ROCKFISH TAKEN AS BYCATCH________________

What is bycatch!

Generally, bycatch is thought to be the incidental take of marine life that is not landed and marketed. More specifically, bycatch is any species or species~complex that was not intentionally targeted but was captured as a result of fishing. Management induced discards, which are occurring as a result of smaller and smaller trip limits, are a specific type of bycatch: Discards result when the amount of fish taken exceeds the limit for that species. These fish must be discarded, even though they meet all the market requirements for species, size, etc. Most fishers would prefer to catch the species or species complex, the size, number and sometimes even the sex of the specific species they target. Unfortunately a variety of natural conditions, regulations, and limits to gear selectivity do not always make this an easy or even attainable goal.

Nontargeted species that are incidentally caught are often referred teas bycatch. Some bycatch can be retained and sold and some must be discarded for a variety of reasons. However, the terms "target", "bycatch", and "discards" can be confusing, as they are often used differently by different groups.- "Discards" most often refer to species that are not landed because of management restrictions and must be returned to the sea dead or alive. This can be confusing in
that the "discarded" species is also the "target" species, the conundrum is that only a certain amount may be landed.

Why is it an issuel

Bycatch raises concerns both from a conservation and from an economic perspective. Some of the concern relates to impacts on commercial fisheries and the loss of fishing opportunity. Broad ecological impacts are also a source of concern. When removals from the system are only estimated by landings, ecosystem impacts including the alteration of food webs or benthic communities can occur as a.result of unquantified and undocumented bycatch occurring
(Dayton 1995). Bycatch also can become an economic, or allocation issue when discards could be utilized by another fishery or gear group. Experience has shown that far too often allocation decisions are made based solely on historical catch levels. Bycatch levels can change over time~and as a result of management policies, what was used as the deciding factor for allocation decisions five or ten years may be inappibpriate today. Currently, little or no consideration is given to analyzing and allocating to gear types with potentially lower levels of bycatch.

Potential ecosystem impact of discards can take the form of the following examples given by Dayton et al, (1995).

1. "Large amounts of discarded organic material as a result of bycatch affects the marinee ecosystems in the same way as does organic pollution from other human activities and often hassecondary effects. In general there are several potential effects of dumping organic material from the aggregation of predator species to local anoxia. These effects are likely to be most pronounced in areas with low current flow or in situations where discarded material is deposited on sensitive communities and habitats. Benthic organisms have a clear relationship with the sediment with which they are associated, consequently one can expect cascading and possibly long-term effects from dumping large amounts of organic material."

2. Removal of (prey and predator of the target species) species can, over time, alter the heterogeneity of the system and the communities, predisposing them to destabilizing influences.

Reasons for discard

Ultimately, the reason for discard lies in the fact that an organism has been caught that cannot be utilized. Although the reasons for not being able to utilize that organism are many and varied, it nevertheless was caught in the first place as a result of indiscriminant gear and/or fishing practices. Some fishers contend that certain gear for example hook-and-line, is more selective than others, such as trawl. It stands to reason that smaller, more maneuverable gear would produce less discards proportionate to total catch, expecially when fishing in comples habitat. Within gear types there are alterations taht can be make to reduce bycatch, such as limiting the number of hooks in longline gear, to provide an incentive to catch fewer numbers of larger fish, to altering the mesh size and overall capacity of trawl nets and vessels. It also stands to reason that the less capacity in gear, the less probable there will be high amounts of regulatory discard because a limit has been exceeded. For each gear type there are fishing practices that can be applied to reduce bycatch such as knowing how species of rockfish distribute themselves in relation to depth and communicating, within the fleet, areas where a species can be fished cleanly and where that is not possible.

Incentives should be in place to encourage these practices, and education occur to assure that all members of the groundfish fleet on the West Coast are aware of them. Finally, analysis of gear selectivity and standards must be developed for all gear types.

Pikitch et al. (1988) cites five reasons fishers give for discards. These are the primary reasons fish are thrown over the side, but not why they are captured in the first place. They are as follows: 1) the discarded species has a limited market and the processors will not purchase them; 2) the species was marketable but below an acceptable market size and would not be purchased; 3) the per-unit, ex-vessel value for the species being discarded was not as great as that of other fish; 4) the landing quota for the species had been met already, therefore, it would be illegal to retain these fish, even though they werefully marketable; 5) miscellaneous reasons. According to Fikitch et al. (1988) discards were rarely attributed to causes other than those listed above;however, one such reason was attaining full hold capacity.

The solutions to the problem of bycatch must not be only to deal with enumeration and utilization but also address why the organisms are being captured in the first place. The latest amendments of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MFCMA) added National Standard Nine, which deals directly with bycatch. Section 301 (a)(9) of the MFCMA states: "Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable (A) minimize
bycatch and (B) to the extent that bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of such bycatch."

