TUNA limits.... North Pacific Albicore

[Uglygreen]

Draft HMS FMP 9/19/2002 Ch. 3 Pg. 16

North Pacific Albacore Tuna.

Total annual catch from the northern stock is now approximately 100K mt (metric tons), about half taken by surface gear (especially U.S. troll and Japanese baitboat) and half by longline gear(especially Japan). The longline gear takes mainly adult fish from temperate waters nearly all across the north Pacific. The surface gear takes mainly juveniles and subadults in the Transition Zone waters bordering the Subarctic Front. A high seas driftnet fishery for albacore and other tunas operated in the north Pacific between 1975 and 1993, but was terminated. Longlining has recently become the fastest growing fishing mode exploiting the north Pacific stock.

Previously, when Japan began targeting bigeye tuna after 1970, the effective effort on albacore had decreased and catches varied little at 10-18K mt/yr up to 1993. But catches rose to 30K mt in 1993 and then to 41K mt
in 1997 as small longliners expanded Japan’s coastal fishery. The longline CPUEs indicated that the adult stock had been increasing since the late 1980s (NPALB 1999).

The highly variable surface catch of juvenile and subadult albacore has been mostly taken by the Japanese baitboat (pole and line) fleet that operates m ainly west of the International Dateline. Both its catch and effort
expanded into the 1970s, with 85K mt taken in 1976. Then through the mid 1980s catch and effort declined (Bartoo and Foreman 1993), the catches reducing to 6K mt by 1988. But a new trend of increasing catches and CPUE began after 1992, which has continued to the present (NPALBW 1999, 2000).

The US troll fishery, operating mainly east of the Dateline, is the other major surface fishery exploiting immature albacore, and its history is similar. Troll catch and effort, after a long period of expansion that produced 25K mt in 1963, declined after 1976 (as in the Japanese baitboat fishery), reducing to 2K mt in 1989.
CPUEs declined too (unlike in the baitboat fishery), beginning in the early 1970s and lasting into the late 1980s (Bartoo and Foreman 1993). But like in the Japanese fishery, catch and CPUE both began increasing after 1992, the catches reaching approximately 11K mt by 1999 (NPALBW 1999, 2000).

The abundance of surface albacore decreased during the 1970s and 1980s (Kleiber and Perrin 1991), but that trend, which was reflected in the catches, has since reversed. Total population biomass is now increasing, , which is shown by age-structured and other analyses from both the surface and subsurface fisheries (NPALBW 1999, 2000).

Environmental change rather than fishing mortality is likely driving the population (NPALBW 2000), as the above decline and recovery in the surface fishery phase-matches a similar decadal-scale change in the
severity of north Pacific winter conditions (Au and Cayan 1998). Such a response would make it important that sufficient reproducing stock be maintained to enable robust recovery of production during favorable periods.

The recent large catches by longliners, beginning about 1997, should therefore be monitored carefully. Stockwide MSY has been estimated at 80K-110K mt (Bartoo and Shiohama 1985; NPALBW 1999), and as
much as 115-184K mt (NPALBW 2000), with present catches entering that range. The different MSY estimates pertain to what appears to be a low-productivity period (1952-1988) and a high-productivity period (1989-1998). The stock has been growing, and the biological ratios F/FMSY = 0.9 and B/BMSY = 1.1 determined for 1995 (Bartoo et al. 1997) have recently been updated to 0.5 and 1.1 respectively (NPALBW 2000). The Bartoo and Shiohama (1985) estimate appears not to be biased upwards [as could result from the effort
averaging procedure used (Polacheck et al. 1993)], considering other results from studies using nonequilibrium production models for that same period and the overall, long term production cycle (NPALBW 2000).

The present, high production period began about 1989, and total catches are now over 100K mt with the stock still increasing. By all indications, the north Pacific stock is healthy and being moderately exploitated, at least for the present environmental regime. In recent years, west coast catches have accounted
for about 16% of the total north Pacific harvest. U.S. troll fishers also fish south Pacific albacore, but that stock does not reach the west coast EEZ. Only about 11% of the total catch from the south Pacific stock (1998=42K mt) is taken by trollers, of which the U.S. catch (1998) was approximately 1.8 K m t (Childers and Miller 2000). Recent assessments indicate the south Pacific stock is healthy. This FMP treats only the North Pacific stock as an MUS.
Status

Summary: Stock status of albacore is reviewed at 1-2 year intervals by the North Pacific Albacore Workshop (members:United States, Japan, Canada, Taiwan). The workshop has no formal procedures for agreement or for management. Presently the albacore stock is healthy and not being overfished (F/FMSY=0.5; B/BMSY=1.10 > MSST), even though present catches are in the estimated MSY (overall mean 120K mt) and OY range (Table 3-5).

