spawning age fish that is still being allowed to take place. Well maybe they will come back strong now that the recreational quota is down to next to nothing, less than a fish per boat per season. Just don’t hold your breath.

The gear type that destroyed OUR SCHOOL BLUEFIN FISHERY gets 301 mt for a total of five participating boats and the entire 15,389 recreationally permitted boats in the fishery get 219 mt. Where was the government support to save jobs when these regulations decimated the charter boat industry? Charter boats have been going out of business at a record pace and the latest proposed rule changes will only speed up the process. I thought this administration was small business friendly! Did anyone care about these businessmen’s jobs, families and their contribution to the economy and tax base. No one at NMFS, that’s for sure.

Who considers this fair treatment? Remember that the commercial bluefin tuna fishery didn’t exist 50 years ago, but a sprawling sport fishing industry did, based around this particular fishery. Now, the commercial sector gets 1092 mt out of a total quota of 1311.4 mt. Where is the justice in this approach to fishery management?

GAMEFISH STATUS - It would make for serious political intrigue, especially if it is backed by the full force of the member businesses and industry trade groups from the marine and tackle industries. Do two industry groups with a combined economic benefit to this nation in the hundreds of billions of dollars have some political power? Damned right they do! Maybe the time is at hand to take a totally new direction, because NMFS and ICCAT can not be allowed to continue in the direction they seem bent on going- total elimination of sport fishing for bluefin tuna and the commercial destruction of another great fishery. They certainly have plenty of practice at collapsing fisheries already, so this one should be a piece of cake!

YELLOWFIN TUNA PROPOSED RULE CHANGES

While the rule changes for bluefin are draconian with regard to the recreational sector, what is beginning to take shape with yellowfin is even more scary. These proposed rule changes are the beginning of the process of chipping away at recreational participation in the yellowfin fishery and clearly spell out NMFS’ plan to totally commercialize the fishery in the name of "conservation measures" than only conserve the fishery for commercial users groups to decimate. Keep in mind that the yellowfin is now the most important pelagic gamefish left for the sport fishing community and industry. Most other pelagics fisheries have been commercially overfished, already. It accounts for the majority of the offshore fishing trips taken each year and these fish are vital to a healthy marine and sport fishing industry, charter and party boat businesses, marinas, and so much more.

At the combined meeting on May 16th, the following positions were agreed to unanimously by all in attendance, both JCAA club reps on the Tuna Committee and outside interested parties.

1) SALE OF YELLOWFIN TUNA: NMFS proposes the prohibition of sale by recreational fishermen. JCAA proposed position- The selling of recreationally caught yellowfin has been a major historical component of this fishery! According to fish dealers, in an average year, they purchase as much yellowfin from sport fishermen as they do from commercial fishermen. Elimination of recreational sales will disrupt the retail market and reduce sport fishing participation, further damaging the sport fishing, marine, party and charter boat industries and have a major negative impact on thousands of businesses.

2) EQUAL ACCESS TO THIS PUBLIC RESOURCE: NMFS, is embarked on a headlong rush to commercialize the yellowfin fishery while restricting sport fishing participation and imposing quota restrictions on us. This is being done while ignoring the simple fact that yellowfin are a public resource and not just a commodity for them to dole out to whichever user group finds the greatest favor among the regulators. Sport fishermen have been the historic user group in this fishery and depend upon it heavily. We will not permit them to push us out of this fishery like they have others. These efforts will be stopped through whatever means are necessary!

3) NO RECREATIONAL BAG LIMIT: NMFS proposed rules will institute a 10 fish bag limit on yellowfin. JCAA proposed position- Quotas for yellowfin should be imposed on the entire fishery at the same time. There must be no limit imposed on the recreational sector without all other major commercial gear types also being restricted. It is interesting that in the beginning of the rule changing document that NMFS states it is not going to impose a recreational quota because their catch data is incomplete, but they then propose the institution of a unilateral recreational bag limit (a quota setting device) later in the document. Remember what happened when NMFS instituted a four fish per man school bluefin quota? It’s now less than one fish per boat per season. No bag limits until a comprehensive management plan encompassing all user groups can be drafted and open for pubic input!

4) ALL GEAR TYPES MUST BE REGULATED SIMULTANEOUSLY: NMFS proposed rule changes seek to grant the Assistant Administrator the ability to make quota adjustments outside the scoping and public hearing process. JCAA proposed position- The Assistant Administrator at NMFS must not be allowed to make unilateral quota adjustments, especially before all gear types are regulated.

5) QUOTA ITQ’s MUST NOT BE PERMITTED: NMFS proposed rule change would grant a 350 mt ITQ (Independent, transferable quota) to the purse seine fleet of five boats. JCAA proposed position- First, the yellowfin purse seine quota of 350 mt was determined using a five year period (most quotas are determined using an average of a ten year period), which includes two "spike years" in which the purse seiners artificially increased their catch to astronomical levels in a effort to increase their potential quota once rules were established for yellowfin. NMFS is going to allow them to get away with this, when their actual running ten year average catch was only about 60 mt. It seems that the more you cheat, the more you get from NMFS. Who says you can’t pull the wool over NMFS eyes, especially when they are willing allies. Secondly, the imposition of an ITQ system for a single user group in a fishery is unprecedented and, probably, illegal under Magnuson. But that hasn’t stopped NMFS in the past! The 350 mt is totally unacceptable and an single user group ITQ is ridiculous.

6) NO EXPERIMENTAL FISHERIES: NMFS proposed rules totally ignore the experimental pair trawl fishery that was supposed to be a two year experiment, now going into its sixth year. JCAA proposed position- All tunas are documented by NMFS to be fully or overexploited. To create or allow new gear types or continue experimental gear in this fishery is unacceptable. Further, pair-trawl or any trawl gear for that matter, is consider an illegal gear type under ICCAT regulations, so it is out of compliance with ICCAT rules.

7) ALL DEAD FISH COUNT! JCAA proposed position- All yellowfin, regardless of whether they are undersized or what type of gear catches them, must be landed, reported and counted against the quota for that gear type.

8) SPACING COURTESY AT SEA: JCAA proposed position- All commercial gear types must be regulated to remain at least one mile away from any recreational fishing vessels or fleets.

There will be votes taken on these positions at the upcoming general meeting of the JCAA. It is believed that overwhelming support for these positions will be given by the general membership and then we will present them at upcoming public hearings.

It is feared that NMFS has already established what the rules will be, even before the public hearings, just by the schedule they have established for implementation of new rules. The public hearings and comment period ends on June 7 and the rules are to be put in place by the end of the June. This leaves little or no time for NMFS to compile the public comments, never mind weigh their impact on the proposed rules. If this is the case, other actions will be mounted.

• John Koegler is a member of the Thousand Fathom Club -South Jersey, an appointed Technical Advisor to ICCAT and Chairman of the JCAA Tuna Committee. Gary Caputi is a member of the North East Mako Owners Club, a member of the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council and Vice President of JCAA .

[Contents] [Top]