The national standard guidelines, which are published by NMFS and give direction to the Councils as to interpretation of the National Standards, advise that the regional fishery management councils must "select measures that, to the extent practicable, will minimize bycatch mortality." (National Standard Guidelines 50 CFR 600.350(d)(3)). In order to determine which measures to select the following factors should be considered:

(A) Population effects for the bycatch species;
(B) Ecological effects due to changes in the bycatch of that species (effects on other species in the ecosystem);
(C) Changes in the bycatch of other species of fish and the resulting population and ecosystem effects;
(D) Effects on marine mammals and birds;
(E) Changes in fishing, processing, and marketing costs;
(F) Changes in fishing practices and behavior of fishermen;
(G) Changes in research, administration, and enforcement costs and management effectiveness;
(H) Changes in the economic, social or cultural value of fishing activities and nonconsumptive uses of fishery resources;
(I) Changes in the distribution of benefits and costs; and
(J)social effects.
(ii) The Councils should adhere to the precautionary approach found in the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United States (FAG) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries." (50 CFR 600.350(d)(3)(i) and (ii)).

The current amendments to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for groundfish (which includes rockfish) as put forth by the PFMC do not meet the requirements of the Magnuson Act for reducing bycatch. The Act clearly states that the groundfish FMP be amended to include specific and identifiable management measures designed first to minimize bycatch and second to minimize bycatch mortality. Management measures such as these have yet to be promulgated by the Pacific Fishery Management Council.

Additional direction on the reduction of bycatch, development of "selective and environmentally safe" gear and practices can be found in the FAO Code of Conduct of Responsible Fisheries. The following selected paragraphs from this document highlight this information.

Article 6 - General Principes

"6.6 Selective and environmentallv safe fishing gear and practices should be further developed and applied, to the extent practicable, in order to maintain biodiversity and to conserve the population structure and aquatic ecosysextent and protect fish quality. Where proper selective and environmentally safe fishing gear and practices exist, they should be recognized and accorded a priority in extablishing conservation and management measures for fisheries. States and users should minimize waste and catch of non-target species..." (FAG 1995).

"Discarding also produces a number of economic impacts. Discarding commercial target species results in a direct cost to the fishing industry in the form of foregone income. Where fisheries interact, discarding in one fishery can reduce the potential revenue in another. Also, the cost associated with trying to collect information on
the level of discarding for the purpose of stock assessment may be considerable in some fisheries. While some level of discarding occurs in nearly all fisheries, some fisheries management policies aimed at improving fishers incomes have led to an iricrease in th~e level of discarding" (FAG 1995).

Dealing with discard can take the form of technical measures, administrative measures, or economic measures. "While a variety of bycatch management options exist, no single management option can reduce discarding in every situation. Hence, a combination of policies is required. From an economic perspective, the most desirable approach to reducing the problems associated with discarding is to reduce the total amount of effort in world fisheries" (FAG
1995).

The current management regime for groundfish was pufin place during the early 1980s and was charged with two primary tasks in relation to rockfish. 1) prevent the overharvest of individual species, and 2) maintain a year-round fishery. Declines associated with a number of species, the objective 0f operating a year-round fishery, and possibly inadequate scientific sampling techniques have led to the development of extremely low trip limits placed on certain species. These trip limits equate to large amounts of bycatch, which are attested to by fishers and scientists alike. Tom Morrison, an Oregon trawler stated that "each trawl vessel in the fleet (OR) is currently discarding 20000-40000 Ibs. of yellowtail/month," primarily due to regulatory induced discard. Pikitch et al state in their 1988 report evaluating trip limits as a management tool, that although landed catches for widow rockfish were close to their annuals quotas, total catch (landed catch + discard) "consistently exceeded both landed catch and annual harvest goals."

Trip limit management is clearly failing. Not only does it induce large amounts of bycatch, it fails to take into account the amount discarded and instead primarily relies on landings to develop the next year's Total Allowable Catch (TAC). In other words, we have very little idea of the total removals (landed catch + discards) from the system. Discard is not monitored, and we have no limits placed on it. This appears counterintuitive to many people. There are strict limits placed on what can be landed and sold, but a limitless amount of fish may be thrown back into the ocean. Because mortality is often quite high for discards, the actuality of the situation is that we have limits on what we can catch and keep but not what we can kill.

Simply continuing to ratchet down the trip limits is not the answer. Smaller trip limits have forced fishers to spend more time at sea because the limits are so small they need to hit the mark every time to survive econoinically. This leads to increased amounts of bycatch for species that are not of the highest economic value, discards of the target species if they go over their limit, and increased time at sea; resulting in increased impact on the resource and the ecosystem as a whole, as this scenario replays itself month after month. This problem is only exacerbated by over capitalization of the fleet (excess power and gear) and too many people in the fishery. In other words, too many people trying to catch too few fish. loe Easley, president of the Oregon Trawl Commission, estirnates that current capacity in the groundfish fleet is three times what is necessitated by present trip limits.