Stock and catches are both increasing as the high productivity regime continues. No quotas are contemplated, and no regional harvest guideline is recommended for the present 16% regional take of stock-wide production.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHY REDUCE SPORT LIMITS?

The total Oregon sport catch was probably less than 1000 fish... which is like nothing compared to everybody else (100,000 metric tons)... and has almost zero impact on the resource. I don't get it.

UG

(thanks to *** Clerk for the technical assist)

[ 10-24-2002, 07:48 AM: Message edited by: Uglygreen ]

[Mark Mc]

Good morning UG, how are ya? Thanks for sharing that particular excerpt. I would agree that from a purely regulatory standpoint, there does not appear to be a need for a reduction in the sport limit. This is separate from fishers' personal beliefs about "what is right" for each of them.

Can I ask you something? How would you feel about a change, either mandatory or voluntary, in which you would record your tuna catch and then provide this data to the" fishery
managers"? This could be as little as simply the # of fish caught per season, or more detail (similar to what we put on the salmon & halibut tags).....Thanks much, Mark Mc

[wak'm&stak'm]

I am with UG, what is the point of even addressing the subject.
If a person wants to report his catch ....go for it.

Personally I think we will not impress anyone by approaching them with voluntary self imposed limits.............what their data shows is "There is no issue here"..........and I agree.

[ 10-24-2002, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: wak'm&stak'm ]

[Uglygreen]

Mark Mc, You wrote:

"This is separate from fishers' personal beliefs about "what is right" for each of them."

That is excatly my point. Personal beliefs are fine, everyone can keep however many or few they want to.

I read the other post as others "personal beliefs" should limit my ability to keep fish for family, friends, neighbors, etc... When the scientific evidence suggests otherwise. I don't want to **** anyone off, but I feel that this is another example of jumping on the "PC bandwagon".

--------------------------------------------------

"I'll just say 25 is ridiculous! What is one person going to do with 25 on one trip? In my opinion, you could easily cut the limit in half to 12.5, make that 12. I'm plenty busy with 12."

"For me, I think 5 is a sensible limit. I have only kept more than 5 albies a couple of times."

"If it's going to happen I would say 15 is plenty for anyone and would make the trip well worth it for me. It's liberal enough to give you a good amount of fish for those who don't make it out there every other weekend, and will cut some of the overfishing as well."

"I agree with tailchaser, it's not economical to go to tuna town for 5 fish. I'm thinking 10 - 12 might be more realistic."

"I know that regulating billfish is being considered - and I'm all for it! 25?! That's insanity.

Albacore? I'm thinking 15 is more than enough for a person in a day."

"I have actually caught the Oregon limit on a partyboat but it was over two days so technically it was half a limit. So twelve seems like a reasonable limit for albacore. "

"If we don’t put limits on our healthy tuna fishery, we may some day see it limited to the point that it’s not worth the cost to catch the fish. I couldn’t imagine running out 30 miles to only catch a couple of fish. Oh wait, that’s what we get to do for halibut now! It will only be a matter of time, before the commercial fisherman deplete their catch of tuna in other parts of the world and start looking for new water."

------------------------------------------------------

Im just saying lets dont open our mouths before we use our brains. If it isn't broke, don't try to fix it.

I am dead set against creating regulation where we don't need it. And there is no way ODFW will ever be able to charge enough for a "Tuna tag" to cover the cost of administering or enforcing the program. They would probably have to close another hatchery to make it happen.

Voluntary reporting... count me in, I would do it, but I still dont think that the sport "impact" here is worth even that much effort.

UG

[ 10-24-2002, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: Uglygreen ]

How much more are they going to tax us for a tuna tag?

[OceanBlue]

Hehehe!

I don't think anyone is saying they'll add fees for a tuna tag. The draft plan I read may affect charters. Us - probably not - it looks like the preference is to let our state licensing take care of that...

BUT - what's it worth to you? [img]graemlins/idea.gif[/img]

[puffins crew]

Thanks for the informative post, UG.

I am pretty sure that the Puffin, and the Pilar can tell you exactly the total number of Albicore they have caught for each of the last three years, and just how many people they each took out.

I believe that the total sport catch in Oregon would be but a drop in the bucket compared to the Japanese efforts.

I have talked with many of my friends, who have fished all their lives, and only one of them has ever been tuna fishing.

Should we voluntarily monitor our catch, and offer it to the apporiate authorities, much like we now do for other sport fish, or just keep on fishing.

Are we thinking way to much on this subject?

My wife has informed me that Tuna has taken the place of Halibut as her favorite fish, and it looks like Mexico just might be in my near future! :smile: (YES!!!)

Peace, Tom