The outlook is not completely bleak. Some participating in the fishery do take opportunities to decrease bycatch by moving to different areas and making shorter tows. Efforts to monitor and estimate bycatch levels are currently taking place, through the use of observers, in the whiting fishery (see Figures 46 and 47) and portions of the West Coast trawl industry. The program to analyze bycatch in the trawl industry is currently a volunteer effort and is being facilitated
through the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife with cooperation from the Oregon Trawl Commission. This project is attempting to quantify bycatch through direct observation by placing observers aboard the vessels as well as through indirect data collection by means of vessellogbooks. The program, entitled the "Enhanced Groundfish Data Collection Project," began in 1995 with between 35 and 37 boats participating, approximately 25 have carried observers (Mark Saelens ODFW pers. comm.). Figure 48 represents data released from the project and compares this with current discard estimates. This graph shows that in the categories "yellowtail rockfish," "other rockfish" and "Sebastes complex," 1997 bycatch figures greatly exceeded current discard estimates. It should be noted that this data has not yet been completely analyzed, [Table 12] and should be viewed in this context. In addition to these caveats, and also potentially having an impact on the data, is the fact that discard in observed tows for a trip was applied to the total landed catch from fish tickets. Since not all tows were observed on any given trip, this method results in an assumption of zero discard for any unobserved tow. This will have to be dealt with in the formal analysis, but could have introduced a bias into the data represented in Figure 48 (B. Culver WDFW pers. comm.).

 A project being done through the School of Fisheries at the University of Washington in collaboration with the NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center is attempting to evaluate existing shrimp/fish separator technology to determine the most effective and practical methods for reducing bycatch. Table 13 gives an example of the species of rockfish taken as bycatch during the analysis for this project. Please take note of the important caveats associated with this
table. The major concern with this fishery, which has been communicated by bath fishers artd scientists alike, is not necessarily bycatch, but habitat damage (E Donahue commercial fisherman pers. comm.). like many species of rockfish, spot prawns prefer to live in areas with very heterogeneous bottom types. The gear used for fishing them must be able to drag over large amounts of rock and invertebrate life on the bottom and not become overly damaged in the process. In addition to catching prawns and other species as bycatch, this sturdy, unyielding gear can drag up large amounts of coral, sponges and other benthic organisms in the process. Some believe the impact of removing large amounts of sessile organisms from this habitat probably will result in substantial changes in the ecology of the areas which are trawled (Dayton et a1.1995).

The spot prawn fishery is a good example of the presence of an economic incentive resulting in unselective and damaging fishing practices. According to fishermen, the price of$7.00/pound for prawns has made it worthwhile to fish in areas previously unexploited due to the amount of rock present on the bottom and the high risk of gear damage. Regulations for the spot prawn fishery include a minimum mesh size of three inches in California, as well as limited permits available for vessels in Oregon and Washington. This is an interim measure in both states, and the future is unclear for both, but is likely to become more tightly regulated. Both states require the use of "fish-eye" bycatch reduction devices (N. Lowry University of Washington pers comm.).

Does it make good business sense to not have a figure for total removals from the system (see Figure 49)? Is there any other extractive resource management going on where we do not know how much we are taking out? What can be done?

 

Note:Important caveats for this data. These species were caught during a short period of fishing in one area near the southernmost limit of the fishery - they are not representative of the fishery as a whole, which extends over a large area and long season.

Action is mandated by the Magnuson Act and by the fact that if our stewardship of this resource does not immediately improve we are in danger of doing irreparable damage both to it and the coastal communities dependent on this resource. The following are some suggested actions that need to be taken if we are to get a handle on the amount of bycatch present in West Coast fisheries.

1. Analyze the fishery to develop appropriate discard estimates. Current estimates of bycatch for rockfish may be inappropriate and inaccurate Estimates must come from all gear types and all fisheries, including sport, and ultimately should include all species, not just those that are marketable. If our goal is truly ecosystem management, all species taken in the fishery must be accounted for. This can be accomplished through the development of a mandatory observer program.

2.From this analysis, bycatch limits must be develped and some incentive put in place to reward cleaner and selective fishing practices.

3. Decrease participation and capacity in the fishery.

4. Develop gear standards in relation to acceptable and appropriate levels of bycatch. Make greater use of gear restrictions,such as Prohibiting the use of particular gear types during certain times of the year, and changing the minimum legal mesh size.

5. Allow fishers the flexibility to utilize gear other than what they are permitted for if it will reduce the amount of bycatch.

6. Move to less than a year round fishery by breaking the year up into "periods" where the effort and TAC could be spread out in a more efficient manner. If this is done, however, several things need to be taken in to consideration in defining what the periods would be such as: biology of the animals, timing in relation to fishing for other species (which would allow processors to continue to operate with some consistency) and weather (which would allow those with smaller vessels to operate with some consistency) (W· Forsman Pacific Coast Seafoods pers comm).